4.4 Article

Comparative safety of artemether-lumefantrine and other artemisinin-based combinations in children: a systematic review

期刊

MALARIA JOURNAL
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-12-385

关键词

Artemether-lumefantrine; Adverse event; Paediatrics; Children; Safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of the study was to compare the safety of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) with other artemisinin-based combinations in children. Methods: A search of EMBASE (from 1974 to April 2013), MEDLINE (from 1946 to April 2013) and the Cochrane library of registered controlled trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared AL with other artemisinin-based combinations was done. Only studies involving children <= 17 years old in which safety of AL was an outcome measure were included. Results: Four thousand, seven hundred and twenty six adverse events (AEs) were recorded in 6,000 patients receiving AL. Common AEs (>= 1/100 and <1/10) included: coryza, vomiting, anaemia, diarrhoea, vomiting and abdominal pain; while cough was the only very commonly reported AE (>= 1/10). AL-treated children have a higher risk of body weakness (64.9%) than those on artesunate-mefloquine (58.2%) (p = 0.004, RR: 1.12 95% CI: 1.04-1.21). The risk of vomiting was significantly lower in patients on AL (8.8%) than artesunate-amodiaquine (10.6%) (p = 0.002, RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63-0.90). Similarly, children on AL had a lower risk of vomiting (1.2%) than chlorproguanil-dapsoneartesunate (ACD) treated children (5.2%) (p = 0.002, RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47-0.85). The risk of serious adverse events was significantly lower for AL (1.3%) than ACD (5.2%) (p = 0.002, RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27-0.74). Conclusion: Artemether-lumefantrine combination is as safe as ASAQ and DP for use in children. Common adverse events are cough and gastrointestinal symptoms. More studies comparing AL with artesunate-mefloquine and artesunate-azithromycin are needed to determine the comparative safety of these drugs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据