Residual antimalarials in malaria patients from Tanzania--implications on drug efficacy assessment and spread of parasite resistance.

Repeated antimalarial treatment for febrile episodes and self-treatment are common in malaria-endemic areas. The intake of antimalarials prior to participating in an in vivo study may alter treatment outcome and affect the interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes. We report the findings from baseline plasma sampling of malaria patients prior to inclusion into an in vivo study in Tanzania and discuss the implications of residual concentrations of antimalarials in this setting. In an in vivo study conducted in a rural area of Tanzania in 2008, baseline plasma samples from patients reporting no antimalarial intake within the last 28 days were screened for the presence of 14 antimalarials (parent drugs or metabolites) using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Among the 148 patients enrolled, 110 (74.3%) had at least one antimalarial in their plasma: 80 (54.1%) had lumefantrine above the lower limit of calibration (LLC = 4 ng/mL), 7 (4.7%) desbutyl-lumefantrine (4 ng/mL), 77 (52.0%) sulfadoxine (0.5 ng/mL), 15 (10.1%) pyrimethamine (0.5 ng/mL), 16 (10.8%) quinine (2.5 ng/mL) and none chloroquine (2.5 ng/mL). The proportion of patients with detectable antimalarial drug levels prior to enrollment into the study is worrying. Indeed artemether-lumefantrine was supposed to be available only at government health facilities. Although sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine is only recommended for intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp), it was still widely used in public and private health facilities and sold in drug shops. Self-reporting of previous drug intake is unreliable and thus screening for the presence of antimalarial drug levels should be considered in future in vivo studies to allow for accurate assessment of treatment outcome. Furthermore, persisting sub-therapeutic drug levels of antimalarials in a population could promote the spread of drug resistance. The knowledge on drug pressure in a given population is important to monitor standard treatment policy implementation.

Unlicensed and off-label drug use in a Swiss paediatric university hospital.

BACKGROUND: Many medicines used in newborns, infants, children and adolescents are not licensed ("unlicensed") or are prescribed outside the terms of the marketing authorization ("off-label"). Several studies have shown that this is a common practice in various healthcare settings in the USA, Europe and Australia, but data are scarce in Switzerland. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our prospective study was to determine the proportion of unlicensed or off-label prescriptions in paediatric patients. METHODS: This pilot study was conducted prospectively over a six month period in the department of paediatrics of a university hospital. RESULTS: Sixty patients aged from three days to 14 years were included in the study. A total of 483 prescriptions were written for the patients. More than half of all prescriptions (247; 51%) followed the terms of the marketing authorization. 114 (24%) were unlicensed and 122 (25%) off-label. All patients received at least one unlicensed or offlabel medicine. CONCLUSION: The use of unlicensed or off-label medicines to treat children was found to be common. Co-operation between the pharmaceutical industry, national regulatory authorities, clinical researchers, healthcare professionals and parents is required in order to ensure that children do not remain "therapeutic orphans".