The relationship between body weight and tolerance to mefloquine prophylaxis in non-immune adults: results of a questionnaire-based study

Associations between Use of Antimalarial Medications and Health among U.S. Veterans of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Mefloquine (Lariam^®; Roche Holding AG, Basel, Switzerland) has been linked to acute neuropsychiatric side effects. This is a concern for U.S. veterans who may have used mefloquine during recent Southwest Asia deployments. Using data from the National Health Study for a New Generation of U.S. Veterans, a population-based study of U.S. veterans who served between 2001 and 2008, we investigated associations between self-reported use of antimalarial medications and overall physical and mental health (MH) using the twelve-item short form, and with other MH outcomes using the post-traumatic stress disorder Checklist-17 and the Patient Health Questionnaire (anxiety, major depression, and self-harm). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine associations between health measures and seven antimalarial drug categories: any antimalarial, mefloquine, chloroquine, doxycycline, primaquine, mefloquine plus any other antimalarial, and any other antimalarial or antimalarial combination while adjusting for the effects of deployment and combat exposure. Data from 19,487 veterans showed that although antimalarial use was generally associated with higher odds of negative health outcomes, once deployment and combat exposure were added to the multivariable models, the associations with each of the MH outcomes became attenuated. A positive trend was observed between combat exposure intensity and prevalence of the five MH outcomes. No significant associations were found between mefloquine and MH measures. These data suggest that the poor physical and MH outcomes reported in this study population are largely because of combat deployment exposure.

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.

Failure of malaria chemoprophylaxis with mefloquine in an oversize traveller to Mozambique

A case of failure of mefloquine prophylaxis in an oversize traveller, who correctly took the drug. This case seems to be attributed to mefloquine resistance, however it is suggested that mefloquine dosage should be modulated by body weight, as is already indicated by some authorities.

The position of mefloquine as a 21st century malaria chemoprophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Malaria chemoprophylaxis prevents the occurrence of the symptoms of malaria. Travellers to high-risk Plasmodium falciparum endemic areas need an effective chemoprophylaxis.

METHODS

A literature search to update the status of mefloquine as a malaria chemoprophylaxis.

RESULTS

Except for clearly defined regions with multi-drug resistance, mefloquine is effective against the blood stages of all human malaria species, including the recently recognized fifth species, Plasmodium knowlesi. New data were found in the literature on the tolerability of mefloquine and the use of this medication by groups at high risk of malaria.

DISCUSSION

Use of mefloquine for pregnant women in the second and third trimester is sanctioned by the WHO and some authorities (CDC) allow the use of mefloquine even in the first trimester. Inadvertent pregnancy while using mefloquine is not considered grounds for pregnancy termination. Mefloquine chemoprophylaxis is allowed during breast-feeding. Studies show that mefloquine is a good option for other high-risk groups, such as long-term travellers, VFR travellers and families with small children. Despite a negative media perception, large pharmaco-epidemiological studies have shown that serious adverse events are rare. A recent US evaluation of serious events (hospitalization data) found no association between mefloquine prescriptions and serious adverse events across a wide range of outcomes including mental disorders and diseases of the nervous system. As part of an in-depth analysis of mefloquine tolerability, a potential trend for increased propensity for neuropsychiatric adverse events in women was identified in a number of published clinical studies. This trend is corroborated by several cohort studies that identified female sex and low body weight as risk factors.

CONCLUSION

The choice of anti-malarial drug should be an evidence-based decision that considers the profile of the individual traveller and the risk of malaria. Mefloquine is an important, first-line anti-malarial drug but it is crucial for prescribers to screen medical histories and inform mefloquine users of potential adverse events. Careful prescribing and observance of contraindications are essential. For some indications, there is currently no replacement for mefloquine available or in the pipeline.

Mefloquine neurotoxicity: a literature review

A literature review revealed that mefloquine neurotoxicity has been demonstrated at both the preclinical and clinical levels, with nausea, dizziness, sleep disturbances, anxiety and psychosis, amongst other adverse neuropsychiatric events, reported in users. Females and individuals of low body mass index (BMI) are at apparent greater risk. Mechanisms of possible neurotoxicity may include binding to neuroreceptors and cholinesterases, inhibition of sarcoendoplasmic reticulum ATPase (SERCA) and interference with cellular Ca(2+) homeostasis, accumulation in the CNS, and reductions in CNS efflux in individuals possessing certain MDR1 polymorphisms. It may be prudent to avoid mefloquine in females and low BMI individuals, and in combination with other potentially neurotoxic agents such as the artemisinin antimalarials.

Mefloquine versus 3-day oral quinine–clindamycin in uncomplicated imported falciparum malaria

In this open randomized trial comparing 3-day oral quinine-clindamycin versus standard mefloquine regimen for uncomplicated imported falciparum malaria, mefloquine treatment was associated with a higher risk of discontinuation of the treatment (RR=1.8, 95% CI [1.1-2.8]) related to mainly mild gastrointestinal adverse drug events. The poor tolerability of mefloquine sets a question mark against its use in outpatients.

Effects of weight, age, and time on artemether–lumefantrine associated ototoxicity and evidence of irreversibility

An association between artemether-lumefantrine treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria and decreases in audiometrically determined hearing thresholds has been reported. Questions arising from this report were whether the effect described is attributable to drug or disease, the effects of subject weight and age on audiometric changes, and whether the changes are reversible. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated to look for relationships between audiometric changes and: (1) the interval spanning artemether-lumefantrine exposure and study exit audiogram; (2) subject age; (3) subject weight. The study utilised prospectively collected data from an occupational health clinic in Mozambique (N = 150). The exposure-exit audiogram interval ranged from 3 to 392 days (mean 163.8 days, SD 91.91 days). Spearman's correlation coefficients were effectively zero for analyses (1) and (2), and too weak to contribute significantly to variances for analysis (3). Previous audiometric studies in malaria patients and healthy volunteers point away from malaria as causing irreversible audiometric changes. The audiometric changes associated with the artemether-lumefantrine treatment of malaria appear irreversible. Ototoxicity is common to many antimalarials and the elucidation of a common antiparasitic and ototoxic pathway will assist in the design of safer new antimalarials.