Combination of mefloquine with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine compared with two sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine combinations in malaria chemoprophylaxis

Mefloquine for preventing malaria during travel to endemic areas

BACKGROUND

Mefloquine is one of four antimalarial agents commonly recommended for preventing malaria in travellers to malaria-endemic areas. Despite its high efficacy, there is controversy about its psychological side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the efficacy and safety of mefloquine used as prophylaxis for malaria in travellers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published on the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase (OVID); TOXLINE (https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/toxline.htm); and LILACS. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home) for trials in progress, using 'mefloquine', 'Lariam', and 'malaria' as search terms. The search date was 22 June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (for efficacy and safety) and non-randomized cohort studies (for safety). We compared prophylactic mefloquine with placebo, no treatment, or an alternative recommended antimalarial agent. Our study populations included all adults and children, including pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of trials, extracted and analysed data. We compared dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prespecified adverse outcomes are included in 'Summary of findings' tables, with the best available estimate of the absolute frequency of each outcome in short-term international travellers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs (11,470 participants); 35 cohort studies (198,493 participants); and four large retrospective analyses of health records (800,652 participants). Nine RCTs explicitly excluded participants with a psychiatric history, and 25 cohort studies stated that the choice of antimalarial agent was based on medical history and personal preference. Most RCTs and cohort studies collected data on self-reported or clinician-assessed symptoms, rather than formal medical diagnoses. Mefloquine efficacyOf 12 trials comparing mefloquine and placebo, none were performed in short-term international travellers, and most populations had a degree of immunity to malaria. The percentage of people developing a malaria episode in the control arm varied from 1% to 82% (median 22%) and 0% to 13% in the mefloquine group (median 1%).In four RCTs that directly compared mefloquine, atovaquone-proguanil and doxycycline in non-immune, short-term international travellers, only one clinical case of malaria occurred (4 trials, 1822 participants). Mefloquine safety versus atovaquone-proguanil Participants receiving mefloquine were more likely to discontinue their medication due to adverse effects than atovaquone-proguanil users (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.31; 3 RCTs, 1438 participants; high-certainty evidence). There were few serious adverse effects reported with mefloquine (15/2651 travellers) and none with atovaquone-proguanil (940 travellers).One RCT and six cohort studies reported on our prespecified adverse effects. In the RCT with short-term travellers, mefloquine users were more likely to report abnormal dreams (RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.04, moderate-certainty evidence), insomnia (RR 4.42, 95% CI 2.56 to 7.64, moderate-certainty evidence), anxiety (RR 6.12, 95% CI 1.82 to 20.66, moderate-certainty evidence), and depressed mood during travel (RR 5.78, 95% CI 1.71 to 19.61, moderate-certainty evidence). The cohort studies in longer-term travellers were consistent with this finding but most had larger effect sizes. Mefloquine users were also more likely to report nausea (high-certainty evidence) and dizziness (high-certainty evidence).Based on the available evidence, our best estimates of absolute effect sizes for mefloquine versus atovaquone-proguanil are 6% versus 2% for discontinuation of the drug, 13% versus 3% for insomnia, 14% versus 7% for abnormal dreams, 6% versus 1% for anxiety, and 6% versus 1% for depressed mood. Mefloquine safety versus doxycyclineNo difference was found in numbers of serious adverse effects with mefloquine and doxycycline (low-certainty evidence) or numbers of discontinuations due to adverse effects (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.87; 4 RCTs, 763 participants; low-certainty evidence).Six cohort studies in longer-term occupational travellers reported our prespecified adverse effects; one RCT in military personnel and one cohort study in short-term travellers reported adverse events. Mefloquine users were more likely to report abnormal dreams (RR 10.49, 95% CI 3.79 to 29.10; 4 cohort studies, 2588 participants, very low-certainty evidence), insomnia (RR 4.14, 95% CI 1.19 to 14.44; 4 cohort studies, 3212 participants, very low-certainty evidence), anxiety (RR 18.04, 95% CI 9.32 to 34.93; 3 cohort studies, 2559 participants, very low-certainty evidence), and depressed mood (RR 11.43, 95% CI 5.21 to 25.07; 2 cohort studies, 2445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The findings of the single cohort study reporting adverse events in short-term international travellers were consistent with this finding but the single RCT in military personnel did not demonstrate a difference between groups in frequencies of abnormal dreams or insomnia.Mefloquine users were less likely to report dyspepsia (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.74; 5 cohort studies, 5104 participants, low certainty-evidence), photosensitivity (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11; 2 cohort studies, 1875 participants, very low-certainty evidence), vomiting (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.27; 4 cohort studies, 5071 participants, very low-certainty evidence), and vaginal thrush (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 1 cohort study, 1761 participants, very low-certainty evidence).Based on the available evidence, our best estimates of absolute effect for mefloquine versus doxycyline were: 2% versus 2% for discontinuation, 12% versus 3% for insomnia, 31% versus 3% for abnormal dreams, 18% versus 1% for anxiety, 11% versus 1% for depressed mood, 4% versus 14% for dyspepsia, 2% versus 19% for photosensitivity, 1% versus 5% for vomiting, and 2% versus 16% for vaginal thrush.Additional analyses, including comparisons of mefloquine with chloroquine, added no new information. Subgroup analysis by study design, duration of travel, and military versus non-military participants, provided no conclusive findings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The absolute risk of malaria during short-term travel appears low with all three established antimalarial agents (mefloquine, doxycycline, and atovaquone-proguanil).The choice of antimalarial agent depends on how individual travellers assess the importance of specific adverse effects, pill burden, and cost. Some travellers will prefer mefloquine for its once-weekly regimen, but this should be balanced against the increased frequency of abnormal dreams, anxiety, insomnia, and depressed mood.

Intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in children living in areas with seasonal transmission

BACKGROUND

In malaria endemic areas, pre-school children are at high risk of severe and repeated malaria illness. One possible public health strategy, known as Intermittent Preventive Treatment in children (IPTc), is to treat all children for malaria at regular intervals during the transmission season, regardless of whether they are infected or not.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of IPTc to prevent malaria in preschool children living in endemic areas with seasonal malaria transmission.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (July 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2011), EMBASE (1974 to July 2011), LILACS (1982 to July 2011), mRCT (July 2011), and reference lists of identified trials. We also contacted researchers working in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Individually randomized and cluster-randomized controlled trials of full therapeutic dose of antimalarial or antimalarial drug combinations given at regular intervals compared with placebo or no preventive treatment in children aged six years or less living in an area with seasonal malaria transmission.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. Data were meta-analysed and measures of effects (ie rate ratio, risk ratio and mean difference) are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials (12,589 participants), including one cluster-randomized trial, met the inclusion criteria. All were conducted in West Africa, and six of seven trials were restricted to children aged less than 5 years.IPTc prevents approximately three quarters of all clinical malaria episodes (rate ratio 0.26; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.38; 9321 participants, six trials, high quality evidence), and a similar proportion of severe malaria episodes (rate ratio 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.76; 5964 participants, two trials, high quality evidence). These effects remain present even where insecticide treated net (ITN) usage is high (two trials, 5964 participants, high quality evidence).IPTc probably produces a small reduction in all-cause mortality consistent with the effect on severe malaria, but the trials were underpowered to reach statistical significance (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.39, moderate quality evidence).The effect on anaemia varied between studies, but the risk of moderately severe anaemia is probably lower with IPTc (risk ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; 8805 participants, five trials, moderate quality evidence).Serious drug-related adverse events, if they occur, are probably rare, with none reported in the six trials (9533 participants, six trials, moderate quality evidence). Amodiaquine plus sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine is the most studied drug combination for seasonal chemoprevention. Although effective, it causes increased vomiting in this age-group (risk ratio 2.78, 95% CI 2.31 to 3.35; two trials, 3544 participants, high quality evidence).When antimalarial IPTc was stopped, no rebound increase in malaria was observed in the three trials which continued follow-up for one season after IPTc.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In areas with seasonal malaria transmission, giving antimalarial drugs to preschool children (age < 6 years) as IPTc during the malaria transmission season markedly reduces episodes of clinical malaria, including severe malaria. This benefit occurs even in areas where insecticide treated net usage is high.

Chemoprophylaxis and intermittent treatment for preventing malaria in children

BACKGROUND

Malaria causes repeated illness in children living in endemic areas. Policies of giving antimalarial drugs at regular intervals (prophylaxis or intermittent treatment) are being considered for preschool children.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate prophylaxis and intermittent treatment with antimalarial drugs to prevent malaria in young children living in malaria-endemic areas.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (August 2007), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2007), EMBASE (1974 to August 2007), LILACS (1982 to August 2007), mRCT (February 2007), and reference lists of identified trials. We also contacted researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Individually randomized and cluster-randomized controlled trials comparing antimalarial drugs given at regular intervals (prophylaxis or intermittent treatment) with placebo or no drug in children aged one month to six years or less living in a malaria-endemic area.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We used relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for meta-analyses. Where we detected heterogeneity and considered it appropriate to combine the trials, we used the random-effects model (REM).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one trials (19,394 participants), including six cluster-randomized trials, met the inclusion criteria. Prophylaxis or intermittent treatment with antimalarial drugs resulted in fewer clinical malaria episodes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.74, REM; 7037 participants, 10 trials), less severe anaemia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94, REM; 5445 participants, 9 trials), and fewer hospital admissions for any cause (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.82; 3722 participants, 5 trials). We did not detect a difference in the number of deaths from any cause (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.23; 7369 participants, 10 trials), but the CI do not exclude a potentially important difference. One trial reported three serious adverse events with no statistically significant difference between study groups (1070 participants). Eight trials measured morbidity and mortality six months to two years after stopping regular antimalarial drugs; overall, there was no statistically significant difference, but participant numbers were small.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis and intermittent treatment with antimalarial drugs reduce clinical malaria and severe anaemia in preschool children.

WITHDRAWN: Mefloquine for preventing malaria in non-immune adult travellers

BACKGROUND

Mefloquine is commonly prescribed to prevent malaria in travellers, and has replaced other drugs because Plasmodium falciparum is commonly resistant to them. However, mefloquine may be associated with neuropsychiatric harmful effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of mefloquine in adult travellers compared to other regimens in relation to episodes of malaria, withdrawal from prophylaxis, and adverse events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register (September 2002), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2002), EMBASE (1980 to September 2002), LILACS (September 2002), Science Citation Index (1981 to September 2002), and bibliographies in retrieved papers and standard textbooks. We contacted researchers in the subject of malaria chemoprophylaxis, and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mefloquine with other standard prophylaxis or placebo in non-immune adult travellers, and in non-travelling volunteers. For adverse events, any published case reports were collected.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Adverse events from observational studies were categorised by the study type. We also contacted study authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials involving 2750 non-immune adult participants. Five of these were field trials, and of these all were in mainly male soldiers. One trial comparing mefloquine with placebo showed mefloquine prevented malaria episodes in an area of drug resistance (Peto odds ratio 0.04, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.08). Withdrawals in the mefloquine group were consistently higher in four placebo controlled trials (odds ratio 3.56, 95% confidence interval 1.67 to 7.60). In five trials comparing mefloquine with other chemoprophylaxis, no difference in tolerability was detected. We found 516 published case reports of mefloquine adverse effects. 63 per cent of these published reports involved tourists and business travellers. There were four fatalities attributed to mefloquine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mefloquine prevents malaria, but has adverse effects that limit its acceptability . There is evidence from non-randomised studies that mefloquine has potentially harmful effects in tourists and business travellers, and its use needs to be carefully balanced against this. Trials of comparative effects of antimalarial prophylaxis should include episodes of malaria and withdrawal from prophylaxis as outcomes.

Chemoprophylaxis and intermittent treatment for preventing malaria in children

BACKGROUND

Malaria causes repeated illness in children living in endemic areas. Policies of giving antimalarial drugs at regular intervals (prophylaxis or intermittent treatment) are being considered for preschool children.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate chemoprophylaxis and intermittent treatment with antimalarial drugs to prevent malaria in young children living in malaria endemic areas.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (April 2005), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2005), EMBASE (1974 to April 2005), LILACS (1982 to April 2005), and reference lists of identified trials. We also contacted researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing antimalarial drugs given at regular intervals (prophylaxis or intermittent treatment) with placebo or no drug in children aged one month to six years or less living in an area where malaria is endemic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We used relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for meta-analyses. Where we detected heterogeneity and considered it appropriate to combine the trials, we used the random-effects model (REM).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials (14,393 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Children receiving antimalarial drugs as prophylaxis or intermittent treatment had fewer clinical malaria episodes (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.77, REM; 4051 participants, 8 trials), and severe anaemia was less common (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.68; 2727 participants, 8 trials). We did not detect a difference in the number of deaths from any cause (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 7929 participants, 9 trials), but the confidence intervals do not exclude a potentially important difference. None of the trials reported serious adverse events. Three trials measured morbidity and mortality six months to two years after stopping regular antimalarial drugs; overall, there was no statistically significant difference, but participant numbers were small.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis and intermittent treatment with antimalarial drugs reduce clinical malaria and severe anaemia in preschool children. There is insufficient evidence to detect an effect on mortality.

Mefloquine for preventing malaria in non-immune adult travellers

OBJECTIVES

Mefloquine has now largely replaced earlier malaria prophylaxis drugs which are no longer considered to be effective against all Plasmodium species, due to parasite resistance. However mefloquine may be associated with neuropsychological harmful effects. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of mefloquine in adult travellers.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group trials register, Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Science Citation Index and reference lists of articles. We contacted researchers in the subject of malaria chemoprophylaxis, and drug companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mefloquine with other standard prophylaxis or placebo in non-immune adult travellers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were also contacted.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials involving 2750 non-immune adult travellers were included. One trial comparing mefloquine with placebo showed mefloquine prevented malaria episodes in an area of drug resistance (odds ratio 0.04, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.08). Withdrawals in the mefloquine group were consistently higher in four placebo controlled trials (odds ratio 3. 56, 95% confidence interval 1.67 to 7.60). In five trials comparing mefloquine with other chemoprophylaxis, no difference in tolerability was detected.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Mefloquine prevents malaria, but there is not enough evidence to evaluate its tolerability and toxicity, particularly for general travellers.

Tolerability of long-term malaria prophylaxis with the combination mefloquine + sulfadoxine + pyrimethamine (Fansimef): results of a double blind field trial versus chloroquine in Nigeria

A randomized double blind study in long term malaria chemoprophylaxis was performed to compare the tolerability of Fansimef (1 tablet containing 250 mg mefloquine + 500 mg sulfadoxine + 25 mg pyrimethamine per week) with chloroquine (300 mg per week). 211 Austrian industrial workers and their families in Warri, Nigeria, participated in this study; 101 received Fansimef and 110 chloroquine for 3-18 months (mean 41 weeks). Prophylaxis was discontinued because of adverse effects in 7 volunteers in the Fansimef group (mainly insomnia, palpitations, dizziness, nausea and headache) and in 2 volunteers of the chloroquine group (headache and loss of hair in one volunteer, nausea, dizziness and vomiting in the other). Most of the adverse effects could be due to the mefloquine component. A few minor complaints of burning eyes, nausea and gastric pain were reported in both groups. Laboratory checks performed at 3-monthly intervals showed a slight, transient and clinically irrelevant (but statistically significant) increase of serum glutamic-oxalacetic transaminase and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase at month 3 in the Fansimef group. An attack of acute Plasmodium falciparum malaria occurred in one volunteer 6 weeks after discontinuation of prophylaxis with Fansimef. Antibodies against blood stage parasites could be demonstrated by the indirect immunofluorescence test at different stages of the study, indicating that these two antimalarials are not causal prophylactic agents.

Doxycycline prophylaxis for falciparum malaria

188 schoolchildren aged 10-15 living in a malaria endemic area along the Thai-Burmese border were matched for age, splenomegaly, and weight and were then randomly assigned to receive either doxycycline (adult equivalent of 100 mg daily) or chloroquine (adult equivalent of 300 mg base weekly). All drugs were administered by the investigators and blood smears were done weekly. In 95 subjects taking doxycycline for 597 man-weeks there were 5 cases of falciparum malaria and in the 93 controls taking chloroquine for 488 man-weeks there were 31. Doxycycline was more effective than chloroquine in the prevention of falciparum malaria infections (p less than 0.0001). The doxycycline group did not have significantly more side-effects than the chloroquine group.