Search

Background Malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax requires treatment of the blood‐stage infection and treatment of the hypnozoites that develop in the liver. This is a challenge to effective case management of P vivax malaria, as well as being a more general substantial impediment to malaria control. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a 14‐day drug course with primaquine, an 8‐aminoquinoline, at 0.25 mg/kg/day in most of the world (standard course), or 0.5 mg/kg/day in East Asia and Oceania (high‐standard course). This long treatment course can be difficult to complete, and primaquine can cause dangerous haemolysis in individuals with glucose‐6‐phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, meaning that physicians may be reluctant to prescribe in areas where G6PD testing is not available. This Cochrane Review evaluated whether more patient‐friendly alternative regimens are as efficacious as the standard regimen for radical cure ofP vivax malaria. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of alternative primaquine regimens for radical cure of P vivax malaria compared to the standard or high‐standard 14 days of primaquine (0.25 or 0.5 mg/kg/day), as well as comparison of these two WHO‐recommended regimens. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (Ovid); and LILACS (BIREME) up to 17 December 2018. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov, and checked the reference lists of all studies identified by the above methods. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and children with P vivax malaria using any regimen of either chloroquine or an artemisinin‐based combination therapy (ACT) plus primaquine with either higher daily doses for 14 days, shorter regimens with the same total dose, or using weekly dosing regimens; compared with the usual standard regimens recommended by the WHO (0.25 or 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days), or a comparison of these two WHO‐recommended regimens. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and quality, and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. We grouped efficacy data according to length of follow‐up. We analysed safety data where this information was included. Main results High‐standard 14‐day course versus standard 14‐day course Two RCTs compared the high‐standard 14‐day regimen with the standard 14‐day regimen. People with G6PD deficiency and pregnant or lactating women were excluded. We do not know if there is any difference in P vivax recurrences at 6 months with 0.5 mg/kg/day primaquine therapy for 14 days compared to 0.25 mg/kg/day primaquine therapy for 14 days (with chloroquine: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.43, 639 participants, very low‐certainty evidence; with chloroquine or an ACT: RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.17 to 7.09, 38 participants, very low‐certainty evidence). No serious adverse events were reported. We do not know whether there is a difference in adverse events with the higher dosage (very low‐certainty evidence). 0.5 mg/kg/day primaquine for 7 days versus standard 14‐day course Five RCTs compared 0.5 mg/kg/day primaquine for 7 days with the standard 14‐day course. There may be little or no difference in P vivax recurrences at 6 to 7 months when using the same total dose (0.5 mg/kg/day to 210 mg) over 7 days as compared to 14 days (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.39; 1211 participants; low‐certainty evidence). No serious adverse events were reported. There may be little or no difference in the number of adverse events known to occur with primaquine between the primaquine shorter regimen as compared to the longer regimen (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.76; 1154 participants; low‐certainty evidence). We do not know whether there is any difference in the frequency of anaemia or discontinuation of treatment between groups (very low‐certainty evidence). Three trials excluded people with G6PD deficiency, and two did not provide this information. Pregnant and lactating women were either excluded or no details were provided regarding their inclusion or exclusion. 0.75 mg/kg primaquine/week for 8 weeks versus high‐standard course One RCT compared weekly primaquine with the high‐standard 14‐day course. G6PD‐deficient patients were not randomized but were included in the weekly primaquine group. Only one G6PD‐deficient participant was detected during the trial. We do not know whether weekly primaquine increases or decreases recurrences of P vivax compared to the 14‐day regimen at 11 months' follow‐up (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.37 to 27.6; 122 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). No serious adverse events and no episodes of anaemia were reported. Three other RCTs evaluated different alternative regimens and doses of primaquine, but one of these RCTs did not have results available, and two used regimens that have not been widely used and the evidence was of very low certainty. Authors' conclusions Although limited data were available, the analysis did not detect a difference in recurrence between the 7‐day regimen and the standard 14‐day regimen of 0.5 mg/kg/day primaquine, and no serious adverse events were reported in G6PD‐normal participants taking 0.5 mg/kg/day of primaquine. This shorter regimen may be useful in G6PD‐normal patients if there are treatment adherence concerns. Further large high‐quality RCTs are needed, such as the IMPROV trial, with more standardised comparison regimens and longer follow‐up to help resolve uncertainties., Primaquine to cure people with Plasmodium vivax malaria: comparing dosing schedules Plasmodium vivax malaria can sometimes cause potentially life‐threatening illness, and the infection continues to make many people unwell. The infection includes a liver stage, and this requires primaquine to eradicate it and prevent the infection recrudescing. However, the current dosing schedule requires 14 days of daily treatment. What are the concerns about primaquine? Primaquine is the only drug currently recommended to treat the liver parasites in P vivax malaria. It can cause anaemia in people with glucose‐6‐phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, which is a relatively common genetic blood disorder. Shorter regimens would help reduce the risk of default with the current two‐week regimen. What does the research say? We summarized trials that compared the World Health Organization (WHO)‐recommended primaquine regimen of 15 to 30 mg per day for 14 days with the same or higher doses of primaquine given over different lengths of time to determine whether alternative regimens were as successful as the recommended courses at preventing future episodes of P vivax malaria. We searched for trials up to 17 December 2018, and included nine randomized controlled trials (studies in which participants are assigned to one of two or more treatment groups in a random manner) in our analysis. When using 30 mg per day compared to 15 mg per day primaquine therapy for 14 days, we do not know if there is any difference in P vivax recurrences at 6 months (very low‐certainty evidence). No serious side effects were reported, but it is unclear whether or not there is a difference in other side effects between doses (very low‐certainty evidence). When using 30 mg primaquine per day for 7 days compared to 15 mg per day for 14 days, there may be no difference in P vivax recurrences at 6 to 7 months (low‐certainty evidence). No serious adverse events were reported. There may be no difference in the number of side effects known to occur with primaquine between the two treatment regimens (low‐certainty evidence). We do not know whether weekly primaquine increases or decreases recurrences of P vivax compared to the 14‐day regimen at 11 months' follow‐up (very low‐certainty evidence). Further large high‐quality RCTs are needed, such as the IMPROV trial, to help improve the certainty of the evidence around alternative regimens. How up‐to‐date is this review? The review authors searched for studies up to 17 December 2018.

Background: Mosquitoes become infected with Plasmodium when they ingest gametocyte-stage parasites from an infected person's blood. Plasmodium falciparum gametocytes are sensitive to the drug primaquine (PQ) and other 8-aminoquinolines (8AQ); these drugs could prevent parasite transmission from infected people to mosquitoes, and consequently reduce the incidence of malaria. However, PQ will not directly benefit the individual, and could be harmful to those with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. In 2010, The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended a single dose of PQ at 0.75 mg/kg, alongside treatment for P. falciparum malaria to reduce transmission in areas approaching malaria elimination. In 2013 the WHO revised this to 0.25 mg/kg due to concerns about safety. Objectives To assess whether giving PQ or an alternative 8AQ alongside treatment for P. falciparum malaria reduces malaria transmission, and to estimate the frequency of severe or haematological adverse events when PQ is given for this purpose. Search methods: We searched the following databases up to 10 Feb 2014 for trials: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT); and the WHO trials search portal using 'malaria*', 'falciparum', and 'primaquine' as search terms. In addition, we searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies, and contacted researchers and organizations. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing PQ (or alternative 8AQ) given as a single dose or short course alongside treatment for P. falciparum malaria with malaria treatment given without PQ/8AQ in adults or children. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened all abstracts, applied inclusion criteria, and extracted data. We sought evidence of an impact on transmission (community incidence), infectiousness (mosquitoes infected from humans) and potential infectiousness (gametocyte measures). We calculated the area under the curve (AUC) for gametocyte density over time for comparisons for which data were available. We sought data on haematological and other adverse effects, as well as secondary outcomes of asexual clearance time and recrudescence. We stratified by whether the malaria treatment regimen included an artemisinin derivative or not; by PQ dose category (low < 0.4 mg/kg; medium ≥ 0.4 to < 0.6 mg/kg; high ≥ 0.6 mg/kg); and by PQ schedules. We used the GRADE approach to assess evidence quality. Main results: We included 17 RCTs and one quasi-RCT. Eight studies tested for G6PD status: six then excluded participants with G6PD deficiency, one included only those with G6PD deficiency, and one included all irrespective of status. The remaining ten trials either did not report on whether they tested (8), or reported that they did not test (2). Nine trials included study arms with artemisinin-based malaria treatment regimens, and eleven included study arms with non-artemisinin-based treatments. Only two trials evaluated PQ given at low doses (0.25 mg/kg in one and 0.1 mg/kg in the other). PQ with artemisinin-based treatments: No trials evaluated effects on malaria transmission directly (incidence, prevalence, or entomological inoculation rate), and none evaluated infectiousness to mosquitoes. For potential infectiousness, the proportion of people with detectable gametocytaemia on day eight was reduced by around two thirds with high dose PQ category (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.37, seven trials, 1380 participants, high quality evidence), and with medium dose PQ category (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.59, two trials, 269 participants, high quality evidence), but the trial evaluating low dose PQ category (0.1 mg/kg) did not demonstrate an effect (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.02, one trial, 223 participants, low quality evidence). Reductions in log(10)AUC estimates for gametocytaemia on days 1 to 43 with medium and high doses ranged from 24.3% to 87.5%. For haemolysis, one trial reported percent change in mean haemoglobin against baseline, and did not detect a difference between the two arms (very low quality evidence). PQ with non-artemisinin treatments: No trials assessed effects on malaria transmission directly. Two small trials from the same laboratory evaluated infectiousness to mosquitoes, and report that infectivity was eliminated on day 8 in 15/15 patients receiving high dose PQ compared to 1/15 in the control group (low quality evidence). For potential infectiousness, the proportion of people with detectable gametocytaemia on day 8 was reduced by around half with high dose PQ category (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.70, three trials, 206 participants, high quality evidence), and by around a third with medium dose category (RR 0.62, 0.50 to 0.76, two trials, 283 participants, high quality evidence), but the single trial using low dose PQ category did not demonstrate a difference between groups (one trial, 59 participants, very low quality evidence). Reduction in log(10)AUC for gametocytaemia days 1 to 43 were 24.3% and 27.1% for two arms in one trial giving medium dose PQ. No trials systematically sought evidence of haemolysis. Two trials evaluated the 8AQ bulaquine, and suggest the effects may be greater than PQ, but the small number of participants (n = 112) preclude a definite conclusion. Authors' conclusions: In individual patients, PQ added to malaria treatments reduces gametocyte prevalence when given in doses greater than 0.4 mg/kg. Whether this translates into preventing people transmitting malaria to mosquitoes has rarely been tested in controlled trials, but there appeared to be a strong reduction in infectiousness in the two small studies that evaluated this. No included trials evaluated whether this policy has an impact on community malaria transmission either in low-endemic settings approaching elimination, or in highly-endemic settings where many people are infected but have no symptoms and are unlikely to be treated. For the currently recommended low dose regimen, there is little direct evidence to be confident that the effect of reduction in gametocyte prevalence is preserved. Most trials excluded people with G6PD deficiency, and thus there is little reliable evidence from controlled trials of the safety of PQ in single dose or short course.

Background: Mosquitoes become infected with malaria when they ingest gametocyte stages of the parasite from the blood of a human host. Plasmodium falciparum gametocytes are sensitive to the drug primaquine (PQ). The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends giving a single dose or short course of PQ alongside primary treatment for people ill with P. falciparum infection to reduce malaria transmission. Gametocytes themselves cause no symptoms, so this intervention does not directly benefit individuals. PQ causes haemolysis in some people with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency so may not be safe. Objectives: To assess whether a single dose or short course of PQ added to treatments for malaria caused by P. falciparum infection reduces malaria transmission and is safe. Search methods: We searched the following databases up to 10 April 2012 for studies: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the WHO trials search portal using 'malaria*', 'falciparum', and 'primaquine' as search terms. In addition, we searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies, and we contacted likely researchers and organizations for relevant trials. Selection criteria: Trials of mass treatment of whole populations (or actively detected fever or malaria cases within such populations) with antimalarial drugs, compared to treatment with the same drug plus PQ; or patients with clinical malaria being treated for malaria at health facilities randomized to short course/single dose PQ versus no PQ. Data collection and analysis: Two authors (PMG and HG) independently screened all abstracts, applied inclusion criteria, and abstracted data. We sought data on the effect of PQ on malaria transmission intensity, participant infectiousness, the number of participants with gametocytes, and gametocyte density over time. We stratified results by primary treatment drug as this may modify any PQ effect. We calculated the area under the curve (AUC) for gametocyte density over time for comparisons for which data were available, and also sought data on haematologic and other adverse effects. We used GRADE guidelines to assess evidence quality, and this is reflected in the wording of the results: high quality ("PQ reduces .... "); moderate quality ("PQ probably reduces ... "); low quality ("PQ may reduce .... "); and very low quality ("we don't know if PQ reduces .... "). Main results: We included 11 individually randomized trials, with a total of 1776 individuals. The 11 trials included 20 comparisons with partner drugs, which included chloroquine (CQ), sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP), mefloquine (MQ), quinine (QN), artesunate (AS), and a variety of artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs). For G6PD deficiency, studies either did not test (one study), tested and included all (one study), included only G6PD deficient (one study), excluded G6PD deficient (two studies), or made no comment (six studies). None of the trials we included assessed effects on malaria transmission (incidence, prevalence, or entomological inoculation rate (EIR)) in the trial area. With non-artemisinin drug regimens, PQ may reduce the infectiousness to mosquitoes of individuals treated, based on one small study with large effects (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.06 on day 8 after treatment, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). Participants who received PQ had fewer circulating gametocytes up to day 43 (log(10) AUC relative decrease from 24.3 to 27.1%, one study (two comparisons), moderate quality evidence); and there were 38% fewer people with gametocytes on day 8 (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.76, four studies (five comparisons), moderate quality evidence). We did not identify any study that looked for effects of the drug on haemolytic anaemia. With artemisinin-based drug regimens, we do not know if PQ influences infectiousness to mosquitoes, as no study has examined this directly. PQ probably reduces infectiousness, based on reduction in log(10) AUC (relative decrease range from 26.1% to 87.5%, two studies (six comparisons), moderate quality evidence); and reduces by 88% the number of participants with gametocytes on day 8 (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.20, four studies (eight comparisons), moderate quality evidence). When used with artemisinin-based regimens, we do not know if PQ results in haemolytic anaemia; one trial reported percent change in mean haemoglobin against baseline, and for the PQ group this indicated a significantly greater drop at day 8 in those given PQ (very low quality evidence). Overall, the safety of PQ used in single dose or short course was poorly evaluated. Authors' conclusions: We do not know whether PQ added to treatment regimens for patients with P. falciparum infection reduces transmission of malaria. In individual patients, it reduces gametocyte prevalence and density. In practical terms, even if PQ results in large reductions in gametocytes in people being treated for malaria, there is no reliable evidence that this will reduce transmission in a malaria-endemic community, where many people are infected but have no symptoms and are unlikely to be treated. Since PQ is acting as a monotherapy against gametocytes, there is a risk of the parasite developing resistance to the drug. In terms of harms, there is insufficient evidence from trials to know whether the drug can be used safely in this way in populations where G6PD deficiency occurs. In light of these doubts about safety, and lack of evidence of any benefit in reducing transmission, countries should question whether to continue to use PQ routinely in primary treatment of malaria. Further synthesis of observational data on safety and new trials may help elucidate a role for PQ in malaria elimination, or in situations where most infected individuals are symptomatic and receive treatment.

Background A malaria vaccine is needed because of the heavy burden of mortality and morbidity due to this disease. This review describes the results of trials of blood (asexual)-stage vaccines. Several are under development, but only one (MSP/RESA, also known as Combination B) has been tested in randomized controlled trials. Objectives To assess the effect of blood-stage malaria vaccines in preventing infection, disease, and death. Search strategy In March 2006, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Science Citation Index. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of articles, and contacted organizations and researchers in the field. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials comparing blood-stage vaccines (other than SPf66) against P. falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae, or P. ovale with placebo, control vaccine, or routine antimalarial control measures in people of any age receiving a challenge malaria infection. Data collection and analysis Both authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Results for dichotomous data were expressed as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results Five trials of MSP/RESA vaccine with 217 participants were included; all five reported on safety, and two on efficacy. No severe or systemic adverse effects were reported at doses of 13 to 15 microg of each antigen (39 to 45 microg total). One small efficacy trial with 17 non-immune participants with blood-stage parasites showed no reduction or delay in parasite growth rates after artificial challenge. In the second efficacy trial in 120 children aged five to nine years in Papua New Guinea, episodes of clinical malaria were not reduced, but MSP/RESA significantly reduced parasite density only in children who had not been pretreated with an antimalarial drug (sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine). Infections with the 3D7 parasite subtype of MSP2 (the variant included in the vaccine) were reduced (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.57; 719 participants) while those with the other main subtype, FC27, were not (720 participants). Authors' conclusions The MSP/RESA (Combination B) vaccine shows promise as a way to reduce the severity of malaria episodes, but the effect of the vaccine is MSP2 variant-specific. Pretreatment for malaria during a vaccine trial makes the results difficult to interpret, particularly with the relatively small sample sizes of early trials. The results show that blood-stage vaccines may play a role and merit further development.

BACKGROUND: Four types of malaria vaccine, SPf66 and MSP/RESA vaccines (against the asexual stages of the Plasmodium parasite) and CS‐NANP and RTS,S vaccines (against the sporozoite stages), have been tested in randomized controlled trials in endemic areas. OBJECTIVES: To assess malaria vaccines against Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae and P ovale in preventing infection, disease and death. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (April 2004), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2004), EMBASE (1980 to April 2004), Science Citation Index (1981 to April 2004), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted organizations and researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing vaccines against Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae or P. ovale with placebo or routine antimalarial control measures in people of any age receiving a challenge malaria infection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen efficacy trials involving 10,971 participants were included. There were ten trials of SPf66 vaccine, four trials of CS‐NANP vaccines, two trials of RTS,S vaccine, and two of MSP/RESA vaccine. Results with SPf66 in reducing new malaria infections (P. falciparum) were heterogeneous: it was not effective in four African trials (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.14), but in five trials outside Africa the number of first attacks was reduced (Peto OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88). Trials to date have not indicated any serious adverse events with SPf66 vaccine. In three trials of CS‐NANP vaccines, there was no evidence for protection by these vaccines against P. falciparum malaria (Peto OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.93). In a small trial in non‐immune adults in the USA, RTS,S gave strong protection against experimental infection with P. falciparum. In a trial in an endemic area of the Gambia in semi‐immune people, there was a reduction in clinical malaria episodes in the second year of follow up, corresponding to a vaccine efficacy of 66% (CI 14% to 85%). In a trial in Papua New Guinea, MSP/RESA had no protective effect against episodes of clinical malaria. There was evidence of an effect on parasite density, but this differed according to whether the participants had been pretreated with sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine or not. The prevalence of infections with the parasite subtype of MSP2 in the vaccine was reduced compared with the other subtype (Peto OR 0.35, CI 0.23 to 0.53). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for protection by SPf66 vaccines against P. falciparum in Africa. There is a modest reduction in attacks of P. falciparum malaria following vaccination with SPf66 in other regions. Further research with SPf66 vaccines in South America or with new formulations of SPf66 may be justified. There was not enough evidence to evaluate the use of CS‐NANP vaccines. The RTS,S vaccine showed promising result, as did the MSP/RESA vaccine, but it should include the other main allelic form of MSP2. The MSP/RESA trial demonstrated that chemotherapy during a vaccine trial may reduce vaccine efficacy, and trials should consider very carefully whether this practice is justified. This review is in the process of being updated and divided into three reviews. The details are in the 'What's new' section.