Malaria patient spectrum representation in therapeutic clinical trials of uncomplicated malaria: a scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: For the results of clinical trials to have external validity, the patients included in the study must be representative of the population presenting in the general clinical settings. A scoping literature review was performed to evaluate how the eligibility criteria used in anti-malarial efficacy and safety trials translate into patient selection. METHODS: A search of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) Clinical Trials Publication Library, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted to identify trials investigating anti-malarial efficacy and safety, published between 14th April 2001 and 31st December 2017. An updated search using the WWARN Clinical Trial Publication Library was undertaken to identify eligible publications from 1st January 2018 to 31st July 2021. The review included studies in patients of any age with uncomplicated malaria and any pharmaceutical therapeutic intervention administered. The proportion of trials with malaria-positive patients excluded was calculated and linked to the reported reason for exclusion. A subgroup analysis on eligibility criteria and trial baseline demographics was conducted to assess whether criteria are complied with when recruiting patients. RESULTS: Out of 847 studies, 176 (21%) trials were included in the final synthesis, screening a total of 157,516 malaria-positive patients, of whom 56,293 (36%) were enrolled and treated. Across the 176 studies included, 84 different inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified. The reason for exclusion of patients who tested positive for malaria was reported in 144 (82%) studies. Three criteria account for about 70% of malaria-positive patients excluded: mixed-species malaria infections or other specific Plasmodium species, parasite counts outside the set study ranges, and refusal of consent. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly two-thirds of the malaria-positive subjects who present to health facilities are systematically excluded from anti-malarial treatment trials. Reasons for exclusions are largely under-reported. Anti-malarial treatment in the general population is informed by studies on a narrow selection of patients who do not fully represent the totality of those seeking antimalarial treatment in routine practice. While entry criteria ensure consistency across trials, pragmatic trials are also necessary to supplement the information currently available and improve the external validity of the findings of malaria clinical trials.

Primaquine for uncomplicated Plasmodium vivax malaria in children younger than 15 years: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Primaquine, the only widely available treatment to prevent relapsing Plasmodium vivax malaria, is produced as 15 mg tablets, and new paediatric formulations are being developed. To inform the optimal primaquine dosing regimen for children, we aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of different primaquine dose strategies in children younger than 15 years. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review (Jan 1, 2000-July 26, 2024) for P vivax efficacy studies with at least one treatment group that was administered primaquine over multiple days, that enrolled children younger than 15 years, that followed up patients for at least 28 days, and that had data available for inclusion by June 30, 2022. Patients were excluded if they were aged 15 years or older, presented with severe malaria, received adjunctive antimalarials within 14 days of diagnosis, commenced primaquine more than 7 days after starting schizontocidal treatment, had a protocol violation in the original study, or were missing data on age, sex, or primaquine dose. Available individual patient data were collated and standardised. To evaluate efficacy, the risk of recurrent P vivax parasitaemia between days 7 and 180 was assessed by time-to-event analysis for different total mg/kg primaquine doses (low total dose of ∼3·5 mg/kg and high total dose of ∼7 mg/kg). To evaluate tolerability and safety, the following were assessed by daily mg/kg primaquine dose (low daily dose of ∼0·25 mg/kg, intermediate daily dose of ∼0·5 mg/kg, and high daily dose of ∼1 mg/kg): gastrointestinal symptoms (vomiting, anorexia, or diarrhoea) on days 5-7, haemoglobin decrease of at least 25% to less than 7g/dL (severe haemolysis), absolute change in haemoglobin from day 0 to days 2-3 or days 5-7, and any serious adverse events within 28 days. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021278085. FINDINGS: In total, 3514 children from 27 studies and 15 countries were included. The cumulative incidence of recurrence by day 180 was 51·4% (95% CI 47·0-55·9) following treatment without primaquine, 16·0% (12·4-20·3) following a low total dose of primaquine, and 10·2% (8·4-12·3) following a high total dose of primaquine. The hazard of recurrent P vivax parasitaemia in children younger than 15 years was reduced following primaquine at low total doses (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·17, 95% CI 0·11-0·25) and high total doses (0·09, 0·07-0·12), compared with no primaquine. In 525 children younger than 5 years, the relative rates of recurrence were also reduced, with an adjusted HR of 0·33 (95% CI 0·18-0·59) for a low total dose and 0·13 (0·08-0·21) for a high total dose of primaquine compared with no primaquine. The rate of recurrence following a high total dose was reduced compared with a low dose in children younger than 15 years (adjusted HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·35-0·85) and children younger than 5 years (0·41, 0·21-0·78). Compared with no primaquine, children treated with any dose of primaquine had a greater risk of gastrointestinal symptoms on days 5-7 after adjustment for confounders, with adjusted risks of 3·9% (95% CI 0-8·6) in children not treated with primaquine, 9·2% (0-18·7) with a low daily dose of primaquine, 6·8% (1·7-12·0) with an intermediate daily dose of primaquine, and 9·6% (4·8-14·3) with a high daily dose of primaquine. In children with 30% or higher glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) activity, there were few episodes of severe haemolysis following no primaquine (0·4%, 95% CI 0·1-1·5), a low daily dose (0·0%, 0·0-1·6), an intermediate daily dose (0·5%, 0·1-1·4), or a high daily dose (0·7%, 0·2-1·9). Of 15 possibly drug-related serious adverse events in children, two occurred following a low, four following an intermediate, and nine following a high daily dose of primaquine. INTERPRETATION: A high total dose of primaquine was highly efficacious in reducing recurrent P vivax parasitaemia in children compared with a low dose, particularly in children younger than 5 years. In children treated with high and intermediate daily primaquine doses compared with low daily doses, there was no increase in gastrointestinal symptoms or haemolysis (in children with 30% or higher G6PD activity), but there were more serious adverse events. FUNDING: Medicines for Malaria Venture, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Baseline results of a living systematic review for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations.

Background: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported in December 2019, many independent trials have been planned that aim to answer similar questions. Tools allowing researchers to review studies already underway can facilitate collaboration, cooperation and harmonisation. The Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) has undertaken a living systematic review (LSR) to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising characteristics of COVID-19 study registrations. Methods: Review of all eligible trial records identified by systematic searches as of 3 April 2020 and initial synthesis of clinical study characteristics were conducted. In partnership with Exaptive, an open access, cloud-based knowledge graph has been created using the results.  Results: There were 728 study registrations which met eligibility criteria and were still active. Median (25 th, 75 th percentile) sample size was 130 (60, 400) for all studies and 134 (70, 300) for RCTs. Eight lower middle and low income countries were represented among the planned recruitment sites. Overall 109 pharmacological interventions or advanced therapy medicinal products covering 23 drug categories were studied. Majority (57%, 62/109) of them were planned only in one study arm, either alone or in combination with other interventions. There were 49 distinct combinations studied with 90% (44/49) of them administered in only one or two study arms. The data and interactive platform are available at https://iddo.cognitive.city/. Conclusions:  Baseline review highlighted that the majority of investigations in the first three months of the outbreak were small studies with unique treatment arms, likely to be unpowered to provide solid evidence.  The continued work of this LSR will allow a more dependable overview of interventions tested, predict the likely strength of evidence generated, allow fast and informative filtering of relevant trials for specific user groups and provide the rapid guidance needed by investigators and funders to avoid duplication of efforts.