BackgroundMefloquine is one of four antimalarial agents commonly recommended for preventing malaria in travellers to malaria-endemic areas. Despite its high efficacy, there is controversy about its psychological side effects.ObjectivesTo summarize the efficacy and safety of mefloquine used as prophylaxis for malaria in travellers.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published on the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase (OVID); TOXLINE (https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/toxline.htm); and LILACS. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home) for trials in progress, using 'mefloquine', 'Lariam', and 'malaria' as search terms. The search date was 22 June 2017.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (for efficacy and safety) and non-randomized cohort studies (for safety). We compared prophylactic mefloquine with placebo, no treatment, or an alternative recommended antimalarial agent. Our study populations included all adults and children, including pregnant women.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of trials, extracted and analysed data. We compared dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prespecified adverse outcomes are included in 'Summary of findings' tables, with the best available estimate of the absolute frequency of each outcome in short-term international travellers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included 20 RCTs (11,470 participants); 35 cohort studies (198,493 participants); and four large retrospective analyses of health records (800,652 participants). Nine RCTs explicitly excluded participants with a psychiatric history, and 25 cohort studies stated that the choice of antimalarial agent was based on medical history and personal preference. Most RCTs and cohort studies collected data on self-reported or clinician-assessed symptoms, rather than formal medical diagnoses.Mefloquine efficacyOf 12 trials comparing mefloquine and placebo, none were performed in short-term international travellers, and most populations had a degree of immunity to malaria. The percentage of people developing a malaria episode in the control arm varied from 1% to 82% (median 22%) and 0% to 13% in the mefloquine group (median 1%).In four RCTs that directly compared mefloquine, atovaquone-proguanil and doxycycline in non-immune, short-term international travellers, only one clinical case of malaria occurred (4 trials, 1822 participants).Mefloquine safety versus atovaquone-proguanilParticipants receiving mefloquine were more likely to discontinue their medication due to adverse effects than atovaquone-proguanil users (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.31; 3 RCTs, 1438 participants; high-certainty evidence)....

BackgroundHaemolysis risk with single dose or short course primaquine was evaluated in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficient people.MethodsMajor electronic databases (to August 2016) were searched for single or short course 8-aminoquinolines (8-AQ) in (1) randomized comparisons against placebo in G6PD deficient people; and (2) observational comparisons in G6PD deficient compared to replete people. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, risk-of-bias, and extracted data.ResultsFive randomized controlled trials and four controlled observational cohorts were included. In G6PD deficient individuals, high-dose (0.75 mg/kg) PQ resulted in lower average haemoglobin levels at 7 days (mean difference [MD] −1.45 g/dl, 95% CI −2.17 to −0.74, 2 trials) and larger percentage fall from baseline to day 7 (MD −10.31%, 95% CI −17.69 to −2.92, 3 trials) compared to placebo. In G6PD deficient compared to replete people, average haemoglobin was lower at 7 days (MD −1.19 g/dl, 95% CI −1.94 to −0.44, 2 trials) and haemoglobin change from baseline to day 7 was greater (MD −9.10%, 95% CI −12.55 to −5.65, 5 trials). One small trial evaluated mid-range PQ dose (0.4–0.5 mg/kg) in G6PD deficient people, with no difference detected in average haemoglobin at day 7 compared to placebo. In one cohort comparing G6PD deficient and replete people there was a greater fall with G6PD deficiency (MD −4.99%, 95% CI −9.96 to −0.02). For low-dose PQ (0.1–0.25 mg/kg) in G6PD deficient people, haemoglobin change from baseline was similar to the placebo group (MD 1.72%, 95% CI −1.89 to 5.34, 2 trials). Comparing low dose PQ in G6PD deficient with replete people, the average haemoglobin was lower in the G6PD deficient group at 7 days (−0.57 g (95% CI −0.97 to −0.17, 1 trial)); although change from baseline was similar (MD −1.45%, 95% CI −5.69 to 2.78, 3 trials).ConclusionsFalls in average haemoglobin are less marked with the 0.1 to 0.25 mg/kg PQ than with the 0.75 mg/kg dose, and severe haemolytic events are not common. However, data were limited and the evidence GRADE was low or very low certainty.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-017-1989-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMany patients treated for tuberculosis (TB) in low and middle income countries are treated based on clinical suspicion without bacteriological confirmation. This is often due to lack of rapid simple accurate diagnostics and low healthcare provider confidence in the predictive value of current tests. We previously reported in an animal TB model that levels of host markers rapidly change in response to treatment initiation.MethodsWe assessed the potential of host biomarker kinetics of TB patients during the first two weeks of therapy to identify patients responding to treatment. Adult patients clinically diagnosed with and treated for TB, 29 in Nigeria and 24 in Nepal, were analyzed.ResultsChanges in concentrations of non-specific host biomarkers, particularly IP-10, in response to the first week of anti-TB therapy were strongly associated with bacteriological confirmation of TB. A decrease in IP-10 level of >300pg/ml between 0 and 7 days of treatment identified 75% of both smear-positive and smear-negative culture positive patients and correctly excluded TB in all nine culture negative patients.ConclusionsMonitoring of early IP-10 responses to treatment could form the basis of a simplified assay and could help identify patients who were erroneously clinically diagnosed with TB or those infected with drug resistant strains on inappropriate treatment. We believe this approach may be particularly appropriate for difficult to diagnose patients, e.g. smear-negative HIV-positive, or those with extra-pulmonary TB, often treated without bacterial confirmation.

Overall, the number of deaths that we could reliably attribute to the prophylactic use of mefloquine is very low.

IntroductionA single dose or short course of primaquine given to people infected with malaria may reduce transmission of Plasmodium falciparum through its effects on gametocytes. Primaquine is also known to cause haemolysis in people with variants of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the risk of adverse effects in people with G6PD deficiency given primaquine or other 8-aminoquinoline (8AQ) as a single dose or short course (less than 7 days).Methods and analysisWe will search the following databases: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. Prospective cohort studies, randomised and quasi-randomised trials that evaluated 8AQs for whatever reason in adults or children with a known G6PD deficiency will be included. Two authors will independently assess each study for eligibility, risk of bias and extract data.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Brief reports of the review findings will be disseminated directly to the appropriate audiences and the WHO Technical Expert Group in Malaria Chemotherapy. As no primary data collection will be undertaken, no additional formal ethical assessment and informed consent are required.Protocol registration in PROSPEROThe protocol is registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42013006518.