Menstrual cups and cash transfer to reduce sexual and reproductive harm and school dropout in adolescent schoolgirls: study protocol of a cluster-randomised controlled trial in western Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent girls in sub-Saharan Africa are disproportionally vulnerable to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) harms. In western Kenya, where unprotected transactional sex is common, young females face higher rates of school dropout, often due to pregnancy, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. Staying in school has shown to protect girls against early marriage, teen pregnancy, and HIV infection. This study evaluates the impact of menstrual cups and cash transfer interventions on a composite of deleterious outcomes (HIV, HSV-2, and school dropout) when given to secondary schoolgirls in western Kenya, with the aim to inform evidence-based policy to improve girls' health, school equity, and life-chances. METHODS: Single site, 4-arm, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Secondary schools are the unit of randomisation, with schoolgirls as the unit of measurement. Schools will be randomised into one of four intervention arms using a 1:1:1:1 ratio and block randomisation: (1) menstrual cup arm; (2) cash transfer arm, (3) cups and cash combined intervention arm, or (4) control arm. National and county agreement, and school level consent will be obtained prior to recruitment of schools, with parent consent and girls' assent obtained for participant enrolment. Participants will be trained on safe use of interventions, with all arms receiving puberty and hygiene education. Annually, the state of latrines, water availability, water treatment, handwashing units and soap in schools will be measured. The primary endpoint is a composite of incident HIV, HSV-2, and all-cause school dropout, after 3 years follow-up. School dropout will be monitored each term via school registers and confirmed through home visits. HIV and HSV-2 incident infections and risk factors will be measured at baseline, mid-line and end-line. Intention to treat analysis will be conducted among all enrolled participants. Focus group discussions will provide contextual information on uptake of interventions. Monitoring for safety will occur throughout. DISCUSSION: If proved safe and effective, the interventions offer a potential contribution toward girls' schooling, health, and equity in low- and middle-income countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03051789 , 15th February 2017.

Working towards consensus on methods used to elicit participant-reported safety data in uncomplicated malaria clinical drug studies: a Delphi technique study.

BACKGROUND: Eliciting adverse event (AE) and non-study medication data reports from clinical research participants is integral to evaluating drug safety. However, using different methods to question participants yields inconsistent results, compromising the interpretation, comparison and pooling of data across studies. This is particularly important given the widespread use of anti-malarials in vulnerable populations, and their increasing use in healthy, but at-risk individuals, as preventive treatment or to reduce malaria transmission. METHODS: Experienced and knowledgeable anti-malarial drug clinical researchers were invited to participate in a Delphi technique study, to facilitate consensus on what are considered optimal (relevant, important and feasible) methods, tools, and approaches for detecting participant-reported AE and non-study medication data in uncomplicated malaria treatment studies. RESULTS: Of 72 invited, 25, 16 and 10 panellists responded to the first, second and third rounds of the Delphi, respectively. Overall, 68% (68/100) of all questioning items presented for rating achieved consensus. When asking general questions about health, panellists agreed on the utility of a question/concept about any change in health, taking care to ensure that such questions/concepts do not imply causality. Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of specific signs and symptoms questions were rated as optimal. For non-study medications, a general question and most structured questioning items were considered an optimal approach. The use of mobile phones, patient diaries, rating scales as well as openly engaging with participants to discuss concerns were also considered optimal complementary data-elicitation tools. CONCLUSIONS: This study succeeded in reaching consensus within a section of the anti-malarial drug clinical research community about using a general question concept, and structured questions for eliciting data about AEs and non-study medication reports. The concepts and items considered in this Delphi to be relevant, important and feasible should be further investigated for potential inclusion in a harmonized approach to collect participant-elicited anti-malarial drug safety data. This, in turn, should improve understanding of anti-malarial drug safety.

Mefloquine for preventing malaria during travel to endemic areas.

BACKGROUND: Mefloquine 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. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the efficacy and safety of mefloquine used as prophylaxis for malaria in travellers. SEARCH METHODS: We 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 CRITERIA: We 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 ANALYSIS: Two 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 RESULTS: We 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-proguanil Participants 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). There were few serious adverse effects reported with mefloquine (15/2651 travellers) and none with atovaquone-proguanil (940 travellers).One RCT and six cohort studies reported on our prespecified adverse effects. In the RCT with short-term travellers, mefloquine users were more likely to report abnormal dreams (RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.04, moderate-certainty evidence), insomnia (RR 4.42, 95% CI 2.56 to 7.64, moderate-certainty evidence), anxiety (RR 6.12, 95% CI 1.82 to 20.66, moderate-certainty evidence), and depressed mood during travel (RR 5.78, 95% CI 1.71 to 19.61, moderate-certainty evidence). The cohort studies in longer-term travellers were consistent with this finding but most had larger effect sizes. Mefloquine users were also more likely to report nausea (high-certainty evidence) and dizziness (high-certainty evidence).Based on the available evidence, our best estimates of absolute effect sizes for mefloquine versus atovaquone-proguanil are 6% versus 2% for discontinuation of the drug, 13% versus 3% for insomnia, 14% versus 7% for abnormal dreams, 6% versus 1% for anxiety, and 6% versus 1% for depressed mood. Mefloquine safety versus doxycyclineNo difference was found in numbers of serious adverse effects with mefloquine and doxycycline (low-certainty evidence) or numbers of discontinuations due to adverse effects (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.87; 4 RCTs, 763 participants; low-certainty evidence).Six cohort studies in longer-term occupational travellers reported our prespecified adverse effects; one RCT in military personnel and one cohort study in short-term travellers reported adverse events. Mefloquine users were more likely to report abnormal dreams (RR 10.49, 95% CI 3.79 to 29.10; 4 cohort studies, 2588 participants, very low-certainty evidence), insomnia (RR 4.14, 95% CI 1.19 to 14.44; 4 cohort studies, 3212 participants, very low-certainty evidence), anxiety (RR 18.04, 95% CI 9.32 to 34.93; 3 cohort studies, 2559 participants, very low-certainty evidence), and depressed mood (RR 11.43, 95% CI 5.21 to 25.07; 2 cohort studies, 2445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The findings of the single cohort study reporting adverse events in short-term international travellers were consistent with this finding but the single RCT in military personnel did not demonstrate a difference between groups in frequencies of abnormal dreams or insomnia.Mefloquine users were less likely to report dyspepsia (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.74; 5 cohort studies, 5104 participants, low certainty-evidence), photosensitivity (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11; 2 cohort studies, 1875 participants, very low-certainty evidence), vomiting (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.27; 4 cohort studies, 5071 participants, very low-certainty evidence), and vaginal thrush (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 1 cohort study, 1761 participants, very low-certainty evidence).Based on the available evidence, our best estimates of absolute effect for mefloquine versus doxycyline were: 2% versus 2% for discontinuation, 12% versus 3% for insomnia, 31% versus 3% for abnormal dreams, 18% versus 1% for anxiety, 11% versus 1% for depressed mood, 4% versus 14% for dyspepsia, 2% versus 19% for photosensitivity, 1% versus 5% for vomiting, and 2% versus 16% for vaginal thrush.Additional analyses, including comparisons of mefloquine with chloroquine, added no new information. Subgroup analysis by study design, duration of travel, and military versus non-military participants, provided no conclusive findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The absolute risk of malaria during short-term travel appears low with all three established antimalarial agents (mefloquine, doxycycline, and atovaquone-proguanil).The choice of antimalarial agent depends on how individual travellers assess the importance of specific adverse effects, pill burden, and cost. Some travellers will prefer mefloquine for its once-weekly regimen, but this should be balanced against the increased frequency of abnormal dreams, anxiety, insomnia, and depressed mood.

Scheduled Intermittent Screening with Rapid Diagnostic Tests and Treatment with Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine versus Intermittent Preventive Therapy with Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine for Malaria in Pregnancy in Malawi: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In Africa, most plasmodium infections during pregnancy remain asymptomatic, yet are associated with maternal anemia and low birthweight. WHO recommends intermittent preventive therapy in pregnancy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP). However, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) efficacy is threatened by high-level parasite resistance. We conducted a trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of scheduled intermittent screening with malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and treatment of RDT-positive women with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) as an alternative strategy to IPTp-SP. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was an open-label, two-arm individually randomized superiority trial among HIV-seronegative women at three sites in Malawi with high SP resistance. The intervention consisted of three or four scheduled visits in the second and third trimester, 4 to 6 wk apart. Women in the IPTp-SP arm received SP at each visit. Women in the intermittent screening and treatment in pregnancy with DP (ISTp-DP) arm were screened for malaria at every visit and treated with DP if RDT-positive. The primary outcomes were adverse live birth outcome (composite of small for gestational age, low birthweight [<2,500 g], or preterm birth [<37 wk]) in paucigravidae (first or second pregnancy) and maternal or placental plasmodium infection at delivery in multigravidae (third pregnancy or higher). Analysis was by intention to treat. Between 21 July 2011 and 18 March 2013, 1,873 women were recruited (1,155 paucigravidae and 718 multigravidae). The prevalence of adverse live birth outcome was similar in the ISTp-DP (29.9%) and IPTp-SP (28.8%) arms (risk difference = 1.08% [95% CI -3.25% to 5.41%]; all women: relative risk [RR] = 1.04 [95% CI 0.90-1.20], p = 0.625; paucigravidae: RR = 1.10 [95% CI 0.92-1.31], p = 0.282; multigravidae: RR = 0.92 [95% CI 0.71-1.20], p = 0.543). The prevalence of malaria at delivery was higher in the ISTp-DP arm (48.7% versus 40.8%; risk difference = 7.85%, [95% CI 3.07%-12.63%]; all women: RR = 1.19 [95% CI 1.07-1.33], p = 0.007; paucigravidae: RR = 1.16 [95% CI 1.04-1.31], p = 0.011; multigravidae: RR = 1.29 [95% CI 1.02-1.63], p = 0.037). Fetal loss was more common with ISTp-DP (2.6% versus 1.3%; RR = 2.06 [95% CI 1.01-4.21], p = 0.046) and highest among non-DP-recipients (3.1%) in the ISTp-DP arm. Limitations included the open-label design. CONCLUSIONS: Scheduled screening for malaria parasites with the current generation of RDTs three to four times during pregnancy as part of focused antenatal care was not superior to IPTp-SP in this area with high malaria transmission and high SP resistance and was associated with higher fetal loss and more malaria at delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201103000280319; ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN69800930.

Development of a pharmacovigilance safety monitoring tool for the rollout of single low-dose primaquine and artemether-lumefantrine to treat Plasmodium falciparum infections in Swaziland: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Countries remain reluctant to adopt the 2012 World Health Organization recommendation for single low-dose (0.25 mg/kg) primaquine (SLD PQ) for Plasmodium falciparum transmission-blocking due to concerns over drug-related haemolysis risk, especially among glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase-deficient (G6PDd) people, without evidence demonstrating that it can be safely deployed in their settings. Pharmacovigilance methods provide a systematic way of collecting safety data and supporting the rollout of SLD PQ. METHODS: The Primaquine Roll Out Monitoring Pharmacovigilance Tool (PROMPT), comprising: (1) a standardized form to support the surveillance of possible adverse events following SLD PQ treatment; (2) a patient information card to enhance awareness of known adverse drug reactions of SLD PQ use; and (3) a database compiling recorded information, was developed and piloted. Data on patient characteristics, malaria diagnosis and treatment are collected. Blood samples are taken to measure haemoglobin (Hb) and test for G6PD deficiency. Active follow-up includes a repeat Hb measurement and adverse event monitoring on or near day 7. A 13-month prospective pilot study in two hospital facilities in Swaziland alongside the introduction of SLD PQ generated preliminary evidence on the feasibility and acceptability of PROMPT. RESULTS: PROMPT was well received by nurses as a simple, pragmatic approach to active surveillance of SLD PQ safety data. Of the 102 patients enrolled and administered SLD PQ, none were G6PDd. 93 (91.2 %) returned on or near day 7 for follow-up. Four (4.6 %) patients had falls in Hb ≥25 % from baseline, none of whom presented with signs or symptoms of anaemia. No patient's Hb fell below 7 g/dL and none required a blood transfusion. Of the 11 (11 %) patients who reported an adverse event over the study period, three were considered serious and included two deaths and one hospitalization; none were causally related to SLD PQ. Four non-serious adverse events were considered definitely, probably, or possibly related to SLD PQ. CONCLUSION: Improved pharmacovigilance to monitor and promote the safety of the WHO recommendation is needed. The successful application of PROMPT demonstrates its potential as an important tool to rapidly generate locally acquired safety data and support pharmacovigilance in resource-limited settings.

Perceptions and utilization of the anti-malarials artemether-lumefantrine and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine in young children in the Chikhwawa District of Malawi: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to anti-malarial dosing schedules is essential to ensure effective treatment. Measuring adherence is challenging due to recall issues and the participants' awareness of the desired behaviour influencing their actions or responses. This study used qualitative methods, which allow for rapport building, to explore issues around anti-malarial utilization in young children, and used the results to guide the development of a context specific questionnaire on perceptions and adherence to artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHA-PPQ). METHODS: Qualitative data collection included 12 focus group discussions which explored community perceptions of anti-malarials and experiences of administering medications to children. Critical incidence interviews were conducted with 22 caregivers to explore experiences of administering the dispersible or original formulation of AL to young children during recent febrile episodes. A structured questionnaire was used to gather data on experience of recent treatment and adherence to anti-malarials during follow-up visits with 218 caregivers whose child was recently treated with either dispersible AL or DHA-PPQ. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Caregivers experience great difficulty in administering medication to children. While the sweet taste of dispersible AL may have reduced conflict between the child and caregiver, sub-optimal dosing due to medication loss remained a problem and overall adherence was greater among those receiving DHA-PPQ, which requires fewer doses. Some caregivers were found to deliberately alter the dosing schedule according to whether they perceived the medication to be too weak or strong. They also developed theories for poor treatment outcomes, such as attributing this to lack of compatibility between the medication and the child. Health education messages should be strengthened to ensure a combination of clear pictorial and verbal instructions are used during dispensing, and consequences of under and over-dosing are explained alongside appropriate responses to possible adverse events. Further optimizing of anti-malarial adherence among children requires the development of anti-malarials with pharmacological properties that allow user-friendly administration and simplified dosing schedules.

Evaluating harm associated with anti-malarial drugs: a survey of methods used by clinical researchers to elicit, assess and record participant-reported adverse events and related data.

BACKGROUND: Participant reports of medical histories, adverse events (AE) and non-study drugs are integral to evaluating harm in clinical research. However, interpreting or synthesizing results is complicated if studies use different methods for ascertaining and assessing these data. To explore how these data are obtained in malaria drug studies, a descriptive online survey of clinical researchers was conducted during 2012 and 2013. METHODS: The survey was advertised through e-mails, collaborators and at conferences. Questions aimed to capture the detail, rationale and application of methods used to obtain relevant data within various study designs and populations. Closed responses were analysed using proportions, open responses through identifying repeating ideas and underlying concepts. RESULTS: Of fifty-two respondents from 25 counties, 87% worked at an investigational site and 75% reported about an interventional study. Studies employed a range of methods to elicit, assess and record participant-reported AEs and related data. Questioning about AEs in 31% of interventional studies was a combination of general (open questions about health) and structured (reference to specific health-related items), 26% used structured only and 18% general only. No observational studies used general questioning alone. A minority incorporated pictorial tools. Rationales for the questioning approach included: standardization of assessment or data capture, specificity or comprehensiveness of data sought, avoidance of suggestion, feasibility, and understanding participants' perceptions. Most respondents considered the approach they reported was optimal, though several reconsidered this. Four AE grading, and three causality assessment approaches were reported. Combining general and structured questions about non-study drug use were considered useful for revealing and identifying specific medicines, while pictures could enhance reports, particularly in areas of low literacy. CONCLUSIONS: It is critical to evaluate the safety of anti-malarial drugs being deployed in large, diverse populations. Many studies would be suitable for contributing to a larger body of evidence for answering questions on harm. However this survey showed that various methods are used to obtain relevant data, which could influence study results. As the best practices for obtaining such data are unclear, anti-malarial clinical researchers should work towards consensus about the selection and/or design of optimal methods.

Efficacy and safety of intermittent preventive treatment and intermittent screening and treatment versus single screening and treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for the control of malaria in pregnancy in Indonesia: a cluster-randomised, open-label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax infections are important causes of adverse pregnancy outcomes in the Asia-Pacific region. We hypothesised that monthly intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) or intermittent screening and treatment (IST) with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine is more effective in reducing malaria in pregnancy than the existing single screening and treatment (SST) strategy, which is used to screen women for malaria infections at the first antenatal visit followed by passive case detection, with management of febrile cases. METHODS: We did an open-label, three-arm, cluster-randomised, superiority trial in Sumba (low malaria transmission site) and Papua (moderate malaria transmission site), Indonesia. Eligible participants were 16-30 weeks pregnant. Clusters (antenatal clinics with at least ten new pregnancies per year matched by location, size, and malaria risk) were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via computer-generated lists to IPT, IST, or SST clusters. In IPT clusters, participants received the fixed-dose combination of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (4 and 18 mg/kg per day). In IST clusters, participants were screened with malaria rapid diagnostic tests once a month, whereas, in SST clusters, they were screened at enrolment only. In all groups, participants with fever were tested for malaria. Any participant who tested positive received dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine regardless of symptoms. The primary outcome was malaria infection in the mother at delivery. Laboratory staff were unaware of group allocation. Analyses included all randomly assigned participants contributing outcome data and were adjusted for clustering at the clinic level. This trial is complete and is registered with ISRCTN, number 34010937. FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2013, and April 21, 2016, 78 clusters (57 in Sumba and 21 in Papua) were randomly assigned to SST, IPT, or IST clusters (26 clusters each). Of 3553 women screened for eligibility, 2279 were enrolled (744 in SST clusters, 681 in IPT clusters, and 854 in IST clusters). At enrolment, malaria prevalence was lower in IST (5·7%) than in SST (12·6%) and IPT (10·6%) clusters. At delivery, malaria prevalence was 20·2% (128 of 633) in SST clusters, compared with 11·6% (61 of 528) in IPT clusters (relative risk [RR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·42-0·83, p=0·0022) and 11·8% (84 of 713) in IST clusters (0·56, 0·40-0·77, p=0·0005). Conditions related to the pregnancy, the puerperium, and the perinatal period were the most common serious adverse events for the mothers, and infections and infestations for the infants. There were no differences between groups in serious adverse events in the mothers or in their infants. INTERPRETATION: IST was associated with a lower prevalence of malaria than SST at delivery, but the prevalence of malaria in this group was also lower at enrolment, making interpretation of the effect of IST challenging. Further studies with highly sensitive malaria rapid diagnostic tests should be considered. Monthly IPT with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine is a promising alternative to SST in areas in the Asia-Pacific region with moderate or high transmission of malaria. FUNDING: Joint Global Health Trials Scheme of the Medical Research Council, Department for International-Development, and the Wellcome Trust.

Neuroauditory toxicity of artemisinin combination therapies-have safety concerns been addressed?

Although artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are widely viewed as safe drugs with a wide therapeutic dose range, concerns about neuroauditory safety of artemisinins arose during their development. A decade ago, reviews of human data suggested a potential neuro-ototoxic effect, but the validity of these findings was questioned. With 5-10 years of programmatic use, emerging artemisinin-tolerant falciparum malaria in southeast Asia, and the first calls to consider an increased dose of artemisinins, we review neuroauditory safety data on ACTs to treat uncomplicated falciparum malaria. Fifteen studies reported a neurological or auditory assessment. The large heterogeneity of neuro-ototoxic end points and assessment methodologies and the descriptive nature of assessments hampered a formal meta-analysis and definitive conclusions, but they highlight the persistent lack of data from young children. This subgroup is potentially most vulnerable to any neuroauditory toxicity because of their development stage, increased malaria susceptibility, and repeated ACT exposure in settings lacking robust safety monitoring.