Primaquine alternative dosing schedules for preventing malaria relapse in people with Plasmodium vivax.

BACKGROUND: Plasmodium vivax liver stages (hypnozoites) may cause relapses, prolonging morbidity, and impeding malaria control and elimination. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends three schedules for primaquine: 0.25 mg/kg/day (standard), or 0.5 mg/kg/day (high standard) for 14 days, or 0.75 mg/kg once weekly for eight weeks, all of which can be difficult to complete. Since primaquine can cause haemolysis in individuals with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, clinicians may be reluctant to prescribe primaquine without G6PD testing, and recommendations when G6PD status is unknown must be based on an assessment of the risks and benefits of prescribing primaquine. Alternative safe and efficacious regimens are needed. 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-day courses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (Ovid); LILACS (BIREME); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 2 September 2019, and checked the reference lists of all identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and children with P vivax malaria using either chloroquine or artemisinin-based combination therapy plus primaquine at a total adult dose of at least 210 mg, compared with the WHO-recommended regimens of 0.25 or 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days. 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, partner drug, and trial location. We analysed safety data where included. MAIN RESULTS: 0.5 mg/kg/day for seven days versus standard 0.25 mg/kg/day for 14 days There may be little or no difference in P vivax recurrences at six to seven months when using the same total dose (210 mg adult dose) over seven days compared to 14 days (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 1211 participants; low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events were reported. We do not know if there is any difference in the number of adverse events resulting in discontinuation of primaquine (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.38; 5 RCTs, 1427 participants) or in the frequency of anaemia (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.91, 1 RCT, 240 participants) between the shorter and longer regimens (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials excluded people with G6PD deficiency; two did not provide this information. Pregnant and lactating women were either excluded or no details were provided. High-standard 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days versus standard 0.25 mg/kg/day for 14 days There may be little or no difference in P vivax recurrences at six months with 0.5 mg/kg/day primaquine for 14 days compared to 0.25 mg/kg/day for 14 days (RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.43; 2 RCTs, 677 participants, low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events were reported. We do not know whether there is a difference in adverse events resulting in discontinuation of treatment with the high-standard dosage (RR 4.19, 95% CI 0.90 to 19.60; 1 RCT, 778 participants, very low-certainty evidence). People with G6PD deficiency and pregnant or lactating women were excluded. 0.75 mg/kg/week for eight weeks versus high-standard 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days We do not know whether weekly primaquine increases or decreases recurrences of P vivax compared to high-standard 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days, at 11 months' follow-up (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.37 to 27.60; 1 RCT, 122 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events and no episodes of anaemia were reported. G6PD-deficient patients were not randomized but included in the weekly primaquine group (only one patient detected). 1 mg/kg/day for seven days versus high standard 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days There is probably little or no difference in P vivax recurrences at 12 months between 1.0 mg/kg/day primaquine for seven days and the high-standard 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; 2 RCTs, 2526 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be moderate to large increase in serious adverse events in the 1.0 mg/kg/day primaquine for seven days compared with the high-standard 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days, during 42 days follow-up (RR 12.03, 95% CI 1.57 to 92.30; 1 RCT, 1872 participants, low-certainty evidence). We do not know if there is a difference between 1.0 mg/kg/day primaquine for seven days and high-standard 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days in adverse events that resulted in discontinuation of treatment (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.49 to 12.87; 1 RCT, 2526 participants, very low-certainty evidence), nor if there is difference in frequency of anaemia by 42 days (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.41; 2 RCTs, 2440 participants, very low-certainty evidence). People with G6PD deficiency were excluded. Other regimens Two RCTs evaluated other rarely-used doses of primaquine, one of which had very high loss to follow-up. Adverse events were not reported. People with G6PD deficiency and pregnant or lactating women were excluded. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trials available to date do not detect a difference in recurrence between the following regimens: 1) 0.5 mg/kg/day for seven days versus standard 0.25 mg/kg/day for 14 days; 2) high-standard 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days versus standard 0.25 mg/kg/day for 14 days; 3) 0.75 mg/kg/week for eight weeks versus high-standard 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days; 4) 1 mg/kg/day for seven days versus high-standard 0.5 mg/kg/day for 14 days. There were no differences detected in adverse events for Comparisons 1, 2 or 3, but there may be more serious adverse events with the high seven-day course in Comparison 4. The shorter regimen of 0.5 mg/kg/day for seven days versus standard 0.25 mg/kg/day for 14 days may suit G6PD-normal patients. Further research will help increase the certainty of the findings and applicability in different settings.

WHO guidance for refugees in camps: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The circumstances of people living in refugee camps means that they have distinct medical care requirements. Our objective is to describe clinical guidance in published WHO guidelines that refer to people living in refugee camps; and how evidence and context are used and reported in making recommendations. DESIGN: Systematic review and analysis of WHO guidelines approved by the organisation's quality oversight body and published between 2007 and 2018. We sought for key terms related to camps and humanitarian settings, and identified text that included guidance. We compared this to Mèdecins Sans Frontièrs (MSF) guidelines. RESULTS: No WHO guideline published in the last 10 years focused exclusively on clinical guidance for healthcare in camp settings. Seven guidelines contained guidance about camps; three made recommendations for camps-but only two used formal evidence summaries. We did not find any structured consideration of the situation in camps used in the decision-making process. We examined seven WHO guidelines and six chapters within guidelines that concerned humanitarian settings: none of these documents contained recommendations based on formal evidence summaries for camp settings. One of the eight MSF guidelines was devoted to clinical care in refugees and the authors had clearly linked the health problems and recommendations to the setting, but this guideline is now >20 years old. CONCLUSIONS: There is an absence of up-to-date, evidence-based medical treatment guidelines from WHO and MSF that comprehensively address the clinical needs for people living in camps; and there is no common framework to help guideline groups formulate recommendations in these settings. WHO may wish to consider context of special populations more formally in the evidence to decision-making approach for clinical guidelines relevant to primary care.

Primaquine at alternative dosing schedules for preventing relapse in people with Plasmodium vivax malaria.

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 courseTwo 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 courseFive 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.

Vaccines for preventing typhoid fever.

BACKGROUND: Typhoid fever and paratyphoid fever continue to be important causes of illness and death, particularly among children and adolescents in south-central and southeast Asia. Two typhoid vaccines are widely available, Ty21a (oral) and Vi polysaccharide (parenteral). Newer typhoid conjugate vaccines are at varying stages of development and use. The World Health Organization has recently recommended a Vi tetanus toxoid (Vi-TT) conjugate vaccine, Typbar-TCV, as the preferred vaccine for all ages. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of vaccines for preventing typhoid fever. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2018, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and mRCT. We also searched the reference lists of all included trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing typhoid fever vaccines with other typhoid fever vaccines or with an inactive agent (placebo or vaccine for a different disease) in adults and children. Human challenge studies were not eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria and extracted data, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We computed vaccine efficacy per year of follow-up and cumulative three-year efficacy, stratifying for vaccine type and dose. The outcome addressed was typhoid fever, defined as isolation of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi in blood. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and efficacy (1 - RR as a percentage) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: In total, 18 RCTs contributed to the quantitative analysis in this review: 13 evaluated efficacy (Ty21a: 5 trials; Vi polysaccharide: 6 trials; Vi-rEPA: 1 trial; Vi-TT: 1 trial), and 9 reported on adverse events. All trials but one took place in typhoid-endemic countries. There was no information on vaccination in adults aged over 55 years of age, pregnant women, or travellers. Only one trial included data on children under two years of age.Ty21a vaccine (oral vaccine, three doses)A three-dose schedule of Ty21a vaccine probably prevents around half of typhoid cases during the first three years after vaccination (cumulative efficacy 2.5 to 3 years: 50%, 95% CI 35% to 61%, 4 trials, 235,239 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). These data include patients aged 3 to 44 years.Compared with placebo, this vaccine probably does not cause more vomiting, diarrhoea, nausea or abdominal pain (2 trials, 2066 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), headache, or rash (1 trial, 1190 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however, fever (2 trials, 2066 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) is probably more common following vaccination.Vi polysaccharide vaccine (injection, one dose)A single dose of Vi polysaccharide vaccine prevents around two-thirds of typhoid cases in the first year after vaccination (year 1: 69%, 95% CI 63% to 74%; 3 trials, 99,979 participants; high-certainty evidence). In year 2, trial results were more variable, with the vaccine probably preventing between 45% and 69% of typhoid cases (year 2: 59%, 95% CI 45% to 69%; 4 trials, 194,969 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). These data included participants aged 2 to 55 years of age.The three-year cumulative efficacy of the vaccine may be around 55% (95% CI 30% to 70%; 11,384 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence). These data came from a single trial conducted in South Africa in the 1980s in participants aged 5 to 15 years.Compared with placebo, this vaccine probably did not increase the incidence of fever (3 trials, 132,261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or erythema (3 trials, 132,261 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, swelling (3 trials, 1767 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and pain at the injection site (1 trial, 667 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) were more common in the vaccine group.Vi-rEPA vaccine (two doses)Administration of two doses of the Vi-rEPA vaccine probably prevents between 50% and 96% of typhoid cases during the first two years after vaccination (year 1: 94%, 95% CI 75% to 99%; year 2: 87%, 95% CI 56% to 96%, 1 trial, 12,008 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). These data came from a single trial with children two to five years of age conducted in Vietnam.Compared with placebo, both the first and the second dose of this vaccine increased the risk of fever (1 trial, 12,008 and 11,091 participants, low-certainty evidence) and the second dose increase the incidence of swelling at the injection site (one trial, 11,091 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).Vi-TT vaccine (two doses)We are uncertain of the efficacy of administration of two doses of Vi-TT (PedaTyph) in typhoid cases in children during the first year after vaccination (year 1: 94%, 95% CI -1% to 100%, 1 trial, 1625 participants; very low-certainty evidence). These data come from a single cluster-randomized trial in children aged six months to 12 years and conducted in India. For single dose Vi-TT (Typbar-TCV), we found no efficacy trials evaluating the vaccine with natural exposure.There were no reported serious adverse effects in RCTs of any of the vaccines studied. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The licensed Ty21a and Vi polysaccharide vaccines are efficacious in adults and children older than two years in endemic countries. The Vi-rEPA vaccine is just as efficacious, although data is only available for children. The new Vi-TT vaccine (PedaTyph) requires further evaluation to determine if it provides protection against typhoid fever. At the time of writing, there were only efficacy data from a human challenge setting in adults on the Vi-TT vaccine (Tybar), which clearly justify the ongoing field trials to evaluate vaccine efficacy.