Atovaquone‐proguanil for treating uncomplicated malaria caus | Figure 1
%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-14%27%20transform=%27translate(13.000000,%20103.176124)%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-Copy-5%27%20transform=%27translate(0.000000,%20182.676124)%27%3e%3crect%20id=%27Rectangle-8%27%20fill=%27%23E2E0DE%27%20x=%270%27%20y=%270%27%20width=%2736%27%20height=%2736%27%20rx=%2718%27%3e%3c/rect%3e%3cpath%20d=%27M28,27.6503435%20C28,22.127496%2023.5228474,17.6503435%2018,17.6503435%20C12.4771525,17.6503435%208,22.127496%208,27.6503435%20M18,16.3472505%20C20.8165136,16.3472505%2023.099749,14.0640151%2023.099749,11.2475015%20C23.099749,8.43098783%2020.8165136,6.1477524%2018,6.1477524%20C15.1834863,6.1477524%2012.9002509,8.43098783%2012.9002509,11.2475015%20C12.9002509,14.0640151%2015.1834863,16.3472505%2018,16.3472505%20Z%27%20id=%27Combined-Shape%27%20fill=%27%23FFFFFF%27%20fill-rule=%27nonzero%27%3e%3c/path%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Deleted account
Some actions are only available when you log in.
Report case
Report this to our moderators
Atovaquone‐proguanil for treating uncomplicated malaria caused by the Plasmodium falciparum parasite
You can view up to 4 cases without signing up Sign up for unlimited access
What are the benefits and risks of atovaquone‐proguanil for treating uncomplicated malaria caused by the Plasmodium falciparum parasite?
What is the aim of this review?
The most common, and most serious, type of malaria is caused by Plasmodium falciparum. In its mild (uncomplicated) form, the symptoms are fever, headaches, muscle pain, and vomiting. The disease can become severe and life‐threatening if it is not treated soon enough or with the right medicines.
This review aimed to find out whether atovaquone‐proguanil is effective and safe for treating uncomplicated cases of P falciparum malaria. We aimed to achieve this by comparing the results of studies that had compared atovaquone‐proguanil to other malaria treatments.
Key messages
Atovaquone‐proguanil is as effective for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria as artesunate‐mefloquine. It may be less effective than artemether‐lumefantrine, artesunate‐amodiaquine, and artesunate‐atovaquone‐proguanil, though more robust evidence is needed to confirm this. Side effects seem similar with atovaquone‐proguanil.
What was studied in this review?
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends treating uncomplicated malaria with oral (by mouth) artemisinin‐based combination medicines (called ACTs).
ACTs are not always available worldwide and, in some places, Plasmodium falciparum is becoming resistant to recommended treatments (the medicines stop working). We looked at the evidence about the benefits and harms of combinations of medicines that are not artemisinin‐based, but contain atovaquone‐proguanil. This is an oral treatment commonly used by people from non‐malaria areas to prevent them catching malaria when they travel to malaria areas. We wanted to find out whether it works as well for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria as ACTs and other malaria treatments.
We searched for randomized controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) that compared atovaquone‐proguanil against other malaria treatments. These studies provide the most robust evidence about the effects of a treatment. We compared results, summarized the evidence, and rated our confidence in the evidence.
What are the main results of the review?
We found 17 studies involving 4763 adults and children in Africa, South America, and South East Asia. People were followed for 28 days to one year.
Fifteen studies compared atovaquone‐proguanil against 12 different antimalarial treatments (ACTs in five studies; other therapies that combined several medicines in two studies; single medicines in nine studies).
Five studies compared atovaquone‐proguanil plus another medicine (artesunate or chloroquine) against atovaquone‐proguanil alone (three studies); atovaquone‐proguanil plus a different medicine (one study); a combination of therapies that did not include atovaquone‐proguanil (one study); or single medicines (two studies).
In 15 studies, the researchers and people who were treated knew which medicines participants received. Pharmaceutical companies funded 10 studies.
Atovaquone‐proguanil against ACTs recommended by the WHO
Atovaquone‐proguanil may work less well to clear Plasmodiumfalciparum parasites from the blood or prevent them from returning (treatment success) than artemether‐lumefantrine (rates of success compared 28 and 42 days after treatment; one study). However this evidence was based on one small study.
Atovaquone‐proguanil may work as well as, or less well than, artesunate‐amodiaquine depending on whether new infections appearing after the start of treatment were counted or not (rates of success compared three and 28 days after treatment; one study). However this evidence was based on one small study of children aged under five years.
When new infections after the start of treatment were excluded, there is strong evidence of little to no difference in treatment success between atovaquone‐proguanil and artesunate‐mefloquine after 42 days (two studies). When new infections were counted, atovaquone‐proguanil may be better than artesunate‐mefloquine, but this evidence was based on the imprecise results of one study.
Atovaquone‐proguanil against atovaquone‐proguanil plus artesunate
Compared to atovaquone‐proguanil plus artesunate, atovaquone‐proguanil may be less successful at treating uncomplicated malaria after three and 28 days, however this evidence is based on the results of two small studies. It is probably less successful at treating uncomplicated malaria after 42 days (two studies).
Side effects
Studies reported several side effects, such as nausea and vomiting, or headaches. Overall, they were similar between groups.
How‐up‐to date is this review?
The evidence is current to 30 January 2020.
More about this case
ResolvedVerified literature
Why you should join Figure 1
Share your knowledge with our global community of healthcare professionals
Get help from experts in your field
Learn from our library of real-world cases and quizzes
Similar cases
\ \ Rapid tests for diagnosing malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax in people living in areas where malaria is very common\ What is the aim of the review?\ Malaria infection is caused mainly by two species of malaria parasite: Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax. The aim of this review was to evaluate rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to diagnose P vivax infection.\ Why are rapid tests for P vivax malaria important?\ For clinical management, knowing which parasite species is causing the malaria is important as the drug treatments differ. For P vivax infection, an additional drug is required to eliminate the infection from the liver. For public health control of malaria, we know that P falciparum is declining over the previous 15 years, and infections from P vivax have therefore increased in importance.\ What was studied in this review?\ RDTs provide results quickly and are often as a dipstick. We studied RDTs that specifically test for P vivax malaria. RDTs are simple to use, point‐of‐care tests. They are suitable for use in rural settings by primary healthcare workers, using drop of blood on the dipstick that causes colour change and a distinct line that indicates a positive test result. Healthcare workers in rural areas can perform RDTs for P vivax without needing a laboratory or special equipment. We wanted to find out which brands of RDTs were the most accurate for diagnosing P vivax malaria. We compared the new tests against the standard form of diagnosis with microscopy, and also more recent methods polymerase chain reaction (PCR): a molecular method to identify P vivax DNA in blood samples.\ What are the main results of the review?\ We included 10 studies that looked at the accuracy of six diagnostic test brands for detecting P vivax malaria in people with suspected malaria symptoms. The studies were conducted in Ethiopia (four studies), India (two studies) and Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, and Sudan (one study each).\ Compared with microscopy, the Care Start Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test performed well with 99% sensitivity and specificity (four studies). This means that:\ • for every 100 people tested who have P vivax malaria, one person will have a negative test result, and might not receive the right treatment soon enough;\ • for every 100 people tested who do not have P vivax malaria, one will have a positive result, and might receive unnecessary treatment.\ Compared with microscopy, the Falcivax Device Rapid test had a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 99% (two studies). This means that:\ • For every 100 people tested who have P vivax malaria, 23 people will have a negative test result; and,\ • for every 100 people tested who do not have P vivax malaria, one person will have a positive result.\ We are moderately confident (certain) in the accuracy results for the Care Start Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test. The results are from a small number of studies (four), so our findings may change when results from further studies become available.\ We are less confident in the accuracy results for the Falcivax Device Rapid test, because these came from only two studies. Our findings for this test will probably change when results from further studies become available.\ Our results are based on a small number of studies, so we could not reliably assess all six brands of antibody test or compare their accuracy. Most studies included in this review had limitations: it was not clear how people were selected for testing, or how the study results were assessed and checked, which could have affected the results. Some rapid antibody tests were investigated by only one study. Some studies did not report clearly how common P malaria was in the area where the study was done.\ How up‐to‐date is this review?\ The review authors searched for studies published up to 30 July 2019.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/04cd14a2-cd8d-4352-935a-48b1862bfe72)
\ \ Researchers have found multiresistant forms of Plasmodium falciparum that have developed even higher levels of antimalarial drug resistance and are now rapidly spreading in Southeast Asia.\ The results come from two new studies published in Lancet Infectious Diseases.\ The multi-country randomized clinical trial found that the spread of multiresistant parasites caused malaria treatment failure with the combination of first-line dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHA-PPQ) drugs in half of the cases (50.0%; CI 95% 41.1-58.3) in western and northeastern Cambodia, northeast Thailand and southwest Vietnam over the 2015-2018 time period.\ The genomic epidemiology study showed that by 2016-2018, Plasmodium falciparum represented over 80 per cent of parasites circulating in northeastern Thailand and Vietnam, although they only emerged in western Cambodia in 2008.\ The findings underscore the urgent need to eliminate this parasite collapse with increasing drug resistance, and the importance of genetic surveillance in accelerating malaria elimination efforts, the researchers said.\ At this time, they call for the abandonment of DHA-PPQ use in affected countries. An accelerated malaria elimination program is needed to prevent resistant malaria from spreading further and trigger a global health emergency, similar to the one in which millions of chloroquine resistant malaria died in the 1980s.\ Source: Lancet Infectious Diseases.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/1a754489-cf80-423b-b9a9-cf3997002069)
\ \ Benefits and risks of antibiotics taken orally or given as an injection to treat chronic suppurative otitis media (persistent or recurring ear infection with discharge)\ Why is this question important?\ Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), also known as chronic otitis media (COM), is an inflammation and infection of the middle ear that lasts for two weeks or more. People with CSOM usually experience recurrent or persistent discharge – fluid that leaks out from a hole or tear in the eardrum – and hearing loss.\ CSOM can be treated with antibiotics (medicines that fight bacterial infections) taken orally or given as an injection (i.e. systemic treatment in which the whole body is treated). Systemic antibiotics can be used:\ ‐ alone;\ ‐ in combination with antibiotics in the form of drops, sprays, ointments or creams (topical, i.e. localised surface treatment); or\ ‐ in combination with other treatments such as steroids (anti‐inflammation medicines) or antiseptics (substances that stop or slow down the growth of micro‐organisms).\ To find out how effective systemic antibiotics are for treating CSOM, and whether they lead to side effects, we reviewed the evidence from research studies.\ How did we identify and evaluate the evidence?\ First, we searched the medical literature for studies that followed people with CSOM for at least one week and compared:\ ‐ a systemic antibiotic used alone against a placebo (dummy) treatment, no treatment or another systemic antibiotic;\ ‐ a systemic antibiotic combined with another treatment, against that treatment alone.\ We then compared the results, and summarised the evidence from all the studies. Finally, we rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes, and the consistency of findings across studies.\ What did we find?\ We found 18 studies that involved a total of 2135 people with CSOM. People were treated for between five days and 12 weeks, and were followed for up to one year. Four studies provided information about how they were funded or who supplied the medicines: two were publicly funded, and medicines were provided by pharmaceutical companies in the other two studies.\ Studies compared:\ ‐ systemic antibiotics against no treatment (one study);\ ‐ systemic antibiotics plus topical antibiotics against topical antibiotics alone (six studies);\ ‐ systemic antibiotics plus other treatments (other than topical antibiotics alone), against these same treatments without systemic antibiotics (four studies);\ ‐ different systemic antibiotics against one another (eight studies).\ Systemic antibiotics alone against no treatment\ We cannot determine from the only study we found whether systemic antibiotics alone are better or worse than no treatment. This is mainly because the study:\ ‐ was small;\ ‐ was conducted in ways that could have introduced error in the results; and\ ‐ reported limited information.\ Systemic antibiotics plus topical antibiotics against topical antibiotics alone\ Systemic antibiotics plus topical antibiotics may have little to no effect on whether discharge stops after one to two weeks, compared against topical antibiotics alone (five studies). We do not know if systemic antibiotics added to topical antibiotics have any other positive or negative effects, because:\ ‐ there are too few studies;\ ‐ available studies were small and may have been conducted in ways that introduce error in their results.\ Systemic antibiotics plus other treatments (other than topical antibiotics alone), against these same treatments without systemic antibiotics\ We cannot determine from the evidence available whether systemic antibiotics are effective or lead to adverse events when added to treatments other than topical antibiotics only. This is mainly because the few studies available reported limited information.\ Comparisons between different systemic antibiotics\ We do not know whether some systemic antibiotics are better than others. This is mainly because the way studies were conducted is likely to have introduced error in their results.\ What does this mean?\ There is insufficient robust evidence to determine whether systemic antibiotics are effective treatments for CSOM, and whether they lead to side effects. Evidence about side effects is particularly limited. When added to topical antibiotics, systemic antibiotics may make little to no difference to whether discharge resolves after one to two weeks. We do not know if some systemic antibiotics are better than others.\ How‐up‐to date is this review?\ The evidence in this Cochrane Review is current to March 2020.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2a9fc52f-5f63-4054-bbac-2f00bea18998)
\ \ Treating uncomplicated malaria in children: do child‐friendly formulations of medicines work better than usual tablet formulations?\ What is the aim of this review?\ We wanted to find out about the potential benefits and harms of child‐friendly formulations of artemisinin‐based combination therapy (ACT) to treat uncomplicated malaria in children. We searched for studies that investigated the use of child‐friendly formulations of ACTs, compared with the usual ACT tablet formulations, to treat uncomplicated malaria in children aged under 14 years. We looked for randomized controlled studies, in which the treatments the children received were decided at random. This type of study usually gives the most reliable evidence about the effects of a treatment. We found three relevant studies of two child‐friendly formulations.\ Key messages\ Child‐friendly formulations of ACT probably work as well as crushed tablets to treat uncomplicated malaria in children, and probably cause fewer unwanted effects.\ What was studied in this review?\ Malaria is a tropical disease spread by mosquitoes infected with Plasmodium parasites. The most common, and most serious, type of malaria is caused by Plasmodium falciparum. This parasite causes high levels of illness and death, particularly in young children in regions where malaria is widespread.\ Malaria can be a mild illness, but is sometimes severe and life‐threatening if not treated soon enough or with the right medicines.\ Medicines based on artemisinin, a compound derived from a plant (Artemisia annua), are commonly taken by mouth (orally) to treat malaria in combination with other drugs. The World Health Organization recommends treating uncomplicated malaria with oral artemisinin‐based combination therapy (called ACT).\ Oral ACT tablets are often crushed to help make them easier for children to swallow. New formulations of oral ACTs have been developed especially for children, such as syrups, and granules, powders or tablets that can be dissolved in water, and which may be flavoured.\ What are the main results of this review?\ We found three relevant studies in 1306 children (aged 6 months to 11 years) with uncomplicated malaria. The studies were conducted in sub‐Saharan Africa between 2006 and 2015. All studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies that made child‐friendly formulations of the ACTs.\ The studies compared crushed ACT tablets to child‐friendly formulations of ACTs: these were dissolvable tablets of artemether‐lumefantrine or dihydroartemisinin‐piperaquine, or artemether‐lumefantrine syrup.\ We were interested in:\ · whether children remained cured of malaria after 28 days (measured by absence of Plasmodium parasites in the blood); and\ · whether the medicines caused any unwanted effects.\ None of the studies looked at how any of the medicine formulations were accepted by children.\ There may be little or no difference between the child‐friendly formulations of ACTs (dissolvable tablets or syrup) and the usual crushed tablets for how many children:\ · were successfully treated after 28 days; or\ · experienced serious unwanted effects.\ The crushed ACT tablets and the child‐friendly formulations successfully treated most cases of uncomplicated malaria. After 28 days the rates of treatment failure were similar in both groups. On average, 59 of every 1000 children taking crushed ACT tablets and 62 of every 1000 children taking dissolvable tablets would still have Plasmodium infection (2 studies; 1139 children).\ Similar numbers of serious unwanted effects were reported for the usual crushed tablets and the dissolvable tablets (2 studies; 1197 children) or syrup (1 study; 267 children), therefore differences as a result of the formulation are unlikely.\ A dissolvable tablet probably reduces unwanted effects of the medicine, including vomiting (throwing up), compared with the usual crushed tablets. Children taking dissolvable tablets had fewer unwanted effects associated with the medicine (139 of every 1000 children) than those taking crushed tablets (178 of every 1000 children).\ There was no difference in the number of unwanted effects found in the study with the syrup formulation compared with the usual crushed tablets.\ Our confidence in our results is low to moderate. The results come from a small number of studies. All studies were supported by manufacturers of the child‐friendly formulations, which could have affected how the studies were designed, conducted, and reported.\ How up‐to‐date is this review?\ We searched for studies that had been published up to 11 December 2019.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/37c4e715-8dc4-42f9-a00f-7065dc48aa49)
Trending now
\ \ A 52-year-old man presented with a 20-minute history of chest pain radiating to the left shoulder and neck, associated with dyspnea and diaphoresis.\ He had a history of hypertension, long-term smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle.\ On physical examination, bibasilar crackles were noted on lung auscultation. An electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed in the primary care setting, and the patient was promptly referred to the emergency department.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/ae0fe999-6875-4474-94f0-ad823dbb9b3a)
\ \ A 28-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of intense pruritus over the lower back. She reported no recent travel or exposure to new environments. She cares for a small kennel with approximately eight dogs rescued from the streets.\ Physical examination revealed multiple small vesicles, some clustered and others scattered, predominantly involving the lumbar region and the left gluteal area.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/c271070f-2bc7-4052-9895-635277e1a7d5)
\ \ A 4-month-old male infant presented with skin lesions localized to the chin for the past 3 days. Physical examination revealed multiple small pustules with surrounding inflammatory signs on the chin, along with a few scattered papules on the chest.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/48f41642-b9db-4089-b120-a94ee52328de)
\ \ patient in late teens presenting after a collapse, no chest pain, no previous cardiac history, no history of sudden death in family, are there any features in this ekg that would warrant further work-up or is this just a pediatric ekg?](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2af390e1-ace8-40ed-ba1c-98fb2d72f4c5)