Dataset Information

The cardiovascular effects of amodiaquine and structurally related antimalarials: An individual patient data meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Amodiaquine is a 4-aminoquinoline antimalarial similar to chloroquine that is used extensively for the treatment and prevention of malaria. Data on the cardiovascular effects of amodiaquine are scarce, although transient effects on cardiac electrophysiology (electrocardiographic QT interval prolongation and sinus bradycardia) have been observed. We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis to characterise the cardiovascular effects of amodiaquine and thereby support development of risk minimisation measures to improve the safety of this important antimalarial.

Methods and findings

Studies of amodiaquine for the treatment or prevention of malaria were identified from a systematic review. Heart rates and QT intervals with study-specific heart rate correction (QTcS) were compared within studies and individual patient data pooled for multivariable linear mixed effects regression. The meta-analysis included 2,681 patients from 4 randomised controlled trials evaluating artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) containing amodiaquine (n = 725), lumefantrine (n = 499), piperaquine (n = 716), and pyronaridine (n = 566), as well as monotherapy with chloroquine (n = 175) for uncomplicated malaria. Amodiaquine prolonged QTcS (mean = 16.9 ms, 95% CI: 15.0 to 18.8) less than chloroquine (21.9 ms, 18.3 to 25.6, p = 0.0069) and piperaquine (19.2 ms, 15.8 to 20.5, p = 0.0495), but more than lumefantrine (5.6 ms, 2.9 to 8.2, p < 0.001) and pyronaridine (-1.2 ms, -3.6 to +1.3, p < 0.001). In individuals aged ≥12 years, amodiaquine reduced heart rate (mean reduction = 15.2 beats per minute [bpm], 95% CI: 13.4 to 17.0) more than piperaquine (10.5 bpm, 7.7 to 13.3, p = 0.0013), lumefantrine (9.3 bpm, 6.4 to 12.2, p < 0.001), pyronaridine (6.6 bpm, 4.0 to 9.3, p < 0.001), and chloroquine (5.9 bpm, 3.2 to 8.5, p < 0.001) and was associated with a higher risk of potentially symptomatic sinus bradycardia (≤50 bpm) than lumefantrine (risk difference: 14.8%, 95% CI: 5.4 to 24.3, p = 0.0021) and chloroquine (risk difference: 8.0%, 95% CI: 4.0 to 12.0, p < 0.001). The effect of amodiaquine on the heart rate of children aged <12 years compared with other antimalarials was not clinically significant. Study limitations include the unavailability of individual patient-level adverse event data for most included participants, but no serious complications were documented.

Conclusions

While caution is advised in the use of amodiaquine in patients aged ≥12 years with concomitant use of heart rate-reducing medications, serious cardiac conduction disorders, or risk factors for torsade de pointes, there have been no serious cardiovascular events reported after amodiaquine in widespread use over 7 decades. Amodiaquine and structurally related antimalarials in the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended dose regimens alone or in ACTs are safe for the treatment and prevention of malaria.

SUBMITTER: Chan XHS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8454971 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeFatigue is a common and potentially disabling symptom in patients with cancer. It can often be effectively reduced by exercise. Yet, effects of exercise interventions might differ across subgroups. We conducted a meta-analysis using individual patient data of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to investigate moderators of exercise intervention effects on cancer-related fatigue.MethodsWe used individual patient data from 31 exercise RCT worldwide, representing 4366 patients, of whom 3846 had complete fatigue data. We performed a one-step individual patient data meta-analysis, using linear mixed-effect models to analyze the effects of exercise interventions on fatigue (z score) and to identify demographic, clinical, intervention- and exercise-related moderators. Models were adjusted for baseline fatigue and included a random intercept on study level to account for clustering of patients within studies. We identified potential moderators by testing their interaction with group allocation, using a likelihood ratio test.ResultsExercise interventions had statistically significant beneficial effects on fatigue (? = -0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.22 to -0.12). There was no evidence of moderation by demographic or clinical characteristics. Supervised exercise interventions had significantly larger effects on fatigue than unsupervised exercise interventions (?difference = -0.18; 95% CI -0.28 to -0.08). Supervised interventions with a duration ?12 wk showed larger effects on fatigue (? = -0.29; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.20) than supervised interventions with a longer duration.ConclusionsIn this individual patient data meta-analysis, we found statistically significant beneficial effects of exercise interventions on fatigue, irrespective of demographic and clinical characteristics. These findings support a role for exercise, preferably supervised exercise interventions, in clinical practice. Reasons for differential effects in duration require further exploration.

Project description:BackgroundThe majority of Plasmodium falciparum malaria cases in Africa are treated with the artemisinin combination therapies artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and artesunate-amodiaquine (AS-AQ), with amodiaquine being also widely used as part of seasonal malaria chemoprevention programs combined with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. While artemisinin derivatives have a short half-life, lumefantrine and amodiaquine may give rise to differing durations of post-treatment prophylaxis, an important additional benefit to patients in higher transmission areas.MethodsWe analyzed individual patient data from 8 clinical trials of AL versus AS-AQ in 12 sites in Africa (n?=?4214 individuals). The time to PCR-confirmed reinfection after treatment was used to estimate the duration of post-treatment protection, accounting for variation in transmission intensity between settings using hidden semi-Markov models. Accelerated failure-time models were used to identify potential effects of covariates on the time to reinfection. The estimated duration of chemoprophylaxis was then used in a mathematical model of malaria transmission to determine the potential public health impact of each drug when used for first-line treatment.ResultsWe estimated a mean duration of post-treatment protection of 13.0?days (95% CI 10.7-15.7) for AL and 15.2?days (95% CI 12.8-18.4) for AS-AQ overall. However, the duration varied significantly between trial sites, from 8.7-18.6?days for AL and 10.2-18.7?days for AS-AQ. Significant predictors of time to reinfection in multivariable models were transmission intensity, age, drug, and parasite genotype. Where wild type pfmdr1 and pfcrt parasite genotypes predominated (<=20% 86Y and 76T mutants, respectively), AS-AQ provided ~?2-fold longer protection than AL. Conversely, at a higher prevalence of 86Y and 76T mutant parasites (>?80%), AL provided up to 1.5-fold longer protection than AS-AQ. Our simulations found that these differences in the duration of protection could alter population-level clinical incidence of malaria by up to 14% in under-5-year-old children when the drugs were used as first-line treatments in areas with high, seasonal transmission.ConclusionChoosing a first-line treatment which provides optimal post-treatment prophylaxis given the local prevalence of resistance-associated markers could make a significant contribution to reducing malaria morbidity.

Project description:BACKGROUND:After a 1999 National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical alert was issued, chemoradiotherapy has become widely used in treating women with cervical cancer. Two subsequent systematic reviews found that interpretation of the benefits was complicated and some important clinical questions were unanswered. OBJECTIVES:We initiated a meta-analysis seeking updated individual patient data (IPD) from all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effect of chemoradiotherapy on all outcomes. We pre-specified analyses to investigate whether the effect of chemoradiotherapy differed by trial or patient characteristics. SEARCH STRATEGY:We supplemented MEDLINE, LILACS and CANCERLIT searches with information from trial registers, by handsearching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with relevant trialists and organisations. Searches were updated until October 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA:Both published and unpublished trials were eligible for inclusion provided the patients had been randomised between radiotherapy (with or without surgery) versus concomitant chemoradiotherapy (with or without surgery); that the method of randomisation precluded prior knowledge of the treatment to be assigned; and that the trial had completed patient recruitment before the date of the final analyses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual patients from all available RCTs. We sought data from all patients randomised in all eligible trials. We obtained updated information on survival, recurrence and date of last follow up. To avoid potential bias, we requested information for all randomised patients, including those who had been excluded from the investigators' original analyses. MAIN RESULTS:Eighteen trials were identified and 15 of these were eligible for inclusion in the main analysis. On the basis of 13 trials that compared chemoradiotherapy versus the same radiotherapy, there was a 6% improvement in 5-year survival with chemoradiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81, P < 0.001). A larger survival benefit was seen for the two further trials in which chemotherapy was administered after chemoradiotherapy. There was a significant survival benefit for both the group of trials that used platinum-based (HR = 0.83, P = 0.017) and non-platinum based (HR = 0.77, P = 0.009) chemoradiotherapy, but no evidence of a difference in the size of the benefit by radiotherapy or chemotherapy dose or scheduling was seen. Chemoradiotherapy also reduced local and distant recurrence and progression and improved disease-free survival (DFS). There was a suggestion of a difference in the size of the survival benefit with tumour stage, but not across other patient subgroups. Acute haematological and gastro-intestinal toxicity were increased with chemoradiotherapy, but data were too sparse for an analysis of late toxicity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:These results endorse the recommendations of the NCI alert, but also demonstrate their applicability to all women and a benefit of non-platinum based chemoradiotherapy. Furthermore, although these results suggest an additional benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy this requires testing in RCTs.