In vitro and in vivo susceptibility of Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Liberia to pyrimethamine, cycloguanil and chlorcycloguanil

Malaria chemoprophylaxis: when should we use it and what are the options?

Malaria chemoprophylaxis concerns prescribing healthy individuals medication for an infection they have an unknown chance of getting. Sensible use of malaria chemoprophylaxis is a balance between the risk of infection and death, and the risk of side effects. The risk of infection can be broken down into the risk of being bitten by a malaria-infected mosquito and the risk of the malaria parasites being resistant to the drug used for prophylaxis. Our knowledge of these parameters is patchy. The risk of infection is not uniform at a given location and the standard of living will greatly influence risk. It is suggested that chemoprophylaxis should not be recommended in areas with less than ten reported cases of P. falciparum malaria per 1000 inhabitants per year. The resistance pattern is known to a certain extent but, for instance, diverging opinion of how much resistance to chloroquine there is in West Africa illustrates the lack of data. There is much debate on rare adverse events, which usually escape Phase III studies prior to registration and are only picked up by passive, postmarketing surveillance. The lessons over the past 20 years with the introduction of amodiaquine, pyrimethamine/dapsone (Maloprim, GlaxoSmithKline) and pyrimethamine/sulfadoxine (Fansidar, Roche), which were all withdrawn for prophylaxis after a few years, show how sensitive drugs for chemoprophylaxis are to side effects. Three levels of chemoprophylaxis are used: chloroquine in areas with sensitive P. falciparum, chloroquine plus proguanil in areas with low level chloroquine resistance, and atovaquone/proguanil (Malarone, GlaxoSmithKline), doxycycline or mefloquine (Lariam, Roche) in areas with extensive resistance against chloroquine and proguanil. Primaquine and the primaquone analog tafenoquine may be future alternatives but otherwise there are few new drugs for chemoprophylaxis on the horizon.

A trial of proguanil-dapsone in comparison with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for the clearance of Plasmodium falciparum infections in Tanzania

Considerable levels of resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) have been reported in Plasmodium falciparum in north-eastern Tanzania, and the identification of a suitable antimalarial to replace SP is now a high priority. We conducted a trial in July 2000 to determine the efficacy of proguanil (PG) plus dapsone (DS), compared with that of SP, for the treatment of asymptomatic falciparum infection. A total of 220 children with parasitaemia > or = 2000 per microL completed the study; 112 had received a single dose of SP (dosage calculated for pyrimethamine 1.25 mg/kg and sulfadoxine 25 mg/kg) and 108 had taken PG 10 mg/kg with DS 2.5 mg/kg each day for 3 days. Clearance of asexual parasites at day 7 was 14.3% with SP, but 93.5% with PG-DS. The remarkably high failure rate with SP was not associated with occurrence of leucine substitution at position 164 of the dhfr gene. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated. Compared with available data on another antifolate combination, chlorproguanil-dapsone ('Lapdap'), PG-DS was slightly but significantly inferior in achieving parasite clearance (99.5% versus 93.5%). The estimated cost of a 3-day course of PG-DS treatment for a child weighing 18 kg is US $0.15. With the rising incidence of SP-resistant P. falciparum infection, PG-DS could provide an effective, affordable and already available therapeutic alternative for malaria in East Africa at least until chlorproguanil-dapsone is registered.

In vitro activity of cycloguanil against African isolates of Plasmodium falciparum

The in vitro activity of cycloguanil was assessed against 86 African isolates of Plasmodium falciparum by a semi-micro assay system. A bimodal distribution of susceptibility patterns was observed, with 44% of the isolates being cycloguanil susceptible. Cycloguanil alone retains a high activity against the intraerythrocytic forms of some isolates and, together with its activity against the hepatic stages, may be useful for chemoprophylaxis when combined with chloroquine.