Tafenoquine co-administered with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax malaria (INSPECTOR): a randomised, placebo-controlled, efficacy and safety study

BACKGROUND

Tafenoquine, co-administered with chloroquine, is approved for the radical cure (prevention of relapse) of Plasmodium vivax malaria. In areas of chloroquine resistance, artemisinin-based combination therapies are used to treat malaria. This study aimed to evaluate tafenoquine plus the artemisinin-based combination therapy dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for the radical cure of P vivax malaria.

METHODS

In this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase-normal Indonesian soldiers with microscopically confirmed P vivax malaria were randomly assigned by means of a computer-generated randomisation schedule (1:1:1) to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine alone, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus a masked single 300-mg dose of tafenoquine, or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus 14 days of primaquine (15 mg). The primary endpoint was 6-month relapse-free efficacy following tafenoquine plus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine alone in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of masked treatment and had microscopically confirmed P vivax at baseline (microbiological intention-to-treat population). Safety was a secondary outcome and the safety population comprised all patients who received at least one dose of masked medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02802501 and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between April 8, 2018, and Feb 4, 2019, of 164 patients screened for eligibility, 150 were randomly assigned (50 per treatment group). 6-month Kaplan-Meier relapse-free efficacy (microbiological intention to treat) was 11% (95% CI 4-22) in patients treated with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine alone versus 21% (11-34) in patients treated with tafenoquine plus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (hazard ratio 0·44; 95% CI [0·29-0·69]) and 52% (37-65) in the primaquine plus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine group. Adverse events over the first 28 days were reported in 27 (54%) of 50 patients treated with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine alone, 29 (58%) of 50 patients treated with tafenoquine plus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, and 22 (44%) of 50 patients treated with primaquine plus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. Serious adverse events were reported in one (2%) of 50, two (4%) of 50, and two (4%) of 50 of patients, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Although tafenoquine plus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine was statistically superior to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine alone for the radical cure of P vivax malaria, the benefit was not clinically meaningful. This contrasts with previous studies in which tafenoquine plus chloroquine was clinically superior to chloroquine alone for radical cure of P vivax malaria.

FUNDING

ExxonMobil, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Newcrest Mining, UK Government all through Medicines for Malaria Venture; and GSK.

TRANSLATION

For the Indonesian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

A randomized comparison of intravenously administered granisetron versus chlorpromazine plus dexamethasone in the prevention of ifosfamide-induced emesis in children

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravenously administered granisetron with those of chlorpromazine plus dexamethosone in the prevention of ifosmamide-induced emesis in children with malignant disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty-eight children, aged 2 to 17 years, were scheduled for ifosfamide therapy (> or = 3 gm/m2) for 2 or 3 consecutive days. On each day, children received granisetron, 20 microgram/kg intravenously, before ifosfamide therapy, plus up to two more doses within 24 hours if required, or chlorpromazine, 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg intravenously, every 4 to 6 hours, plus dexamethasone, 2 mg/m2 intravenously every 8 hours.

RESULTS

During the initial 24 hours, significantly fewer episodes of vomiting were recorded after granisetron administration (median number, 1.5 vs 7.0; p = 0.001), and the percentages of children having no more than one vomiting episode (51% granisetron vs 21% chlorpromazine-dexamethasone) and no worse than mild nausea (67% granisetron vs 38% chlorpromazine-dexamethasone) were lower after granisetron therapy (p < 0.01). Fewer children had sedation with granisetron (2 vs 19; p < 0.001); there were no extrapyramidal reactions during granisetron therapy compared with two during control therapy.

CONCLUSION

Granisetron was superior to chlorpromazine-dexamethasone antiemetic therapy for children receiving ifosfamide therapy and deserves further study during other chemotherapy regimens.

Oral granisetron alone and in combination with dexamethasone: a double-blind randomized comparison against high-dose metoclopramide plus dexamethasone in prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. The Granisetron Study Group

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Three anti-emetic treatment regimens were compared in 357 patients receiving cisplatin therapy (mean dose 81 mg/m2) in this double-blind randomized study. Regimens studied were i) granisetron 1 mg bd orally for 7 days (granisetron alone); ii) gran 1 mg bd orally for 7 days plus prophylactic dexamethasone (12 mg i.v.) on the first day only (gran/dex); iii) metoclopramide (3 mg/kg i.v. loading dose; 4 mg/kg i.v. infusion) plus dex (12 mg i.v.) on the first day followed by met 10 mg orally tds for a further 6 days (met/dex).

RESULTS

At 24 hours, gran/dex was significantly superior to met/dex in terms of total anti-emetic control, defined as no nausea, no vomiting, no rescue anti-emetic therapy, not withdrawn (54.7% gran/dex vs. 37.2% met/dex; P < 0.01). There was also a significant delay in time to onset of nausea (P < 0.01) and vomiting (P < 0.01) following gran/dex compared with met/dex. Oral granisetron alone was as effective as met/dex in control of acute emesis in all parameters examined. There were no significant differences between the three groups in the control of delayed nausea and vomiting. The most common adverse experiences in both granisetron groups were headache and constipation, both characteristic of 5-HT3 antagonists. Agitation, somnolence, diarrhoea and decreased appetite were reported more frequently by the met/dex group.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral granisetron as a single agent is as effective as high doses of i.v. met/dex in preventing cisplatin-induced emesis. Oral granisetron in combination with a corticosteroid provides superior anti-emetic control to the met/dex regimen in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Comparison of 40 mg famotidine nightly and 150 mg ranitidine b.d.: ulcer healing and symptom relief in benign gastric ulcer

Two hundred and eight patients with benign gastric ulcers seen on endoscopy were recruited by 13 hospitals in the United Kingdom and Ireland into this double-blind study. Patients were assigned by pre-randomized schedule to 8 weeks of treatment with either 40 mg famotidine at night or 150 mg ranitidine b.d. Repeat endoscopy confirmed complete ulcer healing in 62 of 77 evaluable patients in the famotidine group (81%) and 58 of 71 in the ranitidine group (82%). The treatments were equally effective in promptly relieving day and night pain. Adverse events were uncommon; dizziness and headaches were the most frequently reported in both groups. In conclusion, night-time famotidine is as effective as twice daily ranitidine in healing benign gastric ulcers and provides similarly rapid symptomatic relief.