Comparative efficacy and safety of chloroquine and alternative antimalarial drugs: a meta-analysis from six African countries.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the currently used antimalarial drugs in six African countries. DESIGN: A meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The role of efficacy, safety and cost on the selection of antimalarial drugs. RESULTS: The comparative efficacy study showed that amodiaquine (with > 90% cure rate) was superior to chloroquine and sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine at seven days schedule. The efficacy of amodiaquine was also observed to be comparable to that of mefloquine and halofantrine. The parasite clearance time (PCT) of these drugs ranged between two days and a week and the fever clearance time (FCT) was within 48 hours. The recrudescence rate at D14-D21 was found to be 12-17% in chloroquine and amodiaquine, while sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine showed a trend similar to halofantrine and mefloquine (0-12% recrudescence rate). Similarly, a big difference was also noted in the cost of the different antimalarial drugs. The pharmacokinetic data, however, showed that they are of similar profile, except in adverse features and contraindications, and values like their half-life (t1/2) where the long (t1/2) in drugs like sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine endows them with suppressive-cure feature, especially against recrudescent strains. Nevertheless, as these data are obtained from resident population in Africa, who however naive are exposed to few malaria challenges in their life, the results should not be directly extrapolated to total non immunes such as visitors from Europe. CONCLUSION: The choice of alternative antimalarial drugs should be mainly based on their relative efficacy, safety and cost.