A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of tafenoquine for weekly prophylaxis against Plasmodium falciparum

Tafenoquine for the treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria

INTRODUCTION

Plasmodium vivax malaria causes significant disease burden worldwide, especially in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. P. vivax is characterized by the production of liver hypnozoites that cause clinical relapses upon periodic activation. Primaquine, an 8-aminoquinoline drug, has been the standard of care for decades to treat liver-stage P. vivax malaria; however, it requires long treatment regimens (one to two weeks) that lead to poor adherence and thus clinical relapses. Tafenoquine (TFQ), a newly available and efficacious single-dose 8-aminoquinoline, aims to address this challenge. Safe administration is possible when paired with the use of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) diagnostics to prevent 8-aminoquinoline-induced hemolysis in patients with underlying G6PD deficiency (G6PDd).

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors present the recent literature regarding the pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TFQ and highlight regional differences in these areas. The authors also discuss the potential for TFQ, complemented with primaquine PQ and effective screening for G6PDd, to improve P. vivax clinical management and facilitate targeted mass drug administration in communities to decrease transmission.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinical studies show therapeutic efficacy of TFQ as well as a good performance in terms of safety and tolerability. Additional research regarding the effectiveness and safety TFQ in malaria elimination strategies such as targeted or mass drug administration are needed.

Long-term safety of the tafenoquine antimalarial chemoprophylaxis regimen: A 12-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tafenoquine is a long-acting 8-aminoquinoline approved for antimalarial prophylaxis for ≤6 months. Additional data is needed to establish the drug's longer-term safety profile, including potential ophthalmic or neuropsychiatric effects.

METHOD

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 600 healthy adults. Eligible subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive tafenoquine 200 mg weekly (antimalarial prophylactic regimen) or placebo for 52 weeks. Scheduled safety visits occurred at Weeks 4, 12, 24, 52 (dosing completed), and 64 (final follow-up). Safety assessments included ophthalmic changes, general and neuropsychiatric adverse events (AEs), and laboratory value changes.

RESULTS

The percentage of subjects with a protocol-defined Serious Ophthalmic Safety Event was lower in the Tafenoquine Group (18.2%) versus the Placebo Group (19%, p = 0.308). There was no significant difference between the percentages of subjects with at least one AE in the Tafenoquine Group (91.0%) versus Placebo (89.9%, p = 0.65). Common AEs seen at a significantly higher incidence for tafenoquine included reversible cornea verticillata (54.5%) and nausea (13.0%), leading to 0.0% and 0.7% discontinuations. Psychiatric AEs occurred at similar percentages in both study groups. Reversible changes in hemoglobin, methemoglobin, creatinine, and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the safety of extended 52-week tafenoquine prophylaxis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER/CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT03320174.

Safety and Efficacy of Tafenoquine for Plasmodium vivax Malaria Prophylaxis and Radical Cure: Overview and Perspectives

This article is inter alia a brief, first-stop guide to possible adverse events (AEs) associated with tafenoquine (TQ) intake. Safety and efficacy findings for TQ in Plasmodium vivax malaria prophylaxis and radical cure are summarized and some of the latest TQ-related studies (published in 2020 and 2021) are highlighted. In addition, little-known biological and other matters concerning malaria parasites and 8-aminoquinoline (8-AQ) drug action are discussed and some correct terminology pertinent to malaria is explained.

Efficacy of a 3-day pretravel schedule of tafenoquine for malaria chemoprophylaxis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemoprophylaxis with weekly doses of tafenoquine (200 mg/day for 3 days before departure [loading dose], 200 mg/week during travel and 1-week post-travel [maintenance doses]) is effective in preventing malaria. Effectiveness of malaria chemoprophylaxis drugs in travellers is often compromised by poor compliance. Shorter schedules that can be completed before travel, allowing 'drug-free holidays', could increase compliance and thus reduce travel-related malaria. In this meta-analysis, we examined if a loading dose of tafenoquine alone is effective in preventing malaria in short-term travellers.

METHODS

Four databases were searched in November 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed efficacy and/or safety of tafenoquine for chemoprophylaxis. Network meta-analysis using the generalized pair-wise modelling framework was utilized to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of malaria infection in long-term (>28 days) and short-term (≤28 days) travellers, as well as adverse events (AEs) associated with receiving loading dose of tafenoquine alone, loading dose of tafenoquine followed by maintenance doses, loading dose of mefloquine followed by maintenance doses, or placebo.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs (1714 participants) were included. In long-term travellers, compared to mefloquine, tafenoquine with maintenance doses (OR = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-2.46) was equally effective in preventing malaria, while there was an increased risk of infection with the loading dose of tafenoquine alone (OR = 2.89; 95% CI: 0.78-10.68) and placebo (OR = 62.91; 95% CI: 8.53-463.88). In short-term travellers, loading dose of tafenoquine alone (OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.04-22.42) and tafenoquine with maintenance doses (OR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.06-16.10) were as effective as mefloquine. The risk of AEs with tafenoquine with maintenance doses (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.67-1.60) was similar to mefloquine, while loading dose of tafenoquine alone (OR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.20-1.66) was associated with lower risk of AEs, although the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

For short-term travellers, loading dose of tafenoquine alone was equally effective, had possibly lower rate of AEs, and likely better compliance than standard tafenoquine or mefloquine chemoprophylaxis schedules with maintenance doses. Studies are needed to confirm if short-term travellers remain free of infection after long-term follow-up.

REGISTRATION

The meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021223756).

HIGHLIGHT

Tafenoquine is the latest approved drug for malaria chemoprophylaxis. A loading dose of tafenoquine (200 mg/day for 3 days before departure) is as effective in preventing malaria in short-term (≤28 days) travellers as chemoprophylaxis schedules of tafenoquine or mefloquine with maintenance doses, allowing travellers to have a 'drug-free holiday'.

Tafenoquine: a toxicity overview

Introduction: A century-long history in 8-aminoquinolines, the only anti-malaria drug class preventing malaria relapse, has resulted in the approval of tafenoquine by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and to date registration in Brazil and Thailand. Tafenoquine is an alternative anti-relapse treatment for vivax malaria and malaria prophylaxis. It should not be given in pregnancy, during lactation of infants with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) unknown or deficient status, and in those with G6PD deficiency or psychiatric illness.Areas covered: This systematic review assesses tafenoquine associated adverse events in English-language, human clinical trials. Meta-analysis of commonly reported adverse events was conducted and grouped by comparison arms.Expert opinion: Tafenoquine, either for radical cure or prophylaxis, is generally well tolerated in adults. There is no convincing evidence for neurologic, ophthalmic, and cardiac toxicities. Psychotic disorder which has been attributed to higher doses is a contraindication for the chemoprophylaxis indication and psychiatric illness is a warning for the radical cure indication. Pregnancy assessment and quantitative G6PD testing are required. The optimal radical curative regimen including the tafenoquine dose along with its safety for parts of Southeast Asia, South America, and Oceania needs further assessment.

Efficacy and safety of tafenoquine for malaria chemoprophylaxis (1998-2020): A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In 2018, tafenoquine was approved for malaria chemoprophylaxis. We evaluated all available data on the safety and efficacy of tafenoquine chemoprophylaxis.

METHODS

This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019123839). We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Two authors (JDM, PS) screened all papers.

RESULTS

We included 44 papers in the qualitative and 9 in the quantitative analyses. These 9 randomized, controlled trials included 2495 participants, aged 12-60 years with 27.3% women. Six studies were conducted in Plasmodium spp.-endemic regions; two were human infection studies. 200 mg weekly tafenoquine and higher dosages lead to a significant reduction of Plasmodium spp. infection compared to placebo and were comparable to 250 mg mefloquine weekly with a protective efficacy between 77.9 and 100% or a total risk ratio of 0.22 (95%-CI: 0.07-0.73; p = 0.013) in favour of tafenoquine. Adverse events (AE) were comparable in frequency and severity between tafenoquine and comparator arms. One study reported significantly more gastrointestinal events in tafenoquine users (p ≤ 0.001). Evidence of increased, reversible, asymptomatic vortex keratopathy in subjects with prolonged tafenoquine exposures was found. A single, serious event of decreased macular sensitivity occurred.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis of trials of G6PD-normal adults show that weekly tafenoquine 200 mg is well tolerated and effective as malaria chemoprophylaxis focusing primarily on Plasmodium falciparum but also on Plasmodium vivax. Our safety analysis is limited by heterogenous methods of adverse events reporting. Further research is indicated on the use of tafenoquine in diverse traveller populations.

Tafenoquine for preventing relapse in people with Plasmodium vivax malaria

BACKGROUND

Plasmodium vivax malaria has a persistent liver stage that causes relapse of the disease and continued P vivax transmission. Primaquine (PQ) is used to clear the liver stage of the parasite, but treatment is required for 14 days. Primaquine also causes haemolysis in people with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. Tafenoquine (TQ) is a new alternative to PQ with a longer half-life and can be used as a single-dose treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of tafenoquine 300 mg (single dose) on preventing P vivax relapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following up to 3 June 2020: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; and three other databases. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials for ongoing trials using "tafenoquine" and "malaria" as search terms up to 3 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that gave TQ to prevent relapse in people with P vivax malaria. We planned to include trials irrespective of whether participants had been screened for G6PD enzyme deficiency.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. As true relapse and reinfection are difficult to differentiate in people living in endemic areas, studies report "recurrences" of infection as a proxy for relapse. We carried out meta-analysis where appropriate, and gave estimates as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Three individually randomized RCTs met our inclusion criteria, all in endemic areas, and thus reporting recurrence. Trials compared TQ with PQ or placebo, and all participants received chloroquine (CQ) to treat the asexual infection). In all trials, pregnant and G6PD-deficient people were excluded. Tafenoquine 300 mg single dose versus no treatment for relapse prevention Two trials assessed this comparison. TQ 300 mg single dose reduces P vivax recurrences compared to no antihypnozoite treatment during a six-month follow-up, but there is moderate uncertainty around effect size (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.88; 2 trials, 504 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In people with normal G6PD status, there is probably little or no difference in any type of adverse events (2 trials, 504 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain if TQ causes more serious adverse events (2 trials, 504 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Both RCTs reported a total of 23 serious adverse events in TQ groups (One RCT reported 21 events) and a majority (15 events) were a drop in haemoglobin level by > 3g/dl (or >30% reduction from baseline). Tafenoquine 300 mg single dose versus primaquine 15 mg/day for 14 days for relapse prevention Three trials assessed this comparison. There is probably little or no difference between TQ and PQ in preventing recurrences (proxy measure for relapse) up to six months of follow-up (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.34; 3 trials, 747 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In people with normal G6PD status, there is probably little or no difference in any type of adverse events (3 trials, 747 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if TQ can cause more serious adverse events compared to PQ (3 trials, 747 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two trials had higher point estimates against TQ while the other showed the reverse. Most commonly reported serious adverse event in TQ group was a decline in haemoglobin level (19 out of 29 events). Some other serious adverse events, though observed in the TQ group, are unlikely to be caused by it (Hepatitis E infection, limb abscess, pneumonia, menorrhagia).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

TQ 300 mg single dose prevents relapses after clinically parasitologically confirmed P vivax malaria compared to no antihypnozoite treatment, and with no difference detected in studies comparing it to PQ to date. However, the inability to differentiate a true relapse from a recurrence in the available studies may affect these estimates. The drug is untested in children and in people with G6PD deficiency. Single-dose treatment is an important practical advantage compared to using PQ for the same purpose without an overall increase in adverse events in non-pregnant, non-G6PD-deficient adults.

Guidance for Using Tafenoquine for Prevention and Antirelapse Therapy for Malaria - United States, 2019

An estimated 219 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide in 2017, causing approximately 435,000 deaths (1). Malaria is caused by intraerythrocytic protozoa of the genus Plasmodium transmitted to humans through the bite of an infective Anopheles mosquito. Five Plasmodium species that regularly cause illness in humans are P. falciparum, P. vivax, P. ovale, P. malariae, and P. knowlesi (2). The parasite first develops in the liver before infecting red blood cells. Travelers to areas with endemic malaria can prevent malaria by taking chemoprophylaxis. However, most antimalarials do not kill the liver stages of the parasite, including hypnozoites that cause relapses of disease caused by P. vivax or P. ovale. Therefore, patients with these relapsing species must be treated with two medications: one for the acute infection, and another to treat the hypnozoites (antirelapse therapy). Until recently, primaquine was the only drug available worldwide to kill hypnozoites. Tafenoquine, a long-acting 8-aminoquinoline drug related to primaquine, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on July 20, 2018, for antirelapse therapy (Krintafel) and August 8, 2018, for chemoprophylaxis (Arakoda) (3,4). This report reviews evidence for the efficacy and safety of tafenoquine and provides CDC guidance for clinicians who prescribe chemoprophylaxis for travelers to areas with endemic malaria and treat malaria.

Tafenoquine for the prophylaxis, treatment and elimination of malaria: eagerness must meet prudence

Malaria puts more than 3 billion people at risk of infection and causes high morbidity and mortality. Plasmodium vivax forms hypnozoites, which may initiate recurrences, even in the absence of reinfection or superinfection. Until recently, the only drug available for eliminating hypnozoites was primaquine (PQ), which, given its short half-life, requires a relatively long course of treatment. Tafenoquine (TQ) is a PQ analog with a longer half-life. This enables radical cure of malaria with a single dose and overcomes adherence issues associated with PQ, thereby increasing effectiveness in real-life settings. Clinical studies have provided sound evidence for TQ's safety and efficacy against malaria, which recently led to its approval by the US FDA. Here, we review aspects of TQ, including how to avoid hemolytic anemia in G6PD deficient patients. We believe that TQ promises to be a major advance toward malaria elimination.

8-Aminoquinoline Therapy for Latent Malaria

The technical genesis and practice of 8-aminoquinoline therapy of latent malaria offer singular scientific, clinical, and public health insights. The 8-aminoquinolines brought revolutionary scientific discoveries, dogmatic practices, benign neglect, and, finally, enduring promise against endemic malaria. The clinical use of plasmochin-the first rationally synthesized blood schizontocide and the first gametocytocide, tissue schizontocide, and hypnozoitocide of any kind-commenced in 1926. Plasmochin became known to sometimes provoke fatal hemolytic crises. World War II delivered a newer 8-aminoquinoline, primaquine, and the discovery of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency as the basis of its hemolytic toxicity came in 1956. Primaquine nonetheless became the sole therapeutic option against latent malaria. After 40 years of fitful development, in 2018 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration registered the 8-aminoquinoline called tafenoquine for the prevention of all malarias and the treatment of those that relapse. Tafenoquine also cannot be used in G6PD-unknown or -deficient patients. The hemolytic toxicity of the 8-aminoquinolines impedes their great potential, but this problem has not been a research priority. This review explores the complex technical dimensions of the history of 8-aminoquinolines. The therapeutic principles thus examined may be leveraged in improved practice and in understanding the bright prospect of discovery of newer drugs that cannot harm G6PD-deficient patients.

Tafenoquine for primary and terminal prophylaxis of malaria in apparently healthy people: a systematic review

Primaquine was the only licenced antimalarial hypnozoiticidal drug available until recently. Now there is a newly approved alternative: tafenoquine. This review explores the efficacy of tafenoquine as a primary and terminal prophylactic agent in malaria. Multiple databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], MEDLINE [PubMed], Embase [Ovid], Scopus, CINAHL [EBSCOhost] and LILACS) were searched for clinical randomised controlled trials that had used tafenoquine for prophylaxis without language or time restrictions. The last date of searching was 13 August 2018. For primary prophylaxis, tafenoquine reduced episodes of malaria compared with placebo, at a dose range from 50 mg weekly to 400 mg monthly in three trials conducted in Ghana, Kenya and Thailand. Two trials compared tafenoquine vs mefloquine, but malaria episodes were too few to reach a conclusion. For terminal prophylaxis, evidence from two trials suggest that tafenoquine may have equal or better efficacy compared with primaquine. All trials excluded pregnant participants or those with G6PD deficiency. Tafenoquine is effective for both primary and terminal prophylaxis. If used for primary prophylaxis it may continue to offer protection against vivax relapses after exposure has ended (as terminal prophylaxis).

2018 in review: five hot topics in tropical medicine

The year 2018 heralded many new developments in the field of tropical medicine, including licensure of novel drugs for novel indications, licensure of existing drugs for existing indications but in novel settings, and globalized outbreaks of both vector-borne and zoonotic diseases. We herein describe five top stories in tropical medicine that occurred during 2018, and illuminate the practice-changing development within each story.

Clinical utility of tafenoquine in the prevention of relapse of Plasmodium vivax malaria: a review on the mode of action and emerging trial data

Tafenoquine is an 8-aminoquinoline with activity against all human life cycle stages of Plasmodium vivax, including dormant liver stages – so called hypnozoites. Its long half-life of ~15 days is allowing for a single exposure regimen. It has been under development since 1980 and received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in summer 2018 as an anti-relapse drug for P. vivax malaria in patients aged 16 years and older and for prophylaxis of malaria caused by any Plasmodium species in adults. Prior to tafenoquine administration, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency needs to be excluded by testing. Individuals with a deficient G6PD activity are at risk of tafenoquine-induced hemolysis – as is the case for primaquine, the mainstay drug for P. vivax radical cure. A wealth of clinical studies have been conducted and are still ongoing to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of tafenoquine. This review focuses on data emerging from the latest clinical trials on P. vivax radical cure with tafenoquine, the key studies for regulatory approval of tafenoquine, and elucidates the latest hypothesis on the mode of action.

Comparative effectiveness of malaria prevention measures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Malaria causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. There are several preventive measures that are currently employed, including insecticide-treated nets (ITNs, including long-lasting insecticidal nets and insecticidal-treated bed nets), indoor residual spraying (IRS), prophylactic drugs (PD), and untreated nets (UN). However, it is unclear which measure is the most effective for malaria prevention. We therefore undertook a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of different preventive measures on incidence of malaria infection.

Methods

A systematic literature review was undertaken across four medical and life sciences databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, and Web of Science) from their inception to July 2016 to compare the effectiveness of different preventive measures on malaria incidence. Data from the included studies were analysed for the effectiveness of several measures against no intervention (NI). This was carried out using an automated generalized pairwise modeling (GPM) framework for network meta-analysis to generate mixed treatment effects against a common comparator of no intervention (NI).

Results

There were 30 studies that met the inclusion criteria from 1998–2016. The GPM framework led to a final ranking of effectiveness of measures in the following order from best to worst: PD, ITN, IRS and UN, in comparison with NI. However, only ITN (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32–0.74) showed precision while other methods [PD (RR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.004–15.43), IRS (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.20–1.56) and UN (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.28–1.90)] demonstrating considerable uncertainty associated with their point estimates.

Conclusion

Current evidence is strong for the protective effect of ITN interventions in malaria prevention. Even though ITNs were found to be the only preventive measure with statistical support for their effectiveness, the role of other malaria control measures may be important adjuncts in the global drive to eliminate malaria.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13071-018-2783-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tafenoquine for travelers' malaria: evidence, rationale and recommendations

Background

Endemic malaria occurring across much of the globe threatens millions of exposed travelers. While unknown numbers of them suffer acute attacks while traveling, each year thousands return from travel and become stricken in the weeks and months following exposure. This represents perhaps the most serious, prevalent and complex problem faced by providers of travel medicine services. Since before World War II, travel medicine practice has relied on synthetic suppressive blood schizontocidal drugs to prevent malaria during exposure, and has applied primaquine for presumptive anti-relapse therapy (post-travel or post-diagnosis of Plasmodium vivax) since 1952. In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the uses of a new hepatic schizontocidal and hypnozoitocidal 8-aminoquinoline called tafenoquine for the respective prevention of all malarias and for the treatment of those that relapse (P. vivax and Plasmodium ovale).

Methods

The evidence and rationale for tafenoquine for the prevention and treatment of malaria was gathered by means of a standard search of the medical literature along with the package inserts for the tafenoquine products Arakoda™ and Krintafel™ for the prevention of all malarias and the treatment of relapsing malarias, respectively.

Results

The development of tafenoquine-an endeavor of 40 years-at last brings two powerful advantages to travel medicine practice against the malaria threat: (i) a weekly regimen of causal prophylaxis; and (ii) a single-dose radical cure for patients infected by vivax or ovale malarias.

Conclusions

Although broad clinical experience remains to be gathered, tafenoquine appears to promise more practical and effective prevention and treatment of malaria. Tafenoquine thus applied includes important biological and clinical complexities explained in this review, with particular regard to the problem of hemolytic toxicity in G6PD-deficient patients.

A randomized, double-blind, active-control trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a three day course of tafenoquine monotherapy for the treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria

Background

Tafenoquine is an investigational 8-aminoquinoline for the prevention of Plasmodium vivax relapse. Tafenoquine has a long half-life and the potential for more convenient dosing, compared with the currently recommended 14-day primaquine regimen.

Methods

This randomized, active-control, double-blind trial was conducted in Bangkok, Thailand. Seventy patients with microscopically confirmed P. vivax were randomized (2:1) to tafenoquine 400 mg once daily for 3 days or 2500 mg total dose chloroquine phosphate (1500 mg chloroquine base) given over 3 days plus primaquine 15 mg daily for 14 days. Patients were followed to day 120.

Results

Day 28 adequate clinical response rate in the per-protocol population was 93% (40/43) (90%CI 83–98%) with tafenoquine, and 100% (22/22) (90%CI 87–100%) with chloroquine/primaquine. Day 120 relapse prevention was 100% (35/35) with tafenoquine (90%CI 92–100%), and 95% (19/20) (90%CI 78–100%) with chloroquine/primaquine. Mean (SD) parasite, gametocyte and fever clearance times with tafenoquine were 82.5 h (32.3), 49.1 h (33.0), and 41.1 h (31.4) versus 40.0 h (15.7), 22.7 h (16.4), and 24.7 h (17.7) with chloroquine/primaquine, respectively. Peak methemoglobin was 1.4–25.6% (median 7.4%, mean 9.1%) in the tafenoquine arm, and 0.5–5.9% (median 1.5%, mean 1.9%) in the chloroquine/primaquine arm. There were no clinical symptoms of methemoglobinemia in any patient.

Discussion

Although there was no difference in efficacy in this study, the slow rate of parasite, gametocyte and fever clearance indicates that tafenoquine should not be used as monotherapy for radical cure of P. vivax malaria. Also, monotherapy increases the potential risk of resistance developing to this long-acting agent. Clinical trials of single-dose tafenoquine 300 mg combined with standard 3-day chloroquine or artemisinin-based combination therapy are ongoing.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01290601

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.

Tafenoquine for malaria prophylaxis in adults: An integrated safety analysis

BACKGROUND

Tafenoquine is a new prophylactic antimalarial drug. The current analysis presents an integrated safety assessment of the Tafenoquine Anticipated Clinical Regimen (Tafenoquine ACR) from 5 clinical trials, including 1 conducted in deployed military personnel and 4 in non-deployed residents, which also incorporated placebo and mefloquine comparator groups.

METHODS

Adverse events (AEs) were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA^®, Version 15.0) and summarized. Among all subjects who had received the Tafenoquine ACR, safety findings were compared for subjects who were deployed military personnel from the Australian Defence Force (Deployed ADF) versus non-deployed residents (Resident Non-ADF).

RESULTS

The incidence of at least one AE was 80.6%, 64.1%, 67.6% and 94.9% in the mefloquine, placebo, tafenoquine Resident Non-ADF and tafenoquine Deployed ADF groups, respectively. The latter group had a higher incidence of AEs related to military deployment. AEs that occurred at ≥ 1% incidence in both tafenoquine sub-groups and at a higher frequency than placebo included diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, gastroenteritis, nasopharyngeal tract infections, and back/neck pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly administration of tafenoquine for up to six months increased the incidence of gastrointestinal AEs, certain infections, and back/neck pain, but not the overall incidence of AEs versus placebo. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS/CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIERS

NCT02491606; NCT02488980; NCT02488902.

Tafenoquine and its potential in the treatment and relapse prevention of Plasmodium vivax malaria: the evidence to date

Despite declining global malaria incidence, the disease continues to be a threat to people living in endemic regions. In 2015, an estimated 214 million new malaria cases and 438,000 deaths due to malaria were recorded. Plasmodium vivax is the second most common cause of malaria next to Plasmodium falciparum. Vivax malaria is prevalent especially in Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa, with enormous challenges in controlling the disease. Some of the challenges faced by vivax malaria-endemic countries include limited access to effective drugs treating liver stages of the parasite (schizonts and hypnozoites), emergence/spread of drug resistance, and misperception of vivax malaria as nonlethal. Primaquine, the only 8-aminoquinoline derivative approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is intended to clear intrahepatic hypnozoites of P. vivax (radical cure). However, poor adherence to a prolonged treatment course, drug-induced hemolysis in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, and the emergence of resistance make it imperative to look for alternative drugs. Therefore, this review focuses on data accrued to date on tafenoquine and gives insight on the potential role of the drug in preventing relapse and radical cure of patients with vivax malaria.

Summary of anti-malarial prophylactic efficacy of tafenoquine from three placebo-controlled studies of residents of malaria-endemic countries

Background

Tafenoquine is a long half-life primaquine analog being developed for malaria prophylaxis. The US Army recently performed a unified analysis of efficacy in preparation for a regulatory submission, utilizing legacy data from three placebo-controlled studies conducted in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The subjects were residents of Africa who were naturally exposed to Plasmodium falciparum for 12–26 weeks.

Methods

The prophylactic efficacy of tafenoquine and mefloquine (included in some studies as a comparator) was calculated using incidence density among subjects who had completed the three-day loading doses of study drug, had at least one maintenance dose and had at least one blood smear assessed during the prophylactic period. The three placebo-controlled studies were analysed separately and then in two pooled analyses: one for tafenoquine versus placebo (three studies) and one for tafenoquine and mefloquine versus placebo (two studies).

Results

The pooled protective efficacy (PE) of a tafenoquine regimen with three daily loading doses plus weekly maintenance at 200-mg for 10 weeks or longer (referred to as 200-mg weekly hereafter) relative to placebo in three placebo-controlled studies was 93.1 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 89.1–95.6 %; total N = 492]. The pooled PEs of regimens of tafenoquine 200-mg weekly and mefloquine 250-mg weekly relative to placebo in two placebo-controlled studies (total N = 519) were 93.5 % (95 % CI 88.6–96.2 %) and 94.5 % (95 % CI 88.7–97.3 %), respectively. Three daily loading plus weekly maintenance doses of 50- and 100-mg, but not 25-mg, exhibited similar PEs. The PEs of tafenoquine regimens of a three-day loading dose at 400-mg with and without follow-up weekly maintenance doses at 400-mg were 93.7 % (95 % CI 85.4–97.3 %) and 81.0 % (95 % CI 66.8–89.1 %), respectively.

Conclusions

Tafenoquine provided the same level of prophylactic efficacy as mefloquine in residents of Africa. These data support the prophylactic efficacy of tafenoquine and mefloquine that has already been demonstrated in the intended malaria naive population.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-015-0991-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tafenoquine for preventing relapse in people with Plasmodium vivax malaria

BACKGROUND

Plasmodium vivax malaria is widespread, and the persistent liver stage causes relapse of the disease which contributes to continued P. vivax transmission. Primaquine is currently the only drug that cures the parasite liver stage, but requires 14 days to be effective and can cause haemolysis in people with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. In addition, there is some evidence of parasite resistance to the drug. Tafenoquine is a new alternative with a longer half-life.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of tafenoquine in people with P. vivax infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 13 April 2015: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; SCOPUS; and LILACS. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) for ongoing trials using "tafenoquine" and "malaria" as search terms up to 13 April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with P. vivax malaria. Adverse effects of tafenoquine are assessed in populations where people with G6PD deficiency have been excluded, and in populations without screening for G6PD deficiency.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Meta-analysis was carried out where appropriate, and estimates given as relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Three RCTs met our inclusion criteria, with the asexual infection in both the tafenoquine and comparator arm treated with chloroquine, and in all trials G6PD deficiency patients were excluded. Tafenoquine dose comparisonsThree of the included trials compared eight different dosing regimens. Tafenoquine doses of 300 mg and above resulted in fewer relapses than no hypnozoite treatment over six months follow-up in adults (300 mg single dose: RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.41, one trial, 110 participants, moderate quality evidence; 500 to 600 mg single dose: RR 0.14, 95%CI 0.06 to 0.34, two trials, 122 participants, moderate quality evidence; 1800 mg to 3000 mg in divided doses: RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23, two trials, 63 participants, low quality evidence).In people with normal G6PD status, there may be little or no difference in serious adverse events (three trials, 358 participants, low quality evidence); or any adverse event (one trial, 272 participants, low quality evidence). Tafenoquine versus primaquine Two of the included trials compared four different dosing regimens of tafenoquine against the standard primaquine regimen of 15 mg/day for 14 days. A single tafenoquine dose of 600 mg may be more effective than primaquine in relation to relapses at six months follow-up (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.84, two trials, 98 participants, low quality evidence)In people with normal G6PD status, there may be little or no difference for serious adverse events (two trials, 323 participants, low quality evidence) or any adverse event (two trials, 323 participants, low quality evidence) between tafenoquine and primaquine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tafenoquine prevents relapses after clinically and parasitologically confirmed P. vivax malaria. The drug is untested in pregnancy, children and in G6PD-deficient people. The shorter treatment course is an important practical advantage in people who do not have G6PD deficiency, but the longer half-life may have more substantive consequences if given inadvertently to people with G6PD deficiency.

Differential cytochrome P450 2D metabolism alters tafenoquine pharmacokinetics

Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D metabolism is required for the liver-stage antimalarial efficacy of the 8-aminoquinoline molecule tafenoquine in mice. This could be problematic for Plasmodium vivax radical cure, as the human CYP 2D ortholog (2D6) is highly polymorphic. Diminished CYP 2D6 enzyme activity, as in the poor-metabolizer phenotype, could compromise radical curative efficacy in humans. Despite the importance of CYP 2D metabolism for tafenoquine liver-stage efficacy, the exact role that CYP 2D metabolism plays in the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of tafenoquine and other 8-aminoquinoline molecules has not been extensively studied. In this study, a series of tafenoquine pharmacokinetic experiments were conducted in mice with different CYP 2D metabolism statuses, including wild-type (WT) (reflecting extensive metabolizers for CYP 2D6 substrates) and CYPmouse 2D knockout (KO) (reflecting poor metabolizers for CYP 2D6 substrates) mice. Plasma and liver pharmacokinetic profiles from a single 20-mg/kg of body weight dose of tafenoquine differed between the strains; however, the differences were less striking than previous results obtained for primaquine in the same model. Additionally, the presence of a 5,6-ortho-quinone tafenoquine metabolite was examined in both mouse strains. The 5,6-ortho-quinone species of tafenoquine was observed, and concentrations of the metabolite were highest in the WT extensive-metabolizer phenotype. Altogether, this study indicates that CYP 2D metabolism in mice affects tafenoquine pharmacokinetics and could have implications for human tafenoquine pharmacokinetics in polymorphic CYP 2D6 human populations.

Antimalarial compounds in Phase II clinical development

INTRODUCTION

Malaria is a major health problem in endemic countries and chemotherapy remains the most important tool in combating it. Treatment options are limited and essentially rely on a single drug class - the artemisinins. Efforts are ongoing to restrict the evolving threat of artemisinin resistance but declining sensitivity has been reported. Fueled by the ambitious aim of malaria eradication, novel antimalarial compounds, with improved properties, are now in the progressive phase of drug development.

AREAS COVERED

Herein, the authors describe antimalarial compounds currently in Phase II clinical development and present the results of these investigations.

EXPERT OPINION

Thanks to recent efforts, a number of promising antimalarial compounds are now in the pipeline. First safety data have been generated for all of these candidates, although their efficacy as antimalarials is still unclear for most of them. Of particular note are KAE609, KAF156 and DSM265, which are of chemical scaffolds new to malaria chemotherapy and would truly diversify antimalarial options. Apart from SAR97276, which also has a novel chemical scaffold that has had its development stopped, all other compounds in the pipeline belong to already known substance classes, which have been chemically modified. At this moment in time, there is not one standout compound that will revolutionize malaria treatment but several compounds that will add to its control in the future.

Strategic use of antimalarial drugs that block falciparum malaria parasite transmission to mosquitoes to achieve local malaria elimination

The ultimate aim of malaria chemotherapy is not only to treat symptomatic infection but also to reduce transmission potential. With the absence of clinically proven vaccines, drug-mediated blocking of malaria transmission gains growing interest in the research agenda for malaria control and elimination. In addition to the limited arsenal of antimalarials available, the situation is further complicated by the fact that most commonly used antimalarials are being extensively resisted by the parasite and do not assist in blocking its transmission to vectors. Most antimalarials do not exhibit gametocytocidal and/ or sporontocidal activity against the sexual stages of Plasmodium falciparum but may even enhance gametocytogenesis and gametocyte transmissibility. Artemisinin derivatives and 8-aminoquinolines are useful transmission-blocking antimalarials whose optimal actions are on different stages of gametocytes. Transmission control interventions that include gametocytocides covering the spectrum of gametocyte development should be used to reduce and, if possible, stop transmission and infectivity of gametocytes to mosquitoes. Potent gametocytocidal drugs could also help deter the spread of antimalarial drug resistance. Novel proof-of-concept compounds with gametocytocidal activity, such as trioxaquines, synthetic endoperoxides, and spiroindolone, should be further tested for possible clinical utility before investigating the possibility of integrating them in transmission-reducing interventions. Strategic use of potent gametocytocides at appropriate timing with artemisinin-based combination therapies should be given attention, at least, in the short run. This review highlights the role that antimalarials could play in blocking gametocyte transmission and infectivity to mosquitoes and, hence, in reducing the potential of falciparum malaria transmissibility and drug resistance spread.

Pharmacokinetic interactions and safety evaluations of coadministered tafenoquine and chloroquine in healthy subjects

AIMS

The long-acting 8-aminoquinoline tafenoquine (TQ) coadministered with chloroquine (CQ) may radically cure Plasmodium vivax malaria. Coadministration therapy was evaluated for a pharmacokinetic interaction and for pharmacodynamic, safety and tolerability characteristics.

METHODS

Healthy subjects, 18-55 years old, without documented glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, received CQ alone (days 1-2, 600 mg; and day 3, 300 mg), TQ alone (days 2 and 3, 450 mg) or coadministration therapy (day 1, CQ 600 mg; day 2, CQ 600 mg + TQ 450 mg; and day 3, CQ 300 mg + TQ 450 mg) in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses and safety data, including electrocardiograms, were collected for 56 days.

RESULTS

The coadministration of CQ + TQ had no effect on TQ AUC0-t , AUC0-∞ , Tmax or t1/2 . The 90% confidence intervals of CQ + TQ vs. TQ for AUC0-t , AUC0-∞ and t1/2 indicated no drug interaction. On day 2 of CQ + TQ coadministration, TQ Cmax and AUC0-24 increased by 38% (90% confidence interval 1.27, 1.64) and 24% (90% confidence interval 1.04, 1.46), respectively. The pharmacokinetics of CQ and its primary metabolite desethylchloroquine were not affected by TQ. Coadministration had no clinically significant effect on QT intervals and was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

No clinically significant safety or pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interactions were observed with coadministered CQ and TQ in healthy subjects.

Assessment of the prophylactic activity and pharmacokinetic profile of oral tafenoquine compared to primaquine for inhibition of liver stage malaria infections

Background

As anti-malarial drug resistance escalates, new safe and effective medications are necessary to prevent and treat malaria infections. The US Army is developing tafenoquine (TQ), an analogue of primaquine (PQ), which is expected to be more effective in preventing malaria in deployed military personnel.

Methods

To compare the prophylactic efficacy of TQ and PQ, a transgenic Plasmodium berghei parasite expressing the bioluminescent reporter protein luciferase was utilized to visualize and quantify parasite development in C57BL/6 albino mice treated with PQ and TQ in single or multiple regimens using a real-time in vivo imaging system (IVIS). As an additional endpoint, blood stage parasitaemia was monitored by flow cytometry. Comparative pharmacokinetic (PK) and liver distribution studies of oral and intravenous PQ and TQ were also performed.

Results

Mice treated orally with three doses of TQ at 5 mg/kg three doses of PQ at 25 mg/kg demonstrated no bioluminescence liver signal and no blood stage parasitaemia was observed suggesting both drugs showed 100% causal activity at the doses tested. Single dose oral treatment with 5 mg TQ or 25 mg of PQ, however, yielded different results as only TQ treatment resulted in causal prophylaxis in P. berghei sporozoite-infected mice. TQ is highly effective for causal prophylaxis in mice at a minimal curative single oral dose of 5 mg/kg, which is a five-fold improvement in potency versus PQ. PK studies of the two drugs administered orally to mice showed that the absolute bioavailability of oral TQ was 3.5-fold higher than PQ, and the AUC of oral TQ was 94-fold higher than oral PQ. The elimination half-life of oral TQ in mice was 28 times longer than PQ, and the liver tissue distribution of TQ revealed an AUC that was 188-fold higher than PQ.

Conclusions

The increased drug exposure levels and longer exposure time of oral TQ in the plasma and livers of mice highlight the lead quality attributes that explain the much improved efficacy of TQ when compared to PQ.

A retrospective analysis of the protective efficacy of tafenoquine and mefloquine as prophylactic anti-malarials in non-immune individuals during deployment to a malaria-endemic area

Background

In 2000/2001, the Australian Defense Forces (ADF), in collaboration with SmithKline Beecham and the United States Army, conducted a field trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of tafenoquine and mefloquine/primaquine for the prophylaxis of malaria amongst non-immune Australian soldiers deployed to East Timor (now called Timor Leste) for peacekeeping operations. The lack of a concurrent placebo control arm prevented an internal estimate of the malaria attack rate and so the protective efficacy of the study regimens was not determined at the time.

Methods

In a retrospective analysis of the trial results, the all species malaria attack rate was estimated for the prophylactic phase of the study which was defined as the period between administration of the first prophylactic dose and the first dose of post-deployment medication. First, the Plasmodium vivax attack rate was estimated during the prophylactic phase of the deployment by adjusting the observed P. vivax relapse rate during post-deployment to account for the known anti-relapse efficacies (or effectiveness) of the study medications (determined from prior studies). The all species malaria attack rate (P. vivax and Plasmodium falciparum) was then determined by adjusting the P. vivax attack rate based on the ratio of P. falciparum to P. vivax observed during prior ADF deployments to Timor Leste. This estimated all species malaria attack rate was then used as the ‘constant estimated attack rate’ in the calculation of the protective efficacy of tafenoquine and mefloquine during the prophylactic phase of the deployment.

Results

The estimated attack rate during the prophylactic phase of the study was determined to be 7.88%. The protective efficacies of tafenoquine and mefloquine, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), were determined to be 100% (93%-100%) and 100% (79%-100%) respectively.

Conclusions

The protective efficacy of tafenoquine (200 mg per day for three days, followed by weekly 200 mg maintenance doses) is similar to that of the weekly standard of care (mefloquine, 250 mg).

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.

Tafenoquine and NPC-1161B require CYP 2D metabolism for anti-malarial activity: implications for the 8-aminoquinoline class of anti-malarial compounds

Background

Tafenoquine (TQ) is an 8-aminoquinoline (8AQ) that has been tested in several Phase II and Phase III clinical studies and is currently in late stage development as an anti-malarial prophylactic agent. NPC-1161B is a promising 8AQ in late preclinical development. It has recently been reported that the 8AQ drug primaquine requires metabolic activation by CYP 2D6 for efficacy in humans and in mice, highlighting the importance of pharmacogenomics in the target population when administering primaquine. A logical follow-up study was to determine whether CYP 2D activation is required for other compounds in the 8AQ structural class.

Methods

In the present study, the anti-malarial activities of NPC-1161B and TQ were assessed against luciferase expressing Plasmodium berghei in CYP 2D knock-out mice in comparison with normal C57BL/6 mice (WT) and with humanized/CYP 2D6 knock-in mice by monitoring luminescence with an in vivo imaging system. These experiments were designed to determine the direct effects of CYP 2D metabolic activation on the anti-malarial efficacy of NPC-1161B and TQ.

Results

NPC-1161B and TQ exhibited no anti-malarial activity in CYP 2D knock-out mice when dosed at their ED₁₀₀ values (1 mg/kg and 3 mg/kg, respectively) established in WT mice. TQ anti-malarial activity was partially restored in humanized/CYP 2D6 knock-in mice when tested at two times its ED₁₀₀.

Conclusions

The results reported here strongly suggest that metabolism of NPC-1161B and TQ by the CYP 2D enzyme class is essential for their anti-malarial activity. Furthermore, these results may provide a possible explanation for therapeutic failures for patients who do not respond to 8AQ treatment for relapsing malaria. Because CYP 2D6 is highly polymorphic, variable expression of this enzyme in humans represents a significant pharmacogenomic liability for 8AQs which require CYP 2D metabolic activation for efficacy, particularly for large-scale prophylaxis and eradication campaigns.

Plasmodium falciparum gametocytes: with a view to a kill

Drugs that kill or inhibit the sexual stages of Plasmodium in order to prevent transmission are important components of malaria control programmes. Reducing gametocyte carriage is central to the control of Plasmodium falciparum transmission as infection can result in extended periods of gametocytaemia. Unfortunately the number of drugs with activity against gametocytes is limited. Primaquine is currently the only licensed drug with activity against the sexual stages of malaria parasites and its use is hampered by safety concerns. This shortcoming is likely the result of the technical challenges associated with gametocyte studies together with the focus of previous drug discovery campaigns on asexual parasite stages. However recent emphasis on malaria eradication has resulted in an upsurge of interest in identifying compounds with activity against gametocytes. This review examines the gametocytocidal properties of currently available drugs as well as those in the development pipeline and examines the prospects for discovery of new anti-gametocyte compounds.

Profile of the Navrongo Health and Demographic Surveillance System

Located in the Kassena-Nankana districts of northern Ghana, the Navrongo health and demographic surveillance system (NHDSS) was established in 1992 by the Navrongo health research centre (NHRC). The NHRC is one of three research centres of the Ghana health service. The activities and potential of the NHDSS for collaborative research are described. The NHDSS monitors health and demographic dynamics of the two Kassena-Nankana districts of northern Ghana and facilitates evaluation of the morbidity and mortality impact of health and social interventions. The total population currently under surveillance is 152 000 residing in 32 000 households. Events monitored routinely include pregnancies, births, morbidity, deaths, migration, marriages and vaccination coverage. Data updates are done every 4 months by trained fieldworkers. The NHRC also undertakes biomedical and socio-economic studies. Additional features of the NHDSS include the community key informant system where trained volunteers routinely report key events, such as births and deaths as they occur in their locality and the verbal autopsy (VA) system for determining the probable causes of deaths that occur at the community level. Data from the NHDSS are shared with funders and collaborators and partners in the INDEPTH Network. The Director of the NHDSS is the contact person for potential collaboration with the NHDSS and the use of its data.

Randomized, open-label trial of primaquine against vivax malaria relapse in Indonesia

Radical cure of Plasmodium vivax infection applies blood schizontocidal therapy against the acute attack and hypnozoitocidal therapy against later relapse. Chloroquine and primaquine have been used for 60 years in this manner. Resistance to chloroquine by the parasite now requires partnering other blood schizontocides with primaquine. However, the safety and efficacy of primaquine against relapse when combined with other drugs have not been demonstrated. This randomized, open-label, and relapse-controlled trial estimated the efficacy of primaquine against relapse when administered with quinine or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for treatment of the acute infection. Among 650 soldiers who had returned to their malaria-free base in Java, Indonesia, after 12 months in malarious Papua, Indonesia, 143 with acute P. vivax malaria were eligible for study. One hundred sixteen enrolled subjects were randomized to these treatments: artesunate (200-mg dose followed by 100 mg/day for 6 days), quinine (1.8 g/day for 7 days) plus concurrent primaquine (30 mg/day for 14 days), or dihydroartemisinin (120 mg) plus piperaquine (960 mg) daily for 3 days followed 25 days later by primaquine (30 mg/day for 14 days). Follow-up was for 12 months. One hundred thirteen subjects were analyzable. Relapse occurred in 32 of 41 (78%) subjects administered artesunate alone (2.71 attacks/person-year), 7 of 36 (19%) administered quinine plus primaquine (0.23 attack/person-year), and 2 of 36 (6%) administered dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus primaquine (0.06 attack/person-year). The efficacy of primaquine against relapse was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 81% to 96%) for quinine plus primaquine and 98% (95% CI = 91% to 99%) for dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus primaquine. Antirelapse therapy with primaquine begun a month after treatment of the acute attack with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine proved safe and highly efficacious against relapse by P. vivax acquired in Papua, Indonesia.

Clinical development of new prophylactic antimalarial drugs after the 5th Amendment to the Declaration of Helsinki

Malaria is of continuing concern in nonimmune traveling populations. Traditionally, antimalarial drugs have been developed as agents for dual indications (treatment and prophylaxis). However, since 2000, when the 5th Amendment to the Declaration of Helsinki (DH2000) was adopted, development of new malaria prophylaxis drugs in this manner has ceased. As a consequence, there may not be any new drugs licensed for this indication in the foreseeable future. Major pharmaceutical companies have interpreted DH2000 to mean that the traditional development paradigm may be considered unethical because of doubt over the likelihood of benefit to endemic populations participating in clinical studies, the use of placebo, and the sustainability of post-trial access to study medications. In this article, we explore the basis of these concerns and suggest that the traditional development paradigm remains ethical under certain circumstances. We also consider alternative approaches that may be more attractive to sponsors as they either do not use placebo, or utilize populations in endemic countries who may unambiguously benefit. These approaches represent the way forward in the future, but are at present unproven in clinical practice, and face numerous regulatory, logistical and technical challenges. Consequently, in the short term, we argue that the traditional clinical development paradigm remains the most feasible approach and is ethical and consistent with the spirit of DH2000 under the appropriate circumstances.

Increased glycolytic ATP synthesis is associated with tafenoquine resistance in Leishmania major

Tafenoquine (TFQ), an 8-aminoquinoline used to treat and prevent Plasmodium infections, could represent an alternative therapy for leishmaniasis. Indeed, TFQ has shown significant leishmanicidal activity both in vitro and in vivo, where it targets Leishmania mitochondria and activates a final apoptosis-like process. In order not to jeopardize the life span of this potential antileishmania drug, it is important to determine the likelihood that Leishmania will develop resistance to TFQ and the mechanisms of resistance induced. To address this issue, a TFQ-resistant Leishmania major promastigote line (R4) was selected. This resistance, which is unstable in a drug-free medium (revertant line), was maintained in intramacrophage amastigote forms, and R4 promastigotes were found to be cross-resistant to other 8-aminoquinolines. A decreased TFQ uptake, which is probably associated with an alkalinization of the intracellular pH rather than drug efflux, was observed for both the R4 and revertant lines. TFQ induces a decrease in ATP synthesis in all Leishmania lines, although total ATP levels were maintained at higher values in R4 parasites. In contrast, ATP synthesis by glycolysis was significantly increased in R4 parasites, whereas mitochondrial ATP synthesis was similar to that in wild-type parasites. We therefore conclude that increased glycolytic ATP synthesis is the main mechanism underlying TFQ resistance in Leishmania.

Chemoprophylaxis of Tropical Infectious Diseases

Travelers to tropical countries are at risk for a variety of infectious diseases. In some cases effective vaccinations are available, but for other infections chemoprophylaxis can be offered. Malaria prevention has become increasingly complex as Plasmodium species become resistant to available drugs. In certain high risk settings, antibiotics can be used to prevent leptospirosis, scrub typhus and other infections. Post-exposure prophylaxis is appropriate for selected virulent infections. In this article the evidence for chemoprophylaxis will be reviewed.

Randomized, double-blind study of the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of tafenoquine versus mefloquine for malaria prophylaxis in nonimmune subjects

This study represents the first phase III trial of the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of tafenoquine for malaria prophylaxis. In a randomized (3:1), double-blinded study, Australian soldiers received weekly malaria prophylaxis with 200 mg tafenoquine (492 subjects) or 250 mg mefloquine (162 subjects) for 6 months on a peacekeeping deployment to East Timor. After returning to Australia, tafenoquine-receiving subjects received a placebo and mefloquine-receiving subjects received 30 mg primaquine daily for 14 days. There were no clinically significant differences between hematological and biochemical parameters of the treatment groups. Treatment-related adverse events for the two groups were similar (tafenoquine, 13.4%; mefloquine, 11.7%). Three subjects on tafenoquine (0.6%) and none on mefloquine discontinued prophylaxis because of possible drug-related adverse events. No diagnoses of malaria occurred for either group during deployment, but 4 cases (0.9%) and 1 case (0.7%) of Plasmodium vivax infection occurred among the tafenoquine and mefloquine groups, respectively, up to 20 weeks after discontinuation of medication. In a subset of subjects recruited for detailed safety assessments, treatment-related mild vortex keratopathy was detected in 93% (69 of 74) of tafenoquine subjects but none of the 21 mefloquine subjects. The vortex keratopathy was not associated with any effect on visual acuity and was fully resolved in all subjects by 1 year. Tafenoquine appears to be safe and well tolerated as malaria prophylaxis. Although the volunteers' precise exposure to malaria could not be proven in this study, tafenoquine appears to be a highly efficacious drug for malaria prophylaxis.

Synthesis and evaluation of naphthyridine compounds as antimalarial agents

Primaquine is the drug of choice for the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax malaria, but possesses serious side effects. In this study novel primaquine analogues were designed and synthesized. Lower toxicity was achieved by reducing or eliminating the tendency of forming chemically reactive and toxic intermediates and metabolites. In vitro and in vivo studies found that synthesized compounds were less toxic than the parent compound primaquine, while preserving the desired antimalarial activity. Some of these compounds possess a therapeutic index over 10 times superior to that of the commonly used antimalarial drug chloroquine. These compounds, as well as the underlying design rationale, may find usefulness in the discovery and development of new antimalarial drugs.

Population pharmacokinetics of tafenoquine during malaria prophylaxis in healthy subjects

The population pharmacokinetics of tafenoquine were studied in Australian soldiers taking tafenoquine for malarial prophylaxis. The subjects (476 males and 14 females) received a loading dose of 200 mg tafenoquine base daily for 3 days, followed by a weekly dose of 200 mg tafenoquine for 6 months. Blood samples were collected from each subject after the last loading dose and then at weeks 4, 8, and 16. Plasma tafenoquine concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Population modeling was performed with NONMEM, using a one-compartment model. Typical values of the first-order absorption rate constant (K(a)), clearance (CL/F), and volume of distribution (V/F) were 0.243 h(-1), 0.056 liters/h/kg, and 23.7 liters/kg, respectively. The intersubject variability (coefficient of variation) in CL/F and V/F was 18% and 22%, respectively. The interoccasion variability in CL/F was 18%, and the mean elimination half-life was 12.7 days. A positive linear association between weight and both CL/F and V/F was found, but this had insufficient impact to warrant dosage adjustments. Model robustness was assessed by a nonparametric bootstrap (200 samples). A degenerate visual predictive check indicated that the raw data mirrored the postdose concentration-time profiles simulated (n = 1,000) from the final model. Individual pharmacokinetic estimates for tafenoquine did not predict the prophylactic outcome with the drug for four subjects who relapsed with Plasmodium vivax malaria, as they had similar pharmacokinetics to those who were free of malaria infection. No obvious pattern existed between the plasma tafenoquine concentration and the pharmacokinetic parameter values for subjects with and without drug-associated moderate or severe adverse events. This validated population pharmacokinetic model satisfactorily describes the disposition and variability of tafenoquine used for long-term malaria prophylaxis in a large cohort of soldiers on military deployment.

Tafenoquine: a promising new antimalarial agent

Malaria remains an important cause of global morbidity and mortality. As antimalarial drug resistance escalates, new safe and effective medications are necessary to prevent and treat malarial infection. Tafenoquine is an 8-aminoquinoline antimalarial that is presently under development. It has a long half-life of approximately 14 days and is generally safe and well tolerated, although it cannot be used in pregnant women and individuals who are deficient in the enzyme glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase. In well-designed studies, tafenoquine was highly effective in both the radical cure of relapsing malaria and causal prophylaxis of Plasmodium vivax and P. falciparum infections with protective efficacies of > or = 90%. Given its causal activity and safety profile, tafenoquine represents a potentially exciting alternative to standard agents for the prevention and radical cure of malaria.

Gender differences in gastrointestinal disturbances and plasma concentrations of tafenoquine in healthy volunteers after tafenoquine administration for post-exposure vivax malaria prophylaxis

In an open-label sequential cohort study, we compared gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances and plasma tafenoquine concentrations after administration of single-dose (400mg daily x 3 days; n=76 males, 11 females) and split-dose (200 mg twice daily x 3 days; n=73 males, 13 females) tafenoquine regimens in healthy Australian Defence Force volunteers for post-exposure malaria prophylaxis. The female and male volunteers had comparable demographic characteristics (age, weight, height) in the single- and split-dose treatment groups. GI disturbances were generally mild and self-limiting for both groups. The frequency of nausea and abdominal distress was over two-fold higher in females than in males for both treatment groups. Reporting of GI disturbances in the single-dose group differed significantly between males and females, but this gender difference was not seen for the split-dose group. In those volunteers who experienced GI disturbances, the mean plasma tafenoquine concentrations 12 h after the last dose of tafenoquine were approximately 1.3-fold higher in females than in males (means+/-SD: 737+/-118 ng/ml vs. 581+/-113 ng/ml). These preliminary findings suggest that further studies are required in a larger number of females to determine whether there is a need to reduce the dose of tafenoquine to minimise GI disturbances in females.