Tafenoquine exposure assessment, safety, and relapse prevention efficacy in children with Plasmodium vivax malaria: open-label, single-arm, non-comparative, multicentre, pharmacokinetic bridging, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-dose tafenoquine 300 mg is approved for Plasmodium vivax malaria relapse prevention in patients at least 16 years old. We aimed to determine appropriate oral tafenoquine paediatric dosing regimens, including a dispersible formulation, and evaluated tafenoquine efficacy and safety in children infected with P vivax. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm, non-comparative, multicentre, pharmacokinetic bridging, phase 2 study enrolled children (2-15 years) who weighed 5 kg or more, with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity more than 70% of the local population median, and P vivax malaria infection, from three community health centres in Vietnam and one in Colombia. Patients received 3-day chloroquine plus oral single-dose tafenoquine as dispersible tablets (50 mg) or film-coated tablets (150 mg). Dosing groups were assigned by body weight, predicted to achieve similar median exposures as the approved 300 mg dose for adults: patients who weighed 5 kg or more to 10 kg received 50 mg, those who weighed more than 10 to 20 kg received 100 or 150 mg, those who weighed more than 20 to 35 kg received 200 mg, and patients who weighed more than 35 kg received 300 mg. Population pharmacokinetic analysis was done to develop a paediatric population pharmacokinetic model. The primary outcome was the tafenoquine area under the concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC[0-∞]) by patient body weight in the pharmacokinetic population (all patients who received tafenoquine with at least one valid pharmacokinetic sample) estimated from a paediatric population pharmacokinetic model. A key prespecified secondary outcome was 4-month recurrence-free efficacy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02563496. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2017, and Feb 17, 2020, 60 patients were enrolled into the study: 14 (23%) received tafenoquine 100 mg, five (8%) 150 mg, 22 (36%) 200 mg, and 19 (32%) 300 mg. The paediatric population pharmacokinetic model predicted adequate tafenoquine exposure at all doses. The predicted median AUC(0-∞) was 73·8 (90% prediction interval [PI] 46·9-117·0) µg × h/mL with the 50 mg dose for patients who weighed 5 kg or more to 10 kg, 87·5 (55·4-139·0) µg × h/mL with the 100 mg dose for body weight more than 10 to 20 kg, 110·7 (70·9-174·0) µg × h/mL with the 200 mg dose for body weight more than 20 to 35 kg, and 85·7 (50·6-151·0) µg × h/mL with the 300 mg dose for body weight more than 35 kg. 4-month recurrence-free efficacy was 94·7% (95% CI 84·6-98·3). Adverse events were consistent with previous studies, except for the seven (12%) of 60 patients who had post-dose vomiting or spitting with the 50 mg dispersed tablet. Following mitigation strategies, there were no additional occurrences of this adverse event. There were no deaths during the study. INTERPRETATION: For the prevention of P vivax relapse in children, single-dose tafenoquine, including a dispersible formulation, had exposure, safety, and efficacy consistent with observations in adolescents and adults, notwithstanding post-dose vomiting. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline and Medicines for Malaria Venture. TRANSLATIONS: For the Vietnamese and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Pharmacogenetic assessment of tafenoquine efficacy in patients with Plasmodium vivax malaria.

Plasmodium vivax has the largest geographic range of human malaria species and is challenging to manage and eradicate due to its ability to establish a dormant liver stage, the hypnozoite, which can reactivate leading to relapse. Until recently, the only treatment approved to kill hypnozoites was the 8-aminoquinoline, primaquine, requiring daily treatment for 14 days. Tafenoquine, an 8-aminoquinoline single-dose treatment with activity against P. vivax hypnozoites, has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration for the radical cure of P. vivax malaria in patients 16 years and older. We conducted an exploratory pharmacogenetic analysis (GSK Study 208099) to assess the role of host genome-wide variation on tafenoquine efficacy in patients with P. vivax malaria using data from three GSK clinical trials, GATHER and DETECTIVE Part 1 and Part 2. Recurrence-free efficacy at 6 and 4 months and time to recurrence up to 6 months postdosing were analyzed in 438 P. vivax malaria patients treated with tafenoquine. Among the approximately 10.6 million host genetic variants analyzed, two signals reached genome-wide significance (P value ≤ 5 × 10). rs62103056, and variants in a chromosome 12 intergenic region, were associated with recurrence-free efficacy at 6 and 4 months, respectively. Neither of the signals has an obvious biological rationale and would need replication in an independent population. This is the first genome-wide association study to evaluate genetic influence on response to tafenoquine in P. vivax malaria.

Single-Dose Tafenoquine to Prevent Relapse of Plasmodium vivax Malaria.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria requires the clearing of asexual parasites, but relapse can be prevented only if dormant hypnozoites are cleared from the liver (a treatment termed "radical cure"). Tafenoquine is a single-dose 8-aminoquinoline that has recently been registered for the radical cure of P. vivax. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in Ethiopia, Peru, Brazil, Cambodia, Thailand, and the Philippines. We enrolled 522 patients with microscopically confirmed P. vivax infection (>100 to <100,000 parasites per microliter) and normal glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) activity (with normal activity defined as ≥70% of the median value determined at each trial site among 36 healthy male volunteers who were otherwise not involved in the trial). All patients received a 3-day course of chloroquine (total dose of 1500 mg). In addition, patients were assigned to receive a single 300-mg dose of tafenoquine on day 1 or 2 (260 patients), placebo (133 patients), or a 15-mg dose of primaquine once daily for 14 days (129 patients). The primary outcome was the Kaplan-Meier estimated percentage of patients who were free from recurrence at 6 months, defined as P. vivax clearance without recurrent parasitemia. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population, the percentage of patients who were free from recurrence at 6 months was 62.4% in the tafenoquine group (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.9 to 69.0), 27.7% in the placebo group (95% CI, 19.6 to 36.6), and 69.6% in the primaquine group (95% CI, 60.2 to 77.1). The hazard ratio for the risk of recurrence was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.40) with tafenoquine as compared with placebo (P<0.001) and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.39) with primaquine as compared with placebo (P<0.001). Tafenoquine was associated with asymptomatic declines in hemoglobin levels, which resolved without intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose tafenoquine resulted in a significantly lower risk of P. vivax recurrence than placebo in patients with phenotypically normal G6PD activity. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Medicines for Malaria Venture; DETECTIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01376167 .).

Tafenoquine versus Primaquine to Prevent Relapse of Plasmodium vivax Malaria.

BACKGROUND: Tafenoquine, a single-dose therapy for Plasmodium vivax malaria, has been associated with relapse prevention through the clearance of P. vivax parasitemia and hypnozoites, termed "radical cure." METHODS: We performed a phase 3, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, controlled trial to compare tafenoquine with primaquine in terms of safety and efficacy. The trial was conducted at seven hospitals or clinics in Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Vietnam, and Thailand and involved patients with normal glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) enzyme activity and female patients with moderate G6PD enzyme deficiency; all patients had confirmed P. vivax parasitemia. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive a single 300-mg dose of tafenoquine or 15 mg of primaquine once daily for 14 days (administered under supervision); all patients received a 3-day course of chloroquine and were followed for 180 days. The primary safety outcome was a protocol-defined decrease in the hemoglobin level (>3.0 g per deciliter or ≥30% from baseline or to a level of <6.0 g per deciliter). Freedom from recurrence of P. vivax parasitemia at 6 months was the primary efficacy outcome in a planned patient-level meta-analysis of the current trial and another phase 3 trial of tafenoquine and primaquine (per-protocol populations), and an odds ratio for recurrence of 1.45 (tafenoquine vs. primaquine) was used as a noninferiority margin. RESULTS: A protocol-defined decrease in the hemoglobin level occurred in 4 of 166 patients (2.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 6.0) in the tafenoquine group and in 1 of 85 patients (1.2%; 95% CI, 0.2 to 6.4) in the primaquine group, for a between-group difference of 1.2 percentage points (95% CI, -4.2 to 5.0). In the patient-level meta-analysis, the percentage of patients who were free from recurrence at 6 months was 67.0% (95% CI, 61.0 to 72.3) among the 426 patients in the tafenoquine group and 72.8% (95% CI, 65.6 to 78.8) among the 214 patients in the primaquine group. The efficacy of tafenoquine was not shown to be noninferior to that of primaquine (odds ratio for recurrence, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.82 to 3.96). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with normal G6PD enzyme activity, the decline in hemoglobin level with tafenoquine did not differ significantly from that with primaquine. Tafenoquine showed efficacy for the radical cure of P. vivax malaria, although tafenoquine was not shown to be noninferior to primaquine. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Medicines for Malaria Venture; GATHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02216123 .).

A randomized, double-blind, comparative study to assess the safety and efficacy of topical retapamulin ointment 1% versus oral linezolid in the treatment of secondarily infected traumatic lesions and impetigo due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of topical retapamulin ointment 1% versus oral linezolid in the treatment of patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions (SITLs; excluding abscesses) or impetigo due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, comparative study (NCT00852540). SETTING: Patients recruited from 36 study centers in the United States. PATIENTS: Patients 2 months or older with SITL (including secondarily infected lacerations or sutured wounds) or impetigo (bullous and nonbullous) suitable for treatment with a topical antibiotic, with a total Skin Infection Rating Scale score of 8 or greater, including a pus/exudate score of 3 or greater. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received retapamulin ointment 1% (plus oral placebo), twice daily for 5 days or oral linezolid (plus placebo ointment) 2 or 3 times daily for 10 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary end point: clinical response (success/failure) at follow-up in patients with MRSA at baseline (per-protocol population). Secondary efficacy end points: clinical and microbiologic response and outcome at follow-up and end of therapy; therapeutic response at follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: The majority of patients had SITL (70.4% [188/267] and 66.4% [91/137] in the retapamulin and linezolid groups, respectively; intent-to-treat clinical population). Clinical success rate at follow-up was significantly lower in the retapamulin versus the linezolid group (63.9% [39/61] vs 90.6% [29/32], respectively; difference in success rate -26.7%; 95% CI, -45.7 to -7.7). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical success rate at follow-up in the per-protocol MRSA population was significantly lower in the retapamulin versus the linezolid group. It could not be determined whether this was related to study design, bacterial virulence, or retapamulin activity.

The safety and efficacy of topical retapamulin ointment versus placebo ointment in the treatment of secondarily infected traumatic lesions: a randomized, double-blind superiority study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether retapamulin 1% is clinically superior to a placebo in the treatment of patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions. DESIGN: The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. SETTING: Patients were recruited from 5 countries. PATIENTS: The aforementioned patients were all 2 months or older and diagnosed with secondarily infected traumatic lesions. INTERVENTIONS: Study medication was applied twice daily for 5 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point: clinical response (success/failure) at follow-up. Secondary efficacy end points included clinical and microbiological outcomes at end of therapy (on days 7-9); microbiological and therapeutic responses at follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 508 patients were recruited for the study; 359 patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis population (246 received retapamulin; 113 received the placebo). Secondarily infected abrasions were the most common secondarily infected traumatic lesions present (56.3%), Staphylococcus aureus being the most frequently isolated pathogen at baseline (60.1%); 15.1% infections were methicillin-resistant. At follow-up, patients receiving retapamulin had higher clinical success rates than those receiving the placebo (74.8% vs 66.4%, respectively) in the primary efficacy analysis population; however, the treatment difference was not statistically significant (8.4%; 95% confidence interval, -1.6 to 18.4). The proportion of patients experiencing adverse events, which were typically mild or moderate in severity, was similar between the retapamulin (5.6%, 19/342) and placebo groups (4.8%, 8/165). CONCLUSION: Clinical success rates were higher with retapamulin versus placebo in the treatment of patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions, but the difference between treatment groups was not significant. Retapamulin was well tolerated.