| Literature DB >> 29690878 |
G Lu1,2, M Nagbanshi2, N Goldau2, M Mendes Jorge2, P Meissner3, A Jahn2, F P Mockenhaupt4, O Müller5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methylene blue (MB) was the first synthetic antimalarial to be discovered and was used during the late 19th and early 20th centuries against all types of malaria. MB has been shown to be effective in inhibiting Plasmodium falciparum in culture, in the mouse model and in rhesus monkeys. MB was also shown to have a potent ex vivo activity against drug-resistant isolates of P. falciparum and P. vivax. In preclinical studies, MB acted synergistically with artemisinin derivates and demonstrated a strong effect on gametocyte reduction in P. falciparum. MB has, thus, been considered a potentially useful partner drug for artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT), particularly when elimination is the final goal. The aim of this study was to review the scientific literature published until early 2017 to summarise existing knowledge on the efficacy and safety of MB in the treatment of malaria.Entities:
Keywords: Malaria, Methylene blue, Efficacy and safety, Drug resistance, Elimination
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29690878 PMCID: PMC5979000 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1045-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med ISSN: 1741-7015 Impact factor: 8.775
Fig. 1Selection process of the review. * Original full article not available due to it being very old despite exhaustive searches of all possible resources including databases and libraries and making contact with journal archivists. † Information was missing on more than three parameters of the analysis and there was no possibility of getting this from other resources. MB methylene blue, RCT randomised controlled trial
Summary of included studies assessing methylene blue (MB) in the treatment of malaria
| Study: | Patient information | Malaria type | Malaria diagnosis | MB treatment | Follow-up | Efficacy outcome | Safety outcome | Other Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randomised controlled trials | ||||||||
| Coulibaly et al |
| By microscope | Arm 1: AS-AQ-MB ( | 28 days | ACPR was 80% in arm 1, and 85% in arm 2. Significant lower gametocyte prevalence on day 7 in arm 1 compared to arm 2 (both microscopically and molecular biologically) | MB regimen was associated with more vomiting. Haemoglobin values were significantly lower in arm 1 than in arm 2 at day 2 and day 7 (difference 0.5–1.0 mg/dl) | (1) There were no differences in parents and caregivers self-reported acceptance rate between groups | |
| Zoungrana et al. Burkina Faso (2008) [ |
| By microscope | Arm 1: MB-AS ( | 28 days | ACPR was 62% in arm 1, 95% in arm 2 and 82% in arm 3 | MB regimen was associated with vomiting and dysuria | Vomiting was shown to be much reduced by administering MB together with food | |
| Meissner et al. |
| By microscope | Arm 1: CQ-MB ( | 14 days | ACPR was 56% (93/166) in arm 1 compared to 46% (19/41) in arm 2 | No differences in SAEs, and no cases of severe haemolysis | Administration of the bitter-tasting MB solution was sometimes difficult, especially in younger children | |
| Non-randomised control trials | ||||||||
| Bountogo et al. |
| By microscope | Arm 1: MB for 7 days ( | 28 days | Arm 1: 0/20 recrudescence | Dysuria (47/60). | MB was given at a dose of 390 mg twice daily after breakfast and supper | |
| Meissner et al. |
| By microscope | Arm 1: CQ-MB ( | 14 days | Overall clinical and parasitological cure rate on day 14 was 90% (326/364) and 77% (278/364) respectively, without differences between groups | There were three SAEs, one probably associated with MB | MB was given with fruit flavouring and honey supplement to mask the bitter taste | |
| Alving (1949) |
| Clinical | Arm 1: IQ ( | 14 days | Arm 1: 9/10 relapsed | 1/10 in arm 1 experienced severe haemolysis; after being treated again with IQ plus MB for 14 days, no haemolysis | – | |
| Case series | ||||||||
| Mayer |
| By microscope | 1000 mg per day over 30 days (16 days MB and 14 days breaks); MB divided into five doses of 200 mg per day | 52–72 days | 2/3: cure | Mild urogenital symptoms despite daily nutmeg application | – | |
| Panse |
| By microscope | Case 1: 400–1000 mg per day for 14 days | 14–32 days | Case 1: cure Case 2: failure | No safety information | Both patients were pretreated with quinine | |
| Glogner |
| By microscope | Adults: 1000 mg every 2 days; 1000 mg per day | 2–7 months | 6/6 relapsed | No safety information | All patients were pretreated with quinine | |
| Ollwig | By microscope | 300 mg per day to 1000 mg per day for 3 days to 14 days, followed by breaks of 5–8 days. The regimen was cycled up to 3 months | 8 days to 3 months | 7/10: cured | Urogenital symptoms ( | Frequent vomiting of MB reported in 2/3 failure cases | ||
| Cardamatis | Clinical | In 245/275 MB monotherapy | Up to 1 year | 257/275 cured | Urogenital symptoms observed only with very high MB doses | Good efficacy in quinine non-responders | ||
| Röttger | No specific | Clinical | 600–800 mg per day for 8–33 days | 8–33 days | 6/7 cured | 1/7 vomiting after MB1/7 urogenital symptoms | Nutmeg helped to reduce the urogenital side effects | |
| Ferreira | No specific | Clinical | 200–600 mg per day, usually in divided doses, for 3–30 days | 3–30 days (median 9 days) | 21/21 cured | 1/21 reported urogenital symptoms | 5/21 initial treatment with quinine failed | |
| Parenski and Blatteis | No specific | By microscope | 800–1500 mg per day | 7 days to 4 months | 33/35 cases cured after 7 days | Divided small doses (0.1–0.2 g) of MB rarely produced side effectsDivided higher doses (0.4–0.6 g) of MB produced more side effects, in particular vomiting and urogenital symptoms | Medicinale MB Merck free of chlorinated zinc, lead and arsenic was used | |
| Thayer | Clinical | 400–1000 mg per day for 7–23 days | 7–23 | 4/7 cured | Urogenital symptoms (3/7) | Nutmeg was taken together with MB to reduce urogenital symptoms | ||
| Guttmann and Ehrlich |
| By microscope | 500 mg per day for 12–24 days | 1–2 months | 2/2 cured | Urogenital symptoms ( | Nutmeg was taken together with MB to reduce urogenital symptoms | |
| Case reports | ||||||||
| Mühlens and Kirschbaum |
| By microscope | 1000 mg per day for 7 days followed by alternating 5-day breaks and 3-day treatments with 1000 mg per day for 3 months | 3 months | Cured | No safety information | Nutmeg was taken together with MB to reduce urogenital symptoms | |
| Atkinson | Unspecified | By microscope | 300 mg per day | 11 days | Cured | Gastrointestinal disorder | Initial treatment with quinine failed | |
| Sivers |
| By microscope | 500 mg per day | 3 days | Cured | Vomiting | – | |
| Anonymous |
| By microscope | 1000 mg on day 1, | 2 months | Parasite-free on day 7, relapse on day 14, and cured without relapse on day 60 | Urogenital symptoms | MB dose for treatment after relapse not specified | |
| Trintignan |
| Clinical | 2000 mg per day during acute attack, followed by 500 mg per day until day 20 | 20 days | Cured | None | – | |
ACPR adequate clinical and parasitological response, AQ amodiaquine, AS artesunate, CQ chloroquine, IQ isopentaquine, MB methylene blue, SAE serious adverse event
aControlled phase II study
bPhase II dose-finding study
Quality assessment of included randomised controlled trials
| Study: | Selection biasa (random sequence generation) | Performance biasa (blinding of the participants and personnel) | Detection biasa (blinding of outcome assessment) | Attribution biasa (incomplete outcome data) | Reporting biasa(selective reporting) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation concealment biasa | ||||||
| Coulibaly et al | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Zoungrana et al. | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Meissner et al. | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
aAssessed as low, unclear or high risk of bias
Quality assessment of included non-randomised controlled trials
| Methodological item | Score for studiesa | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Bountogo et al. | Meissner et al. | Alving (1949) | |
| Clearly stated aim | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Inclusion of consecutive patients | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Prospective collection of data | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| End points appropriate to the aim of the study | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Unbiased assessment of the study end point | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Loss to follow-up less than 5% | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Prospective calculation of the study size | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Adequate control group | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Contemporary groups | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Baseline equivalence of groups | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Adequate statistical analyses | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Total score | 20 | 23 | 6 |
aThe items are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate) or 2 (reported and adequate). The global ideal score was 24 for comparative studies
Quality assessment of included case series and case reports
| Study: | Score for studiesa | Total score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What is the overall degree of presentation of study details? | Detailed presentation of study participant characteristics? | Case definition clearly reported? | Clear description of malaria treatment reported? | Clear reporting on the follow-up period? | Appropriate reporting of efficacy outcomes? | Appropriate reporting of safety outcomes? | ||
| Case series | ||||||||
| Mayer | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 12 |
| Panse | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Glogner Indonesia (1901) [ | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
| Ollwig | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 11 |
| Cardamatis | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Röttger | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 12 |
| Ferreira | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 13 |
| Parenski and Blatteis | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Thayer | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 12 |
| Guttmann and Ehrlich | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 13 |
| Case reports | ||||||||
| Mühlens Germany (1921) [ | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 9 |
| Atkinson | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 10 |
| Sivers | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 11 |
| Anonymous | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 14 |
| Trintignan | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 9 |
aThe items are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate) or 2 (reported and adequate). The global ideal score was 14 for case series and case reports