PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9815460

Malaria Prophylaxis in Different Age Groups.

ML Mittelholzer·M Wall·R Steffen·D Stürchler
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Background: There is a perceived increased health risk in senior visitors to malaria endemic countries. Methods: The authors sought to compare effectiveness and tolerability of malaria chemoprophylaxis in senior travelers (>=60 years) with those in younger travelers (20-59 years). The "Malpro 2" database consists of more than 100,000 questionnaires completed by travelers on charter planes returning from East Africa to Europe during July 1988-December 1991. Among them, 9106 (9.1%) of the travelers were 60 years or older, and 84,562 (84.6%) of the travelers reported to be 20-59 years. Variables of demography, travel data, and the effectiveness and tolerability of chemoprophylaxis were compared in the two subgroups. Results: Malaria in Africa was reported by 8 (1/1000) elderly travelers and by 189 (2.2/1000) travelers aged 20-59 years. Adjusting for age, sex, prophylaxis, and duration of stay in Africa in a logistic regression model, malaria was significantly more frequent in younger than in senior travelers (p<.05). Any travel-associated illness was reported by 7.0% in the senior age group and by 13.6% in the younger age group (p<.05). The rates of travelers who indicated they had "side effects" attributable to malaria prophylaxis varied between 9.7% in the elderly and 15.5% in the younger travelers (p<.05). Conclusion: Senior travelers tolerate malaria chemoprophylaxis and visits to the tropics at least as well as younger travelers.

Explore related subjects

Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

ML Mittelholzer, M Wall, R Steffen, D Stürchler. 1996-12-01. Malaria Prophylaxis in Different Age Groups.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8305.1996.tb00750.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2027

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗