Malaria Chemoprophylaxis in the Age of Drug Resistance. II. Drugs That May Be Available in the Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All current regimens of malaria chemoprophylaxis have serious drawbacks as a result of either suboptimal efficacy, difficulty with medication compliance, or adverse events. Two 8-aminoquinolines may be approaching registration, with primaquine having completed its prophylactic field testing and tafenoquine having begun advanced field testing at the end of 2000. Primaquine has long been used for management of relapses of malaria, but in the past decade, it has been reexamined for use in malaria prevention in order to stop infection in the liver. In field trials performed in Indonesia and Colombia, the efficacy of primaquine for malaria prevention was approximately 90%, compared with that of placebo. Because of its short half-life, primaquine requires daily administration. For adults, the prevention regimen is 30 mg base daily (0.5 mg base/kg/day), and it can probably be discontinued soon after departure from an area where malaria is endemic. To kill parasites that already exist in the liver, terminal prophylaxis is given after exposure to relapses of malaria infection; for adults, such prophylaxis usually consists of 15 mg base (0.3 mg base/kg/day) given daily for 2 weeks. Primaquine-induced gastrointestinal disturbances can be minimized if the drug is taken with food. Neither primaquine nor tafenoquine should be given to persons with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, to avoid the development of potentially severe drug-induced hemolysis. Tafenoquine is an analogue of primaquine that is more potent than the parent drug. Field trials in Kenya, Ghana, Gabon, and Southeast Asia have demonstrated an efficacy rate of approximately 90% for tafenoquine. Its long half-life allows for infrequent dosing (currently tested at 200 mg base/week), and its effect on parasites at the liver stage may allow for drug discontinuation at the time of departure from the area of endemicity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".