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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |