Intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in infants.

IF 1.3 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRONOMY
Ekpereonne B Esu, Chioma Oringanje, Martin M Meremikwu
{"title":"Intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in infants.","authors":"Ekpereonne B Esu, Chioma Oringanje, Martin M Meremikwu","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD011525.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intermittent preventive treatment could help prevent malaria in infants (IPTi) living in areas of moderate to high malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) policy recommended IPTi in 2010, but its adoption in countries has been limited.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the effects of intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) with antimalarial drugs to prevent malaria in infants living in malaria-endemic areas.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the following sources up to 3 December 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), LILACS (Bireme), and reference lists of articles. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal for ongoing trials up to 3 December 2018.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IPT to placebo or no intervention in infants (defined as young children aged between 1 to 12 months) in malaria-endemic areas.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>The primary outcome was clinical malaria (fever plus asexual parasitaemia). Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted data. We summarized dichotomous outcomes and count data using risk ratios (RR) and rate ratios respectively, and presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted protective efficacy values and their 95% CIs; when an included trial did not report this data, we calculated these values from the RR or rate ratio with its 95% CI. Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 12 trials that enrolled 19,098 infants; all were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Three trials were cluster-RCTs. IPTi with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) was evaluated in 10 trials from 1999 to 2013 (n = 15,256). Trials evaluating ACTs included dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (1 trial, 147 participants; year 2013), amodiaquine-artesunate (1 study, 684 participants; year 2008), and SP-artesunate (1 trial, 676 participants; year 2008). The earlier studies evaluated IPTi with SP, and were conducted in Tanzania (in 1999 and 2006), Mozambique (2004), Ghana (2004 to 2005), Gabon (2005), Kenya (2008), and Mali (2009). One trial evaluated IPTi with amodiaquine in Tanzania (2000). Later studies included three conducted in Kenya (2008), Tanzania (2008), and Uganda (2013), evaluating IPTi in multiple trial arms that included artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT). Although the effect size varied over time and between drugs, overall IPTi impacts on the incidence of clinical malaria overall, with a 27% reduction (rate ratio 0.73, 0.65 to 0.82; 10 studies, 10,602 participants). The effect of SP appeared to attenuate over time, with trials conducted after 2009 showing little or no effect of the intervention. IPTi with SP probably resulted in fewer episodes of clinical malaria (rate ratio 0.79, 0.74 to 0.85; 8 trials, 8774 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), anaemia (rate ratio 0.82, 0.68 to 0.98; 6 trials, 7438 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), parasitaemia (rate ratio 0.66, 0.56 to 0.79; 1 trial, 1200 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital admissions (rate ratio 0.85, 0.78 to 0.93; 7 trials, 7486 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). IPTi with SP probably made little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.93, 0.74 to 1.15; 9 trials, 14,588 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Since 2009, IPTi trials have evaluated ACTs and indicate impact on clinical malaria and parasitaemia. A small trial of DHAP in 2013 shows substantive effects on clinical malaria (RR 0.42, 0.33 to 0.54; 1 trial, 147 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and parasitaemia (moderate-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>In areas of sub-Saharan Africa, giving antimalarial drugs known to be effective against the malaria parasite at the time to infants as IPT probably reduces the risk of clinical malaria, anaemia, and hospital admission. Evidence from SP studies over a 19-year period shows declining efficacy, which may be due to increasing drug resistance. Combinations with ACTs appear promising as suitable alternatives for IPTi. 2 December 2019 Up to date All studies incorporated from most recent search All eligible published studies found in the last search (3 Dec, 2018) were included.</p>","PeriodicalId":23536,"journal":{"name":"Weed Biology and Management","volume":"17 1","pages":"CD011525"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6887842/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Weed Biology and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011525.pub2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Intermittent preventive treatment could help prevent malaria in infants (IPTi) living in areas of moderate to high malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) policy recommended IPTi in 2010, but its adoption in countries has been limited.

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) with antimalarial drugs to prevent malaria in infants living in malaria-endemic areas.

Search methods: We searched the following sources up to 3 December 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), LILACS (Bireme), and reference lists of articles. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal for ongoing trials up to 3 December 2018.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IPT to placebo or no intervention in infants (defined as young children aged between 1 to 12 months) in malaria-endemic areas.

Data collection and analysis: The primary outcome was clinical malaria (fever plus asexual parasitaemia). Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted data. We summarized dichotomous outcomes and count data using risk ratios (RR) and rate ratios respectively, and presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted protective efficacy values and their 95% CIs; when an included trial did not report this data, we calculated these values from the RR or rate ratio with its 95% CI. Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

Main results: We included 12 trials that enrolled 19,098 infants; all were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Three trials were cluster-RCTs. IPTi with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) was evaluated in 10 trials from 1999 to 2013 (n = 15,256). Trials evaluating ACTs included dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (1 trial, 147 participants; year 2013), amodiaquine-artesunate (1 study, 684 participants; year 2008), and SP-artesunate (1 trial, 676 participants; year 2008). The earlier studies evaluated IPTi with SP, and were conducted in Tanzania (in 1999 and 2006), Mozambique (2004), Ghana (2004 to 2005), Gabon (2005), Kenya (2008), and Mali (2009). One trial evaluated IPTi with amodiaquine in Tanzania (2000). Later studies included three conducted in Kenya (2008), Tanzania (2008), and Uganda (2013), evaluating IPTi in multiple trial arms that included artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT). Although the effect size varied over time and between drugs, overall IPTi impacts on the incidence of clinical malaria overall, with a 27% reduction (rate ratio 0.73, 0.65 to 0.82; 10 studies, 10,602 participants). The effect of SP appeared to attenuate over time, with trials conducted after 2009 showing little or no effect of the intervention. IPTi with SP probably resulted in fewer episodes of clinical malaria (rate ratio 0.79, 0.74 to 0.85; 8 trials, 8774 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), anaemia (rate ratio 0.82, 0.68 to 0.98; 6 trials, 7438 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), parasitaemia (rate ratio 0.66, 0.56 to 0.79; 1 trial, 1200 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital admissions (rate ratio 0.85, 0.78 to 0.93; 7 trials, 7486 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). IPTi with SP probably made little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.93, 0.74 to 1.15; 9 trials, 14,588 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Since 2009, IPTi trials have evaluated ACTs and indicate impact on clinical malaria and parasitaemia. A small trial of DHAP in 2013 shows substantive effects on clinical malaria (RR 0.42, 0.33 to 0.54; 1 trial, 147 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and parasitaemia (moderate-certainty evidence).

Authors' conclusions: In areas of sub-Saharan Africa, giving antimalarial drugs known to be effective against the malaria parasite at the time to infants as IPT probably reduces the risk of clinical malaria, anaemia, and hospital admission. Evidence from SP studies over a 19-year period shows declining efficacy, which may be due to increasing drug resistance. Combinations with ACTs appear promising as suitable alternatives for IPTi. 2 December 2019 Up to date All studies incorporated from most recent search All eligible published studies found in the last search (3 Dec, 2018) were included.

婴儿疟疾的间歇性预防治疗。
背景:间歇性预防治疗(IPTi)可帮助生活在撒哈拉以南非洲中度至高度疟疾传播地区的婴儿预防疟疾。世界卫生组织(WHO)于 2010 年提出了间歇性预防治疗政策建议,但各国对该政策的采纳程度有限:评估使用抗疟药物进行间歇性预防治疗 (IPT) 对疟疾流行地区婴儿预防疟疾的效果:截至 2018 年 12 月 3 日,我们检索了以下资料来源:Cochrane 传染病组专门登记簿、CENTRAL(Cochrane 图书馆)、MEDLINE(PubMed)、Embase(OVID)、LILACS(Bireme)以及文章的参考文献列表。我们还检索了对照试验元注册中心(mRCT)和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)门户网站,以了解截至 2018 年 12 月 3 日正在进行的试验:我们纳入的随机对照试验(RCT)对疟疾流行地区的婴儿(定义为1至12个月的幼儿)进行了IPT与安慰剂或无干预措施的比较:主要结果是临床疟疾(发烧和无性寄生虫血症)。两位综述作者独立评估试验的纳入情况、评估偏倚风险并提取数据。我们分别使用风险比 (RR) 和比率比总结了二分结果和计数数据,并用 95% 置信区间 (CI) 表示所有测量值。我们提取了保护性疗效值及其 95% CI;当纳入的试验未报告该数据时,我们根据 RR 或比率比及其 95% CI 计算出这些值。在适当的情况下,我们将数据合并进行荟萃分析,并采用 GRADE 方法评估证据的确定性:我们纳入了 12 项试验,共招募了 19,098 名婴儿;所有试验均在撒哈拉以南非洲地区进行。其中三项试验为分组试验。1999年至2013年期间的10项试验对使用磺胺乙胺嘧啶(SP)的IPTi进行了评估(n = 15,256)。评估青蒿素综合疗法的试验包括双氢青蒿素-哌拉喹(1项试验,147名参与者;2013年)、阿莫地喹-青蒿琥酯(1项研究,684名参与者;2008年)和SP-青蒿琥酯(1项试验,676名参与者;2008年)。早期的研究评估了使用 SP 的 IPTi,分别在坦桑尼亚(1999 年和 2006 年)、莫桑比克(2004 年)、加纳(2004 年至 2005 年)、加蓬(2005 年)、肯尼亚(2008 年)和马里(2009 年)进行。在坦桑尼亚进行的一项试验评估了使用阿莫地喹的 IPTi(2000 年)。后来的研究包括在肯尼亚(2008 年)、坦桑尼亚(2008 年)和乌干达(2013 年)进行的三项研究,对包括青蒿素类复方疗法 (ACT) 在内的多个试验组中的 IPTi 进行了评估。虽然效果大小随时间和药物的不同而变化,但总体而言,IPTi对临床疟疾发病率的总体影响降低了27%(比率比为0.73,0.65至0.82;10项研究,10,602名参与者)。随着时间的推移,SP 的效果似乎有所减弱,2009 年后进行的试验显示干预效果很小或没有效果。使用 SP 的 IPTi 可能会减少临床疟疾发病率(比率为 0.79,0.74 至 0.85;8 项试验,8774 名参与者,中度确定性证据)、贫血(比率为 0.82,0.68 至 0.98;6 项试验,7438 名参与者,中度确定性证据)和疟原虫感染率(比率为 0.72,0.74 至 0.85;8 项试验,8774 名参与者,中度确定性证据)。98;6 项试验,7438 名参与者,中度确定性证据)、寄生虫血症(比率为 0.66,0.56 至 0.79;1 项试验,1200 名参与者,中度确定性证据)和较少入院(比率为 0.85,0.78 至 0.93;7 项试验,7486 名参与者,中度确定性证据)。使用 SP 的 IPTi 对全因死亡率的影响可能很小或没有影响(风险比 0.93,0.74 至 1.15;9 项试验,14588 名参与者,中度确定性证据)。自 2009 年以来,IPTi 试验对青蒿素综合疗法进行了评估,并显示了对临床疟疾和寄生虫血症的影响。2013年,一项关于DHAP的小型试验显示,DHAP对临床疟疾(RR 0.42,0.33至0.54;1项试验,147名参与者,中度确定性证据)和寄生虫血症(中度确定性证据)有实质性影响:作者的结论:在撒哈拉以南非洲地区,给婴儿服用已知对疟原虫有效的抗疟药物作为 IPT,可能会降低临床疟疾、贫血和入院的风险。长达 19 年的 SP 研究表明,疗效正在下降,这可能是由于抗药性的增加。与青蒿素综合疗法(ACTs)联合使用似乎很有希望成为IPTi的合适替代品。2019 年 12 月 2 日 截至日期 最近一次检索中纳入的所有研究 最近一次检索(2018 年 12 月 3 日)中发现的所有符合条件的已发表研究均被纳入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Weed Biology and Management
Weed Biology and Management 农林科学-农艺学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Weed Biology and Management is an international journal, published four times per year. The journal accepts contributions in the form of original research and review articles in all aspects of weed science. Contributions from weed scientists in the Asia–Pacific region are particularly welcomed. The content of the contributions may relate to weed taxonomy, ecology and physiology, weed management and control methodologies, herbicide behaviors in plants, soils and environment, utilization of weeds and other aspects of weed science. All contributions must be of sufficient quality to extend our knowledge in weed science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信