Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 16(10): 1134-1144, 2016 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27394191

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Malaria remains a major global public health concern, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The RTS,S/AS01 malaria candidate vaccine was reviewed by the European Medicines Agency and received a positive scientific opinion; WHO subsequently recommended pilot implementation in sub-Saharan African countries. Because malaria and HIV overlap geographically, HIV-infected children should be considered for RTS,S/AS01 vaccination. We therefore aimed to assess the safety of RTS,S/AS01 in HIV-infected children at two sites in western Kenya. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial at the clinical trial sites of the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Walter Reed Army Institute of research in Kisumu and the KEMRI/US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Siaya. Eligible participants were infants and children aged from 6 weeks to 17 months with WHO stage 1 or 2 HIV disease (documented positive by DNA PCR), whether or not they were receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART). We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive three doses of either RTS,S/AS01 or rabies vaccine (both 0·5 mL per dose by intramuscular injection), given once per month at 0, 1, and 2 months. We did the treatment allocation using a web-based central randomisation system stratified by age (6 weeks-4 months, 5-17 months), and by baseline CD4% (<10, 10-14, 15-19, and ≥20). Data were obtained in an observer-blind manner, and the vaccine recipient, their parent or carer, the funder, and investigators responsible for the assessment of endpoints were all masked to treatment allocation (only staff responsible for the preparation and administration of the vaccines were aware of the assignment and these individuals played no other role in the study). We provided ART, even if the participants were not receiving ART before the study, and daily co-trimoxazole for prevention of opportunistic infections. The primary outcome was the occurrence of serious adverse events until 14 months after dose 1 of the vaccine, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01148459. FINDINGS: Between July 30, 2010, and May 24, 2013, we enrolled 200 children to our study and randomly assigned 99 to receive RTS,S/AS01 and 101 to receive rabies vaccine. 177 (89%) of the 200 children enrolled completed 14 months of follow-up. Serious adverse events were noted in 41 (41·4%, 95% CI 31·6-51·8) of 99 RTS,S/AS01 recipients and 37 (36·6%, 27·3-46·8) of 101 rabies-vaccine recipients (relative risk 1·1, 95% CI 0·8-1·6). 20 (20·2%, 95% CI 12·8-29·5) of 99 RTS,S/AS01 recipients and 12 (11·9%, 6·3-19·8) of 101 rabies-vaccine recipients had at least one serious adverse event within 30 days after vaccination, mainly pneumonia, febrile convulsions, and salmonella sepsis. Five (5·1%, 95% CI 1·7-11·4) of 99 RTS,S/AS01 recipients and four (4·0%, 1·1-9·8) of 101 rabies-vaccine recipients died, but no deaths were deemed related to vaccination. Mortality was associated with five cases of pneumonia (1% RTS,S/AS01 recipients vs 3% rabies-vaccine recipients), five cases of gastroenteritis (3% RTS,S/AS01 recipients vs 2% rabies-vaccine recipients), five cases of malnutrition (2% RTS,S/AS01 recipients vs 3% rabies-vaccine recipients), one case of sepsis (1% rabies-vaccine recipients), one case of Haemophilus influenza meningitis (1% rabies-vaccine recipients), and one case of tuberculosis (1% RTS,S/AS01 recipients). INTERPRETATION: RTS, S/AS01 was well tolerated when given to children with WHO clinical stage 1 or 2 HIV disease along with high antiretroviral and co-trimoxazole use. Children with HIV disease could be included in future RTS,S/AS01 vaccination programmes. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative.


Assuntos
Vacinas Antimaláricas/uso terapêutico , Malária Falciparum/prevenção & controle , Vacina Antirrábica/efeitos adversos , Método Duplo-Cego , HIV , Infecções por HIV/complicações , Humanos , Lactente , Quênia/epidemiologia , Vacinas Antimaláricas/efeitos adversos , Vacinas Antimaláricas/imunologia , Malária Falciparum/complicações , Malária Falciparum/epidemiologia , Vacina Antirrábica/administração & dosagem
2.
Malar J ; 15: 71, 2016 Feb 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26852227

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Intermittent mass screening and treatment (iMSaT) is currently being evaluated as a possible additional tool for malaria control and prevention in western Kenya. The literature identifying success and/or barriers to drug trial compliance and acceptability on malaria treatment and control interventions is considerable, especially as it relates to specific target groups, such as school-aged children and pregnant women, but there is a lack of such studies for mass screening and treatment and mass drug administration in the general population. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted to explore community perceptions of the iMSaT intervention, and specifically of testing and treatment in the absence of symptoms, before and after implementation in order to identify aspects of iMSaT that should be improved in future rounds. Two rounds of qualitative data collection were completed in six randomly selected study communities: a total of 36 focus group discussions (FGDs) with men, women, and opinion leaders, and 12 individual or small group interviews with community health workers. All interviews were conducted in the local dialect Dholuo, digitally recorded, and transcribed into English. English transcripts were imported into the qualitative software programme NVivo8 for content analysis. RESULTS: There were mixed opinions of the intervention. In the pre-implementation round, respondents were generally positive and willing to participate in the upcoming study. However, there were concerns about testing in the absence of symptoms including fear of covert HIV testing and issues around blood sampling. There were fewer concerns about treatment, mostly because of the simpler dosing regimen of the study drug (dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine) compared to the current first-line treatment (artemether-lumefantrine). After the first implementation round, there was a clear shift in perceptions with less common concerns overall, although some of the same issues around testing and general misconceptions about research remained. CONCLUSIONS: Although iMSaT was generally accepted throughout the community, proper sensitization activities-and arguably, a more long-term approach to community engagement-are necessary for dispelling fears, clarifying misconceptions, and educating communities on the consequences of asymptomatic malaria.


Assuntos
Malária/diagnóstico , Malária/tratamento farmacológico , Programas de Rastreamento/psicologia , Antimaláricos/uso terapêutico , Artemisininas/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Humanos , Quênia , Masculino
3.
N Engl J Med ; 367(24): 2284-95, 2012 Dec 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23136909

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The candidate malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01 reduced episodes of both clinical and severe malaria in children 5 to 17 months of age by approximately 50% in an ongoing phase 3 trial. We studied infants 6 to 12 weeks of age recruited for the same trial. METHODS: We administered RTS,S/AS01 or a comparator vaccine to 6537 infants who were 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination in conjunction with Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) vaccines in a three-dose monthly schedule. Vaccine efficacy against the first or only episode of clinical malaria during the 12 months after vaccination, a coprimary end point, was analyzed with the use of Cox regression. Vaccine efficacy against all malaria episodes, vaccine efficacy against severe malaria, safety, and immunogenicity were also assessed. RESULTS: The incidence of the first or only episode of clinical malaria in the intention-to-treat population during the 14 months after the first dose of vaccine was 0.31 per person-year in the RTS,S/AS01 group and 0.40 per person-year in the control group, for a vaccine efficacy of 30.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6 to 36.1). Vaccine efficacy in the per-protocol population was 31.3% (97.5% CI, 23.6 to 38.3). Vaccine efficacy against severe malaria was 26.0% (95% CI, -7.4 to 48.6) in the intention-to-treat population and 36.6% (95% CI, 4.6 to 57.7) in the per-protocol population. Serious adverse events occurred with a similar frequency in the two study groups. One month after administration of the third dose of RTS,S/AS01, 99.7% of children were positive for anti-circumsporozoite antibodies, with a geometric mean titer of 209 EU per milliliter (95% CI, 197 to 222). CONCLUSIONS: The RTS,S/AS01 vaccine coadministered with EPI vaccines provided modest protection against both clinical and severe malaria in young infants. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative; RTS,S ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00866619.).


Assuntos
Vacinas Antimaláricas , Malária Falciparum/prevenção & controle , Vacinas Sintéticas , África , Feminino , Humanos , Esquemas de Imunização , Incidência , Lactente , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento , Vacinas Antimaláricas/efeitos adversos , Vacinas Antimaláricas/imunologia , Malária Falciparum/epidemiologia , Masculino , Plasmodium falciparum/imunologia , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Resultado do Tratamento , Vacinas Sintéticas/efeitos adversos , Vacinas Sintéticas/imunologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA