Search

Background: Primaquine radical cure is used to treat dormant liver-stage parasites and prevent relapsing Plasmodium vivax malaria but is limited by concerns of haemolysis. We undertook a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the haematological safety of different primaquine regimens for P vivax radical cure., Methods: For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central for prospective clinical studies of uncomplicated P vivax from endemic countries published between Jan 1, 2000, and June 8, 2023. We included studies if they had active follow-up of at least 28 days, if they included a treatment group with daily primaquine given over multiple days where primaquine was commenced within 3 days of schizontocidal treatment and was given alone or coadministered with chloroquine or one of four artemisinin-based combination therapies (ie, artemether-lumefantrine, artesunate-mefloquine, artesunate-amodiaquine, or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine), and if they recorded haemoglobin or haematocrit concentrations on day 0. We excluded studies if they were on prevention, prophylaxis, or patients with severe malaria, or if data were extracted retrospectively from medical records outside of a planned trial. For the meta-analysis, we contacted the investigators of eligible trials to request individual patient data and we then pooled data that were made available by Aug 23, 2021. The main outcome was haemoglobin reduction of more than 25% to a concentration of less than 7 g/dL by day 14. Haemoglobin concentration changes between day 0 and days 2-3 and between day 0 and days 5-7 were assessed by mixed-effects linear regression for patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) activity of (1) 30% or higher and (2) between 30% and less than 70%. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019154470 and CRD42022303680., Findings: Of 226 identified studies, 18 studies with patient-level data from 5462 patients from 15 countries were included in the analysis. A haemoglobin reduction of more than 25% to a concentration of less than 7 g/dL occurred in one (0·1%) of 1208 patients treated without primaquine, none of 893 patients treated with a low daily dose of primaquine (<0·375 mg/kg per day), five (0·3%) of 1464 patients treated with an intermediate daily dose (0·375 mg/kg per day to <0·75 mg/kg per day), and six (0·5%) of 1269 patients treated with a high daily dose (≥0·75 mg/kg per day). The covariate-adjusted mean estimated haemoglobin changes at days 2-3 were -0·6 g/dL (95% CI -0·7 to -0·5), -0·7 g/dL (-0·8 to -0·5), -0·6 g/dL (-0·7 to -0·4), and -0·5 g/dL (-0·7 to -0·4), respectively. In 51 patients with G6PD activity between 30% and less than 70%, the adjusted mean haemoglobin concentration on days 2-3 decreased as G6PD activity decreased; two patients in this group who were treated with a high daily dose of primaquine had a reduction of more than 25% to a concentration of less than 7 g/dL. 17 of 18 included studies had a low or unclear risk of bias., Interpretation: Treatment of patients with G6PD activity of 30% or higher with 0·25-0·5 mg/kg per day primaquine regimens and patients with G6PD activity of 70% or higher with 0·25-1 mg/kg per day regimens were associated with similar risks of haemolysis to those in patients treated without primaquine, supporting the safe use of primaquine radical cure at these doses., Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Medicines for Malaria Venture., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JAG and GCKWK are former employees of GSK and hold shares in GSK and AstraZeneca. GCKWK reports travel support from AstraZeneca. JKB reports institutional research funding from Medicines for Malaria Venture, GSK, Wellcome Trust, and Sanaria; participation on the US National Institutes of Health data safety monitoring board; and membership of the editorial board of Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease and the guidelines development group for malaria control and elimination, Global Malaria Programme, WHO. JKB, RNP, and RJC report contributions to Up-to-Date. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Primaquine is used to eliminate Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites, but its optimal dosing regimen remains unclear. We undertook a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of different primaquine dosing regimens to prevent P vivax recurrence., Methods: For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central for prospective clinical studies of uncomplicated P vivax from endemic countries published between Jan 1, 2000, and June 8, 2023. We included studies if they had active follow-up of at least 28 days, and if they included a treatment group with daily primaquine given over multiple days, where primaquine was commenced within 7 days of schizontocidal treatment and was given alone or coadministered with chloroquine or one of four artemisinin-based combination therapies (ie, artemether-lumefantrine, artesunate-mefloquine, artesunate-amodiaquine, or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine). We excluded studies if they were on prevention, prophylaxis, or patients with severe malaria, or if data were extracted retrospectively from medical records outside of a planned trial. For the meta-analysis, we contacted the investigators of eligible trials to request individual patient data and we then pooled data that were made available by Aug 23, 2021. We assessed the effects of total dose and duration of primaquine regimens on the rate of first P vivax recurrence between day 7 and day 180 by Cox's proportional hazards regression (efficacy analysis). The effect of primaquine daily dose on gastrointestinal symptoms on days 5-7 was assessed by modified Poisson regression (tolerability analysis). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019154470., Findings: Of 226 identified studies, 23 studies with patient-level data from 6879 patients from 16 countries were included in the efficacy analysis. At day 180, the risk of recurrence was 51·0% (95% CI 48·2-53·9) in 1470 patients treated without primaquine, 19·3% (16·9-21·9) in 2569 patients treated with a low total dose of primaquine (approximately 3·5 mg/kg), and 8·1% (7·0-9·4) in 2811 patients treated with a high total dose of primaquine (approximately 7 mg/kg), regardless of primaquine treatment duration. Compared with treatment without primaquine, the rate of P vivax recurrence was lower after treatment with low-dose primaquine (adjusted hazard ratio 0·21, 95% CI 0·17-0·27; p<0·0001) and high-dose primaquine (0·10, 0·08-0·12; p<0·0001). High-dose primaquine had greater efficacy than low-dose primaquine in regions with high and low relapse periodicity (ie, the time from initial infection to vivax relapse). 16 studies with patient-level data from 5609 patients from ten countries were included in the tolerability analysis. Gastrointestinal symptoms on days 5-7 were reported by 4·0% (95% CI 0·0-8·7) of 893 patients treated without primaquine, 6·2% (0·5-12·0) of 737 patients treated with a low daily dose of primaquine (approximately 0·25 mg/kg per day), 5·9% (1·8-10·1) of 1123 patients treated with an intermediate daily dose (approximately 0·5 mg/kg per day) and 10·9% (5·7-16·1) of 1178 patients treated with a high daily dose (approximately 1 mg/kg per day). 20 of 23 studies included in the efficacy analysis and 15 of 16 in the tolerability analysis had a low or unclear risk of bias., Interpretation: Increasing the total dose of primaquine from 3·5 mg/kg to 7 mg/kg can reduce P vivax recurrences by more than 50% in most endemic regions, with a small associated increase in gastrointestinal symptoms., Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Medicines for Malaria Venture., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JAG and GCKWK are former employees of GSK and hold shares in GSK and AstraZeneca. GCKWK reports travel support from AstraZeneca. JKB reports institutional research funding from Medicines for Malaria Venture, GSK, Wellcome Trust, and Sanaria; participation on the US National Institutes of Health data safety monitoring board; and membership of the editorial board of Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease and the guidelines development group for malaria control and elimination, Global Malaria Programme, WHO. RJC, JKB, and RNP report contributions to Up-to-Date. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: A 14-day course of primaquine is used for radical cure of Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium ovale malaria only. We quantified the risk of P vivax parasitaemia after treatment of Plasmodium falciparum with commonly used antimalarial drugs to assess the potential benefits of radical cure for all patients with uncomplicated malaria in co-endemic regions., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for prospective clinical studies in any language, published between Jan 1, 1960, and Jan 5, 2018, assessing drug efficacy in patients with uncomplicated P falciparum malaria in countries co-endemic for P vivax. Studies were included if the presence or absence of P vivax parasitaemia was recorded after treatment. The primary outcome was the risk of P vivax parasitaemia between day 7 and day 42 after initiation of antimalarial treatment for P falciparum, with the pooled risk calculated by random-effects meta-analysis. We compared the risk of P vivax parasitaemia after treatment with different artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs). This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017064838., Findings: 153 of 891 screened studies were included in the analysis, including 31 262 patients from 323 site-specific treatment groups: 130 (85%) studies were from the Asia-Pacific region, 16 (10%) from the Americas, and seven (5%) from Africa. The risk of P vivax parasitaemia by day 42 was 5·6% (95% CI 4·0-7·4; I 2 =92·0%; 117 estimates). The risk of P vivax parasitaemia was 6·5% (95% CI 4·6-8·6) in regions of short relapse periodicity compared with 1·9% (0·4-4·0) in regions of long periodicity, and was greater after treatment with a more rapidly eliminated ACT: 15·3% (5·1-29·3) for artemether-lumefantrine compared with 4·5% (1·2-9·3) for dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and 5·2% (2·9-7·9) for artesunate-mefloquine. Recurrent parasitaemia was delayed in patients treated with ACTs containing mefloquine or piperaquine compared with artemether-lumefantrine, but by day 63 the risk of vivax parasitaemia was more than 15% for all ACTs assessed., Interpretation: Our findings show a high risk of vivax parasitaemia after treatment of falciparum malaria, particularly in areas with short relapse periodicity and after rapidly eliminated treatment. In co-endemic regions, universal radical cure for all patients with uncomplicated malaria has the potential to substantially reduce recurrent malaria., Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Wellcome Trust, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chloroquine remains the mainstay of treatment for Plasmodium vivax malaria despite increasing reports of treatment failure. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of chloroquine dose and the addition of primaquine on the risk of recurrent vivax malaria across different settings., Methods: A systematic review done in MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified P vivax clinical trials published between Jan 1, 2000, and March 22, 2017. Principal investigators were invited to share individual patient data, which were pooled using standardised methods. Cox regression analyses with random effects for study site were used to investigate the roles of chloroquine dose and primaquine use on rate of recurrence between day 7 and day 42 (primary outcome). The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42016053310., Findings: Of 134 identified chloroquine studies, 37 studies (from 17 countries) and 5240 patients were included. 2990 patients were treated with chloroquine alone, of whom 1041 (34·8%) received a dose below the target 25 mg/kg. The risk of recurrence was 32·4% (95% CI 29·8-35·1) by day 42. After controlling for confounders, a 5 mg/kg higher chloroquine dose reduced the rate of recurrence overall (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·69-0·97; p=0·021) and in children younger than 5 years (0·59, 0·41-0·86; p=0·0058). Adding primaquine reduced the risk of recurrence to 4·9% (95% CI 3·1-7·7) by day 42, which is lower than with chloroquine alone (AHR 0·10, 0·05-0·17; p<0·0001)., Interpretation: Chloroquine is commonly under-dosed in the treatment of vivax malaria. Increasing the recommended dose to 30 mg/kg in children younger than 5 years could reduce substantially the risk of early recurrence when primaquine is not given. Radical cure with primaquine was highly effective in preventing early recurrence and may also improve blood schizontocidal efficacy against chloroquine-resistant P vivax., Funding: Wellcome Trust, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum malaria has emerged in western Cambodia and has been detected in western Thailand. The situation is ominously reminiscent of the emergence of resistance to chloroquine and to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine several decades ago. Artemisinin resistance is a major threat to global public health, with the most severe potential effects in sub-Saharan Africa, where the disease burden is highest and systems for monitoring and containment of resistance are inadequate. The mechanisms that underlie artemisinin resistance are not fully understood. The main phenotypic trait associated with resistance is a substantial delay in parasite clearance, so far reported in southeast Asia but not in Africa. One of the pillars of the WHO global plan for artemisinin resistance containment is to increase monitoring and surveillance. In this Personal View, we propose strategies that should be adopted by malaria-endemic countries in Africa: resource mobilisation to reactivate regional surveillance networks, establishment of baseline parasite clearance profiles to serve as benchmarks to track emerging artemisinin resistance, improved data sharing to allow pooled analyses to identify rare events, modelling of risk factors for drug resistance, and development and validation of new approaches to monitor resistance., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Malaria in pregnancy is associated with maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. In 2006, WHO recommended use of artemisinin-based combination treatments during the second or third trimesters, but data on efficacy and safety in Africa were scarce. We aimed to assess whether artemether-lumefantrine was at least as efficacious as oral quinine for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy in Mbarara, Uganda., Methods: We did an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial between October, 2006, and May, 2009, at the antenatal clinics of the Mbarara University of Science and Technology Hospital in Uganda. Pregnant women were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer generated sequence to receive either quinine hydrochloride or artemether-lumefantrine, and were followed up weekly until delivery. Our primary endpoint was cure rate at day 42, confirmed by PCR. The non-inferiority margin was a difference in cure rate of 5%. Analysis of efficacy was for all randomised patients without study deviations that could have affected the efficacy outcome. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00495508., Findings: 304 women were randomly assigned, 152 to each treatment group. By day 42, 16 patients were lost to follow-up and 25 were excluded from the analysis. At day 42, 137 (99.3%) of 138 patients taking artemether-lumefantrine and 122 (97.6%) of 125 taking quinine were cured-difference 1.7% (lower limit of 95% CI -0.9). There were 290 adverse events in the quinine group and 141 in the artemether-lumefantrine group., Interpretation: Artemisinin derivatives are not inferior to oral quinine for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in pregnancy and might be preferable on the basis of safety and efficacy., Funding: Médecins Sans Frontières and the European Commission., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Current information on efficacy of antimalarials is crucial to provide early warning of resistance. A collaborative effort between the Global Malaria Program of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) has recently been launched. The effort is planned as a collaboration with the scientific malaria community to create a global, comprehensive, and inclusive network that will provide quality-assured information on antimalarial drug resistance.

Two new rotavirus vaccines have recently been licensed in many countries. However, their efficacy has only been shown against certain serotypes commonly circulating in Europe, North America, and Latin America, but thought to be globally important. To assess the potential impact of these vaccines in sub-Saharan Africa, where rotavirus mortality is high, knowledge of prevalent types is essential because an effective rotavirus vaccine is needed to protect against prevailing serotypes in the community. We did two systematic reviews and two meta-analyses of the most recent published data on the burden of rotavirus disease in children aged under 5 years and rotavirus serotypes circulating in countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Eligible studies were selected from PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, EmBase, LILACS, Academic Search Premier, Biological Abstracts, ISI Web of Science, and the African Index Medicus. Depending on the heterogeneity, DerSimonian-Laird random-effects or fixed-effects models were used for meta-analyses. Geographical variability in rotavirus burden within countries in sub-Saharan Africa is substantial, and most countries lack information on rotavirus epidemiology. We estimated that annual mortality for this region was 243.3 (95% CI 187.6-301.7) deaths per 100,000 under 5 years (ie, a total of 300,000 children die of rotavirus infection in this region each year). The most common G type detected was G1 (34.9%), followed by G2 (9.1%), and G3 (8.6%). The most common P types detected were P[8] (35.5%) and P[6] (27.5%). Accurate information should be collected from surveillance based on standardised methods in these countries to obtain comparable data on the burden of disease and the circulating strains to assess the potential impact of vaccine introduction.

Low measles vaccination coverage (VC) leads to recurrent epidemics in many African countries. We describe VC before and after late reinforcement of vaccination activities during a measles epidemic in Niamey, Niger (2003-2004) assessed by Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS). Neighborhoods of Niamey were grouped into 46 lots based on geographic proximity and population homogeneity. Before reinforcement activities, 96% of lots had a VC below 70%. After reinforcement, this proportion fell to 78%. During the intervention 50% of children who had no previous record of measles vaccination received their first dose (vaccination card or parental recall). Our results highlight the benefits and limitations of vaccine reinforcement activities performed late in the epidemic.

The state of Bihar in India carries the largest share of the world's burden of antimony-resistant visceral leishmaniasis. We analysed clinical studies done in Bihar with different treatments between 1980 and 2004. Overall, 53 studies were included (all but one published), of which 15 were comparative (randomised, quasi-randomised, or non-randomised), 23 dose-finding, and 15 non-comparative. Data from comparative studies were pooled when appropriate for meta-analysis. Overall, these studies enrolled 7263 patients in 123 treatment arms. Adequacy of methods used to do the studies and report on them varied. Unresponsiveness to antimony has developed steadily in the past to such an extent that antimony must now be replaced, despite attempts to stop its progression by increasing dose and duration of therapy. The classic second-line treatments are unsuited: pentamidine is toxic and its efficacy has also declined, and amphotericin B deoxycholate is effective but requires hospitalisation for long periods and toxicity is common. Liposomal amphotericin B is very effective and safe but currently unaffordable because of its high price. Miltefosine-the first oral drug for visceral leishmaniasis-is now registered and marketed in India and is effective, but should be used under supervision to prevent misuse. Paromomycin (or aminosidine) is effective and safe, and although not yet available, a regulatory submission is due soon. To preserve the limited armamentarium of drugs to treat visceral leishmaniasis, drugs should not be deployed unprotected; combinations can make drugs last longer, improve treatment, and reduce costs to households and health systems. India, Bangladesh, and Nepal agreed recently to undertake measures towards the elimination of visceral leishmaniasis. The lessons learnt in Bihar could help inform policy decisions both regionally and elsewhere.

Rolling back malaria is possible. Tools are available but they are not used. Several countries deploy, as their national malaria control treatment policy, drugs that are no longer effective. New and innovative methods of vector control, diagnosis, and treatment should be developed, and work towards development of new drugs and a vaccine should receive much greater support. But the pressing need, in the face of increasing global mortality and general lack of progress in malaria control, is research into the best methods of deploying and using existing approaches, particularly insecticide-treated mosquito nets, rapid methods of diagnosis, and artemisinin-based combination treatments. Evidence on these approaches should provide national governments and international donors with the cost-benefit information that would justify much-needed increases in global support for appropriate and effective malaria control.

Visceral leishmaniasis is common in less developed countries, with an estimated 500000 new cases each year. Because of the diversity of epidemiological situations, no single diagnosis, treatment, or control will be suitable for all. Control measures through case finding, treatment, and vector control are seldom used, even where they could be useful. There is a place for a vaccine, and new imaginative approaches are needed. HIV co-infection is changing the epidemiology and presents problems for diagnosis and case management. Field diagnosis is difficult; simpler, less invasive tests are needed. Current treatments require long courses and parenteral administration, and most are expensive. Resistance is making the mainstay of treatment, agents based on pentavalent antimony, useless in northeastern India, where disease incidence is highest. Second-line drugs (pentamidine and amphotericin B) are limited by toxicity and availability, and newer formulations of amphotericin B are not affordable. The first effective oral drug, miltefosine, has been licensed in India, but the development of other drugs in clinical phases (paromomycin and sitamaquine) is slow. No novel compound is in the pipeline. Drug combinations must be developed to prevent drug resistance. Despite these urgent needs, research and development has been neglected, because a disease that mainly affects the poor ranks as a low priority in the private sector, and the public sector currently struggles to undertake the development of drugs and diagnostics in the absence of adequate funds and infrastructure. This article reviews the current situation and perspectives for diagnosis, treatment, and control of visceral leishmaniasis, and lists some priorities for research and development.