Cargando…

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 Aus...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dow, Geoffrey S, McCarthy, William F, Reid, Mark, Smith, Bryan, Tang, Douglas, Shanks, G Dennis
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942710/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24502679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-13-49
_version_ 1782479110339035136
author Dow, Geoffrey S
McCarthy, William F
Reid, Mark
Smith, Bryan
Tang, Douglas
Shanks, G Dennis
author_facet Dow, Geoffrey S
McCarthy, William F
Reid, Mark
Smith, Bryan
Tang, Douglas
Shanks, G Dennis
author_sort Dow, Geoffrey S
collection PubMed
description 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).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3942710
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39427102014-03-14 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 Dow, Geoffrey S McCarthy, William F Reid, Mark Smith, Bryan Tang, Douglas Shanks, G Dennis Malar J Research 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). BioMed Central 2014-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3942710/ /pubmed/24502679 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-13-49 Text en Copyright © 2014 Dow et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Dow, Geoffrey S
McCarthy, William F
Reid, Mark
Smith, Bryan
Tang, Douglas
Shanks, G Dennis
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942710/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24502679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-13-49
work_keys_str_mv AT dowgeoffreys aretrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea
AT mccarthywilliamf aretrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea
AT reidmark aretrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea
AT smithbryan aretrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea
AT tangdouglas aretrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea
AT shanksgdennis aretrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea
AT dowgeoffreys retrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea
AT mccarthywilliamf retrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea
AT reidmark retrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea
AT smithbryan retrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea
AT tangdouglas retrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea
AT shanksgdennis retrospectiveanalysisoftheprotectiveefficacyoftafenoquineandmefloquineasprophylacticantimalarialsinnonimmuneindividualsduringdeploymenttoamalariaendemicarea