Open Access

Macrolides and associated antibiotics based on similar mechanism of action like lincosamides in malaria

Malaria Journal201615:85

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-016-1114-z

Received: 18 June 2015

Accepted: 20 January 2016

Published: 12 February 2016

Abstract

Malaria, a parasite vector-borne disease, is one of the biggest health threats in tropical regions, despite the availability of malaria chemoprophylaxis. The emergence and rapid extension of Plasmodium falciparum resistance to various anti-malarial drugs has gradually limited the potential malaria therapeutics available to clinicians. In this context, macrolides and associated antibiotics based on similar mechanism of action like lincosamides constitute an interesting alternative in the treatment of malaria. These molecules, whose action spectrum is similar to that of tetracyclines, are typically administered to children and pregnant women. Recent studies have examined the effects of azithromycin and the lincosamide clindamycin, on isolates from different continents. Azithromycin and clindamycin are effective and well tolerated in the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in combination with quinine. This literature review assesses the roles of macrolides and lincosamides in the prophylaxis and treatment of malaria.

Keywords

AntibioticsAntimalarial drugMalaria Plasmodium falciparum MacrolidesLincosamidesTreatmentResistance

Background

Malaria, a parasite vector-borne disease, is one of the largest health threats in tropical regions, despite the availability of malaria chemoprophylaxis and the use of repellents and insecticide-treated nets [1]. The prophylaxis and chemotherapy of malaria remains a major area of malaria research, and new molecules are constantly being developed prior to the emergence of resistant parasite strains. The use of anti-malarial drugs is conditioned based on the level of resistance of Plasmodium falciparum in endemic areas and the contraindications, clinical tolerance and financial costs of these drugs. Among the compounds potentially used against Plasmodium, antibiotics have been examined in vitro or in vivo.

After tetracyclines, the second family of potential antibiotics in the fight against Plasmodium includes macrolides and macrolide derivatives, a class of compounds with 14-20 membered macrolactone ring. Another class of antibiotics, licosamides whose chemical structure differs from the macrolides, are associated with the macrolides based on similar mechanism of action. Recent studies have examined the effects of the macrolide azithromycin and the lincosamide clindamycin, on isolates from different continents [24]. These molecules, whose action spectrum is similar to that of tetracyclines, are typically administered to children and pregnant women [511].

This literature review assesses the roles of macrolides and macrolide derivatives in the prophylaxis and treatment of malaria.

Classification of macrolides and associated antibiotics based on similar mechanism of action like lincosamides

The macrolide family comprises lincosamides and streptogramines, referred to as the MLSB group. These antibiotics, with a distinct chemical structure, are classified in the same group based on comparable activity spectra and identical functional mechanism, based on the inhibition of protein synthesis. These antibiotics, with limited activity spectra, are particularly active against the intracellular germs and are currently administered to children and pregnant women [511], conferring a notable advantage compared with tetracyclines. Certain antibiotics of this family are useful as anti-malarial substances.

The classification of macrolides is based on the number of carbon links, which distinguishes macrolides with 14 atoms from 15- or 16-membered macrolides. The 14-membered erythromycin is the oldest molecule (1952); all second-generation macrolides: roxithromycin, clarithromycin and dirithromycin [12] are products of hemisynthesis and derived from erythromycin. The only azalide with 15 carbon atoms is azithromycin, produced through the introduction of a nitrogen atom inserted into the macrolide nucleus at C10. This modification has improved the penetration of drugs into macrophages, fibroblasts and polymorphonuclear neutrophils, facilitating increased accumulation within acidified vacuoles and extending the half-life [4]. It has also improved activity against Gram-negative bacteria and other pathogens from parasitic infections [13]. The antibiotics with 16 carbon links are spiramycin and josamycin. Chemical modifications are constantly being developed to optimize this family [14].

Lincosamides are antibiotics associated with the macrolides based on a similar action spectrum, although the structure of these compounds differs. Lincomycin is a sugar isolated in 1962 from fermentation through Streptomyces lincolnensis. Substitution of the C7 bearing a hydroxyl function with a chlorine atom generated a semi-synthetic derivative, such as 7-chloro-7-deoxy-lincomycin or clindamycin, with a higher antibiotic activity and digestive absorption. Clinical trials have shown the efficacity, safety and practicability of the treatment of P. falciparum malaria with clindamycin [2].

Pharmacological properties

Macrolides exhibit poor digestive absorption of less than 60 %, and this effect is strongly influenced by food. The half-life of these drugs is variable, from a short half-life for erythromycin (2 h) and clarithromycin (4 h) to long half-life for azithromycin (68 h) [3]. Efforts for development of molecules of this family were first employed to improve pharmacological properties, but not antimicrobial activities.

With the exception of cerebrospinal fluid and brain, macrolides show excellent tissue distribution in tissues, such as bone and liver. Erythromycin and clarithromycin are highly metabolized in the liver through interactions with cytochrome P450 CYP3A4, which has been implicated in many drug interactions. The elimination of macrolide and macrolide derivatives is primarily biliary. Indeed, liver failure severely disrupts pharmacokinetics. Concerning azithromycin, mild renal dysfunction and mild-to-moderate hepatic dysfunction do not significantly affect excretion.

Azithromycin is a slightly metabolized molecule, with 37 % bioavailability after oral administration [15]. It is known to have a large volume of distribution, achieving high tissue concentrations. It accumulates in hepatic, renal, pulmonary and splenic tissues and gradually leaches into the bloodstream over a period of 1 week [16]. It also accumulates within fibroblastes and phagocytic lysosomes; these cells may serve as a reservoir for slow release of the drug [17]. Compared with older generation macrolides, it is more stable in acidic media and has a longer half-life, allowing for once a day [18]. Indeed, following a standard 500 mg oral dose, peak plasma concentrations are attained with a Tmax of 2–4 h; the plasma half-life of azithromycin is approximately 70 h following oral formulation [18].

Among lincosamides, clindamycin has a 90 % digestive absorption. Unlike lincomycin, clindamycin absorption is not reduced, but only delayed, through food intake. Characterized by slow but thorough anti-malarial activity, clindamycin presents a remarkably short plasma half-life (2–4 h) [7]. Lincosamides exhibit good tissue penetration, and contrary to macrolides, pass the blood–brain barrier. Clindamycin metabolism occurs in the liver, with elimination and high bile concentration. In hepatic insufficiency, the half-life can be extended twice and doses should be reduced accordingly. With respect to the effect on Plasmodium, clindamycin slowly accumulates in parasites [6].

Tolerance

Macrolides are generally well tolerated; moreover, they exhibit a good safety profile in children and pregnant women [14]. The adverse events most frequently reported are gastrointestinal disorders: nausea, vomiting, and episgastralgia associated with the administered dose. Other side effects, such as neurosensory in the type of headache and dizziness disorders, skin allergies and rare cases of cholestatic hepatitis, have been reported, but these effects are rare. The “old” molecules typically present more side effects than the newer molecules. Macrolides are largely a problem of drug interference, reflecting the role of cytochrome [19]. Notably, although the risk of drug interactions is high, the risk of interactions with new molecules is much less important.

Drug interactions are less frequently observed with lincosamides than with macrolides. The oral forms of lincosamides exhibit a more irritative effect (esophagitis) than the parenteral forms (chemically induced phlebitis). Systemic reactions, including allergies, skin reactions and anaphylactic shock, have been reported. Diarrhoea and digestive disorders primarily occur with the oral forms [2]. Moreover, the appearance of pseudomembranous colitis resulting from Clostridium difficile toxin selection is characterized by profuse watery diarrhoea, fever, and occasional bleeding, requiring the discontinuation of treatment [20]. Moreover, rapid intravenous administration might reflect the electrocardiographic changes and even collapse of cardiac arrest observed in response to lincosamide treatments [21]. Haematologic disorders, such as leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia have been reported. Gastrointestinal disorders are frequently reported in patients receiving azithromycin. Doses of azithromycin between 500 and 2000 mg have been used in all trimesters of human pregnancy for the treatment of upper and lower respiratory tract infections, skin diseases, and infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycoplasma and group B streptococci among women allergic to other antibiotics [4]. Nevertheless, azithromycin delays cardiac polarization [21, 22], although preliminary studies concerning the combination of azithromycin with chloroquine for QT prolongation indicate that cardiac instability is not increased under this combination [23].

Mechanism of antiplasmodial action

In bacteria, macrolides inhibit the synthesis of cell proteins through binding to the 50S subunit of the ribosome. The inhibition of protein synthesis through the inhibition of transpeptidation explains the postantibiotic effects of this drug, measured after 3–4 h. The macrolide antibacterial spectrum is similar to that of erythromycin. This spectrum is limited to Gram-positive bacteria, and Gram-negative bacilli remain impermeable to these molecules; however, because of the intracellular concentration of these drugs, macrolides are active against intracellular bacteria development [24]. New macrolide compounds, including the azalide azithromycin, and lincosamides present more or less broader antibacterial activity than erythromycin; the lincosamide clindamycin remains of particular interest as therapy for some parasitic infections [13]. Anti-malarial properties occur by targeting the bacterium-derived translational machinery in the relict plastid, apicoplast, present in Plasmodium spp. [14]. This organelle is limited by four membranes and located within parasitic cells; it contains a 35 kb circular DNA allowing [16] replication, RNA transcription and RNA–protein translation [25].

The macrolide antibiotic azithromycin exhibits the best antiplasmodial properties. This molecule targets the 70S ribosomal subunit from the apical complex [16], comprising 50S and 30S subunits. Once fixed, macrolide prevents the synthesis of the polypeptide, which is subsequently prematurely released [4]. The synthesis of a nonfunctional apicoplast, resulting from exposure to azithromycin, is at the origin of the delayed effect of the molecule. Indeed, parasites treated during first 48 h life cycle show non obvious defect from the loss of apicoplast-encoded gene products: organelle morphology, genome replication protein targeting and segregation during cell division remain intact. Likewise, parasites progress normally through the different developmental stages, giving rise to daughter merozoites that successfully reinvade to establish infection of a new host cell. The deleterious effects of antibiotic occur in the second life cycle following antibiotic treatment in which the apicoplast genome fails to replicate [26]. Thus, similar to tetracyclines, the antiplasmodial action of this macrolide is therefore delayed [27, 28]; this phenomenon in which the parasite completes a full cycle before achieving growth inhibition is referred to “delayed death” [29]. Delayed death is a strategy for examining whether an antibiotic acts on the apicoplast, and unlike antiparasitic molecules with immediate effects, the activity of antiparasitic compounds on some functions of the apicoplast is measurable beyond cell division. Several studies have also identified the immediate activity of azithromycin [3032], well above that of older macrolides. The mechanism responsible for this activity has not been elucidated [14] and clinical studies failed to demonstrate even equivalence of 3-day treatment with azithromycin to other anti-malarial drugs [18].

The target of clindamycin has been recently demonstrated in Plasmodium. This drug was originally extrapolated from Toxoplasma gondii, frequently used as a model based on structural similarities [2, 33]. In T. gondii, clindamycin and the three major clindamycin metabolites are fixed to the large subunit ribosomal RNA of the apicoplast [33]. Several studies have shown a lethal effect of clindamycin on potentiated parasites after 72 h of exposure [29], although the antibiotic concentrations were reduced 3–4 factors less than the IC50.

It has also been suggested that parasites exposed to clindamycin divide and invade new host cells, but at this point, the cells are unable to grow and eventually perish. These results, prior to an in-depth study of the apicoplast, revealed the toxicity of clindamycin on a structure involved in the translation of plasmodial ribosomal RNA into protein [34]. These findings contributed to the antiplasmodial action of clindamycin after 3 days of administration [35]. In 2005, the target of clindamycin was identified [36]. Clindamycin binds the 50S subunit, comprising ribosomal 23S, 5S and ribosomal proteins L4 and L22. The same mode of action was described for azithromycin two years later. Plasmodium falciparum ribosomal protein L4 (PfRpl4) has been demonstrated to associate with the nuclear genome-encoded P. falciparum ribosomal protein L22 (PfRpl22) and the large subunit rRNA 23S to form the 50S ribosome polypeptide exit tunnel, which could be occupied by azithromycin [16].

Clinical effectiveness

Due to the short half-life of the first generation of macrolides, their use for anti-malarial treatment is limited. The best-studied antiplasmodial molecules include azithromycin, for which chemical modifications significantly increase the half-life, and clindamycin.

In this section, the clinical trials using azithromycin and those using clindamycin will be successively discussed.

Concerning azithromycin, its antiplasmodial action was first described in vitro at the beginning of the 90s [17, 37]. At the end of the 90s, the mass distribution of azithromycin through the World Health Organization (WHO) trachoma elimination programme was shown to reduce malarial parasitaemia [38]. Several studies concerning the antiparasitic properties of antibiotics showed the delayed action of the molecule [16, 27, 28]. Only one clinical multicentre study of azithromycin for the treatment of acute uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria was conducted in India on 15 participants. In this study, patients were randomly assigned to groups treated with either azithromycin or chloroquine alone, or azithromycin associated with chloroquine [3]. The resolution of parasitaemia was inadequate with monotherapy with either azithromycin or chloroquine, but combination therapy provided substantially improved clinical and parasitological outcomes. The delayed resolution of parasitaemia and the potential adverse effects that may occur with effective high doses [39] confirmed that this drug was unsuitable for monotherapy treatment by azithromycin. In addition, different associations were tested in vivo (Table 1).
Table 1

Clinical trials of azithromycin plus other drug against P. falciparum malaria

Study demographic details

Regimen

Efficacy ( %) d28

Year

Place

Reference

Pop

Nb

Azithromycin

Other Drug

Route

Days

Dosage/d

Route

Nb doses/d

Druga

Dosage/d

Nb doses/d

1996

Thailand

NaBangchang [78]

A

30

500 mg

PO

1

Ath

300 mg

1

PO

3/1

14.8

2001

India

Dunne 2005 [3]

A

64

1000 mg

PO

2

C

600 mg

2

PO

3

90

2006

Thailand

Noedl 2006 [41]

A

27

1500 mg

PO

2

A

200 mg

2

PO

3

92

   

A

27

1000 mg

PO

1

A

200 mg

1

PO

3

89

   

A

16

1500 mg

PO

2

Q

20 mg/kg

2

PO

3

73

   

A

27

1500 mg

PO

3

Q

30 mg/kg

3

PO

3

92

2006

Thailand

Miller 2006 [44]

A

10

1000 mg

PO

2

Q

30 mg/kg

3

PO

3

90

   

A

20

1000 mg

PO

2

Q

30 mg/kg

3

PO

5

100

   

A

20

1500 mg

PO

3

Q

30 mg/kg

3

PO

3

100

2007

Malawi

Kalilani 2007 [8]

P

47

1000 mg

PO

2

SP

1500/75 mg

3

PO

2

91

2008

Tanzania

Sykes 2009 [9]

C

129

20 mg/kg

PO

1

A

4 mg/kg

1

PO

3

42

2009

Bangladesh

Thriemer 2010 [43]

A

 

1500 mg

PO

1

A

200 mg

1

PO

3

95

   

or

152

or

   

or

    
   

C

 

30 mg/kg

PO

1

A

4 mg/kg

1

PO

3

95

2007–8

Malawi

Laufer 2012 [10]

C

160

30 mg/kg

PO

1

C

10 mg/kg

1

PO

2

99

2004–6

Africa

Sagara 2014 [11]

A

227

1000 mg

PO

1

C

600 mg

1

PO

3

99

Randomized controlled trial

Only trials with adequate dosing, i.e. clindamycin given at least twice daily are mentioned in this table

Pop population, A adult, C children, P pregnant women

a A artesunate, Ath arthemeter, C chloroquine, F fosmidomycin, Q quinine, SP sulfadoxine–pyriméthamine

The effects of associations, such as azithromycin–chloroquine and azithromycin–quinine, were additive on sensitive chloroquine strains and synergistic on resistant strains [40]. Other associations were examined, showing effectiveness, associating azithromycin with a rapidly acting schizonticidal compounds, such as lumefantrine or artemisinin [9, 41]. Two in vitro studies [40, 42] suggested that the dihydroartemisinin-azithromycin combination had antagonistic effects and should be avoided. An in vivo study conducted in Thailand [41], a geographic area with high levels of resistance to anti-malarial drugs, showed that azithromycin–artesunate, even when administered only once daily for 3 days, and azithromycin–quinine, administered three times daily, are safe and efficacious combination treatments for uncomplicated falciparum malaria. A randomized controlled trial performed in Tanzanian children did not support the use of azithromycin–artesunate as treatment for malaria; indeed, the 58 % parasitological failure rate observed after day 28 clearly showed that this treatment could not be an appropriate first line treatment for malaria [9]. One clinical trial conducted in Bangladesh performed on 152 patients suggested that this combination was an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for patients with uncomplicated falciparum malaria compared with the artemether–lumefantrine combination [43]. This study did not consider the re-emergence of parasites in the peripheral blood as a failure of the treatment, although the mean time was 31.5 ± 5 days. Moreover, these authors did not distinguish the study group according to the age of the patients and mixed children and adults for the data integration.

The efficacy of the azithromycin–quinine combination was confirmed in 2006 [44] when 100 % of the patients were cured through high azithromycin regimens (combination of quinine with 1000 mg of azithromycin per day for 5 days or 1500 mg of azithromycin for 3 days).

A longitudinal trial comparing the effects of chloroquine as a monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, including azithromycin, on children with repeated malaria infections in Malawi demonstrated a high efficacy of the repeated administration of different regimens and showed a significantly higher haemoglobin concentration in children in the chloroquine–azithromycin group. This result might reflect the prevention or treatment of bacterial infections [10]. This combination, chloroquine–azithromycin was recently confirmed as highly efficient and well tolerated in African adults [11].

Another combination treatment comprising azithromycin with sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine was tested in pregnant women from Malawi [8]. Sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine has been adopted in many sub-Saharan Africa countries as the drug of choice for intermittent preventive therapy to reduce placental malaria and low-birth weight. The azithromycin–sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine combination might have several advantages: first, although the parasite clearance rate was slow compared with sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine–artesunate, the rate of recrudescence was low and markedly similar between the two groups. Secondly, azithromycin has an adequate safety profile, as this molecule has often been used in pregnant women to treat STIs. In contrast, there has been concern about the use of artemisinin derivatives during the first trimester based on animal studies [45]. Thirdly, azithromycin has a relatively long half-life compared with artesunate. The azithromycin–sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine combination protects the longer-acting drug (sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine) [8], by decreasing the probability of parasites encountering sub-therapeutic drug levels and promoting the development of resistance [46].

Despite these results, a review from the Cochrane Collaboration [39] concluded that the available evidence suggested that azithromycin was a weak anti-malarial with some appealing safety characteristics, and that azithromycin’s future for the treatment of malaria did not look promising.

Concerning lincosamides, clindamycin is a major antibiotic for the treatment of anaerobic bacterial infections [47]. This drug also presents antimicrobial activity against Plasmodium, Toxoplasma, Babesia and Pneumocystis spp. Moreover, clindamycin is the drug of choice for treatment against toxoplasmic chorioretinitis in newborns and one of the treatments recommended in the babesiosis with Babesia microti and B. divergens [48]. Associated with pyrimethamine or primaquine, clindamycin is a treatment of second intention against toxoplasmosis and pneumocystosis [49].

The antiplasmodial indication of clindamycin was managed according to various therapeutic regimens. The effectiveness of clindamycin in monotherapy in this indication was initially reported in 1975 [50]. The WHO repeated this protocol in several studies conducted on different continents, and several sightings have been reported (Table 2), including the effectiveness of clindamycin in monotherapy against malaria. This efficiency is however conditioned through treatment for 5 days, with twice-daily administration, as this molecule acts slowly. Clindamycin is well tolerated, and minor side effects have been reported during treatment. The occurrence of diarrhoea resulting from Clostridium difficile has often been reported after treatment with clindamycin, and this side effect might progress to pseudomembranous colitis, as a result of lengthy treatment with antibiotics [51]. The potential problem of severe diarrhoea, observed in patients receiving a prolonged and high dose of clindamycin therapy, is not observed with a low dose and short duration of therapy to treat malaria [52]. The WHO did not ultimately recommend clindamycin treatment when used alone as an anti-malarial treatment, as parasite clearance might be deleterious in cases of significant parasitaemia in fragile subjects (children and pregnant woman) [2]. However, clindamycin is now recommended for pregnant women in the first trimester with uncomplicated malaria, in association with quinine or artemisinin-based combination therapies or oral artesunate for 7 days.
Table 2

Clinical trials of clindamycin monotherapy against P. falciparum malaria

Study demographic details

Regimen

Year

Place

Reference

Pop

Nb

Dosage

Form

Nb doses/d

Route

Nb days

Efficacy (%)

1975

USA

Clyde, 1975 [50]

A

3

450 mg

Salt

3

PO

3

100

1975

Thailand

Hall, 1975 [79]

A

10

450 mg

Salt

3

PO

3

50

1981

Brazil

Alecrim, 1981 [80]

A

17

10 mg/kg

Salt

2

IV

3

65

1981

Brazil

Alecrim, 1981 [80]

A

14

10 mg/kg

Salt

2

IV + PO

7

100

1982

Brazil

Alecrim, 1982 [81]

A

26

10 mg/kg

Salt

2

IV, PO

5

100

1982

Philippines

Rivera, 1982 [82]

A

24

300 mg

Salt

2

IV + PO

7

100

1982

Philippines

Rivera, 1982 [82]

A

12

600 mg

Salt

2

IV + PO

7

100

1982

Philippines

Cabrera, 1982 [83]

A

12

10 mg/kg

Salt

2

IV + PO

7

100

1982

Philippines

Cabrera, 1982 [83]

A

19

20 mg/kg

Salt

2

IV

3

89

1984

Columbia

Restrepo, 1984 [84]

A

6

20 mg/kg

Salt

2

IV

3

100

1984

Columbia

Restrepo, 1984 [84]

A

9

10 mg/kg

Salt

2

IV + PO

7

100

1984

Columbia

Restrepo, 1984 [84]

A

5

20 mg/kg

Salt

2

IV

7

100

1984

Columbia

Restrepo, 1984 [84]

A

10

20 mg/kg

Salt

1

IV

7

100

1985

Sudan

El Wakeel, 1985 [85]

A

20

5 mg/kg

Salt

2

PO

5

90

1988

Brazil

Meira, 1988 [86]

A, C

129

10 mg/kg

Salt

2

PO, IV

5–7

97

1988

Brazil

Meira, 1988 [86]

A, C

16

10 mg/kg

Salt

1

PO, IV

5–7

50

1988

Brazil

Meira, 1988 [86]

A, C

35

2.5 mg/kg

Salt

1

PO

5

80

1989

Brazil

Kremsner, 1988 [20]

A

35

5 mg/kg

Base

2

PO

5

100

1990

Philippines

Salazar, 1990 [87]

A

31

300 mg

Salt

2

PO

5

100

1990

Philippines

Salazar, 1990 [87]

A

10

600 mg

Salt

2

PO

5

100

1993

Gabon

Salazar, 1990 [87]

A

38

5 mg/kg

Base

2

PO

5

97

1994

East Timor

Oemijati, 1994 [88]

A

30

300 mg

Salt

2

PO

5

100

A adults, C children

The combination of clindamycin with other rapidly acting drugs is essential for the optimization of treatment. Clinically documented associations essentially involve the combination of clindamycin with quinine or chloroquine.

Quinine, showing a rapid onset and short half-life, is the ideal partner. In vitro studies have also shown a synergistic effect when the two molecules are associated [7, 52]. The bioavailability of the two drugs, when co-administered, remains unchanged [53]. A methodology and satisfactory post-treatment follow-up in approximately ten clinical trials with a wide number of patients have been published (Table 3) [2]. The duration of combination therapy remains controversial. While most studies consider that the administration of quinine for at least 7 days and clindamycin for at least 5 days is needed, treatments conducted for 3 days in African studies were effective [52, 54]. Short-duration treatment is justified for obtaining adequate compliance and fear of side effects with quinine. Parasite clearance has been correlated with parasitaemia in children treated for 4 days [55, 56]. In areas of multidrug resistance, such as Thailand, 5–7 days are needed to cure malaria.
Table 3

Clinical trials of clindamycin plus other drug against P. falciparum malaria

Study demographic details

Regimen

Efficacy (%)

Year

Place

Reference

Pop

Nb

Clindamycin

Other drug

Route

Days

Dosage

Form

Nb doses/d

Druga

Dosage/d

Nb doses/d

1974

USA

Miller, 1973 [53]

A

5

      

PO

3

100

1975

USA

Clyde, 1975 [50]

A

5

450 mg

Salt

3

Q

560 mg

3

PO

3

60

1975

USA

Clyde, 1975 [50]

A

2

600 mg

Salt

1

Q

560 mg

3

PO

3

50

1975

Thailand

Hall, 1975 [79]

A

4

450 mg

Salt

3

Q

540 mg

3

PO

3

100

1975

Thailand

Hall, 1975 [79]

A

5

150 mg

Salt

3

Q

270 mg

3

PO

3

60

1987

Brazil

Kremsner, 1988 [20]

A

40

15 mg/kg

Base

2

Q

10 mg/kg

2

PO

3

90

1992

Gabon

Kremsner, 1994 [52]

C

34

5 mg/kg

Base

2

Q

12 mg/kg

2

PO

3

88

1993

Gabon

Metzger, 1995 [89]

C

33

5 mg/kg

Base

2

CQ

25 mg/kg

3

PO

3

70

1995

Gabon

Kremsner, 1995 [90]

C

50

5 mg/kg

Base

3

Q

8 mg/kg

3

IV

4

96

1995

Gabon

Metzger, 1995 [54]

A

40

5 mg/kg

Base

2

Q

12 mg/kg

2

PO

3

92

1996

France

Parola, 2001 [91]

A

53

5 mg/kg

Salt

3

Q

8 mg/kg

3

IV

3

100

1997

Gabon

Vaillant, 1997 [57]

C

161

8 mg/kg

Salt

2

Q

8 mg/kg

2

PO

3

97

2000

Thailand

Pukrittayakamee [92]

A

68

5 mg/kg

Base

4

Q

8 mg/kg

3

PO

7

100

2001

Thailand

McGready, 2001 [5]

P

65

5 mg/kg

Salt

3

Q

8 mg/kg

3

PO

7

100

2004

Gabon

Bormann, 2004 [6]

C

12

10 mg/kg

Salt

2

F

60 mg/kg

2

PO

5

100

2004

Gabon

Ramharter, 2005 [7]

C

100

7 mg/kg

Salt

2

A

2 mg/kg

2

PO

3

87

Randomized controlled trial

Only trials with adequate dosing, i.e. clindamycin given at least twice daily are mentioned in this table

Pop population, A adult, C children, P pregnant women

a C chloroquine, Q quinine, F fosmidomycin, A artesunate

The second well-studied combination is clindamycin with chloroquine. Plasmodium falciparum is highly resistant to chloroquine in most malarial regions. However, this drug is still widely used and remains a first-line treatment in Africa. The clindamycin–chloroquine combination has been studied in Gabon [52], where chloroquine resistance is markedly high. Clindamycin was administered every 12 h for 3 days, and success rates ranged from 70 % in children to 97 % in adults, depending on the study [57]. The success rate in children was estimated as 94 % with chloroquine administered at a dose of 45 versus 25 mg/kg. Although these findings favour the effectiveness of the combined administration of chloroquine with clindamycin for 3 days, this treatment has not been widely adopted in practice.

Fosmidomycin, a phosphonic acid derivative, is a new anti-malarial drug with a novel mechanism of action that inhibits the synthesis of isoprenoid in P. falciparum and suppresses the growth of multidrug-resistant strains in vitro [58]. Studies in Africa evaluating fosmidomycin as a monotherapeutic agent demonstrated that the drug is well tolerated in humans. A randomized, controlled, open-label study was conducted in 2003 in children to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with fosmidomycin combined with clindamycin (30 and 5 mg/kg body weight every 12 h for 5 days, respectively) compared with treatment with either fosmidomycin or clindamycin alone. The combined treatment with the two molecules was superior to that with either agent alone [6].

Since 2010, the WHO advocates artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) as the mainstay in combating drug-resistant malaria in Africa [59]. To prevent the emergence of resistant mutants, various drugs have been studied in combination with artemisinin derivatives, according to the underlying principle to combine artemisinins with drugs that have long plasma elimination half-lives. These treatments seems inappropriate for patients from areas with a high rate of malaria transmission because of the increased risk of drug-resistant mutants resulting from prolonged exposure to subtherapeutic levels of the slowly eliminated drug in the combination [7, 60, 61]. In the same way, combination therapy with drugs that have a rapid elimination time reduces the selection of resistant isolates [62]. The difficulty lies in choosing the ideal combination given the pharmacokinetic properties of the molecules used. One clinical trial combining artesunate with clindamycin for the treatment of uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria in Gabonese children was reported in 2005 [7]. In this trial, clindamycin was selected based on promising results from animal models, in vitro studies of P. falciparum and the use of sequential treatment with artesunate and clindamycin on Brazilian children [63]. An open-labelled, randomized, controlled clinical trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of oral artesunate-clindamycin therapy (2 and 7 mg/kg) administered twice daily for 3 days compared with a standard quinine–clindamycin regimen administered twice daily for 3 days to treat uncomplicated falciparum malaria in 100 children. The results showed that the artesunate-clindamycin combination was consistent with that of quinine–clindamycin with respect to the cure rates (87 versus 94 % at day 28 of follow up). The decreased fever and parasites clearance were significantly shorter in the artesunate-clindamycin treatment group. Based on the results of this study, clindamycin associated with artemisinin-based combination therapy is a candidate for studies in areas with a high rate of malaria transmission.

Another in vivo study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and drug interactions of clindamycin in combination with other anti-malarial drugs in populations from endemic areas. Some artemisinin derivatives have been tested on mice, such as the novel semi-synthetic endoperoxide artemisone [64]. This compound is synthetized from dihydroartemisin in a one-step process and in combination with clindamycin, exhibited increased antiplasmodial activity, improved in vivo half-life, improved oral bioavailability and metabolic stability, and presented tolerance and no neurotoxicity in humans compared with artesunate. Because this drug is a good candidate, clinical studies must be performed to assess the effect of artemisone in combination with other anti-malarials. If macrolides and their derivatives have been considered as good candidates for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria, their pharmacokinetic properties make them inconsistent against malaria in monotherapy [39].

Resistance mechanisms

Resistance to macrolides and lincosamides has been increasingly reported in clinical isolates of Gram-positive bacteria. One aspect of this resistance is the multiplicity of mechanisms and the diversity in phenotypic expression of several of these mechanisms. Bacteria resist macrolides and lincosamides antibiotics in three ways, including target-site modification through methylation or mutation to prevent the binding of the antibiotics to ribosomal targets, which confers broad-spectrum resistance to macrolides and lincosamides, antibiotic efflux, and drug inactivation. However, these last two mechanisms only affect some molecules [65].

Ribosomal methylation remains the most widespread mechanism of resistance. Resistance to erythromycin has been observed in staphylococci since 1956. Biochemical studies indicated that resistance resulted from the methylation of the ribosomal target of the antibiotics, leading to cross-resistance to macrolides, lincosamides and streptogramin B. Subsequently, the MLSB phenotype encoded by a variety of erm (erythromycin ribosome methylase) genes was reported in a large number of microorganisms [66]. Erm proteins facilitate the dimethylation of a single adenine in nascent 23S rRNA, as a part of the large (50S) ribosomal subunit [67]. A wide range of microorganisms, including spirochetes and anaerobes, which express Erm methylases, are targets for macrolides and lincosamides. The target mutation was first described for Escherichia coli mutants highly resistant to erythromycin. Mutations in domain V of rRNA were identified in 2001 [68]. Depending on the species, bacteria possess 1 to several rrn operons encoding 23S rRNA. In general, these mutations were observed in pathogens with 1 or 2 rrn copies, often with each copy carrying the mutation. This mechanism is responsible for the clarithromycin resistance of some Mycobacterium avium, Helicobacter pylori and Treponema pallidum strains [65]. Mutations in ribosomal proteins L4 and L22, which confer erythromycin resistance, have been documented for Streptococcus pneumoniae.

The antibiotic efflux is the second mechanism of resistance described for macrolides. In Gram-negative bacteria, chromosomally encoded pumps contribute to intrinsic resistance to hydrophobic compounds, such as macrolides [66, 69]. These pumps often belong to a family comprising proteins with 12 membrane-spanning regions [70]. In Gram-positive organisms, the acquisition of macrolide resistance through active efflux is mediated through two classes of pumps: the ATP-binding-cassette (ABC) transporter superfamily and the major facilitator superfamily (MFS) [71]. The genes encoding these pumps are variable depending on the bacterial genus. The efflux system is multicomponent in nature, involving plasmidic and chromosomal genes that constitute a fully operational efflux pump with specificity for 14- and 15-membered macrolides and type B streptogramines (the MSB phenotype).

The last mechanism of bacterial resistance is the inactivation of antibiotics. Esterases and phosphotransferases reported in enterobacteria confer resistance to erythromycin and other 14- and 15-membered macrolides, but not to lincosamides. These resistance mechanisms have not been considered of major clinical importance because enterobacteria are not targets for macrolides. Some clinical isolates of S. aureus produce phosphotransferases, but this event remains rare [7274]. In pathogenic microorganisms, the impact of the three mechanisms is unequal in terms of incidence and clinical implications.

Concerning Plasmodium spp., if prophylactic failures have been observed neither for both the two molecules, in vivo resistance has not been demonstrated nor for clindamycin or azithromycin. However, experimental models of resistant Plasmodium have been developed under selection pressure: strains of P. berghei resistant to clindamycin were described in two studies performed in the 1970s [75, 76]; P. falciparum isolates resistant to azithromycin have been developed later [16], but mechanisms underlying the resistance of Plasmodium against molecules from the MLSB family were not clearly identified. Mutations on A1875 (corresponding to the E. coli A2058 nucleotide in the peptidyltransferase centre of domain V) and A706 (corresponding to the E. coli A754 in domain II) in the P. falciparum apicoplast LSU rRNA (bearing 70 % identity to the 23S rRNA [77] did not confer in vitro resistance to macrolide in P. falciparum as observed in bacterial species [16]. The G1878 mutation, which confers resistance to clindamycin and azithromycin in Toxoplasma gondii [33], remained unchanged in azithromycin-resistant P. falciparum parasites [16]. A mutation was identified at nucleotide position 438 (T438C) after azithromycin-resistance selection. A single point mutation was also identified at codon 76 (G76 V) in the Pfrpl4 gene in azithromycin-resistant parasites.

Conclusions

The emergence and rapid extension of P. falciparum resistance to principal anti-malarial drugs necessitates the search for new molecules. Macrolides and their derivatives have been considered as good candidates but the design of more effective structural analogues is required, essentially to improve pharmacokinetic properties. The synthesis of single compounds that yields both fast- and slow-acting profiles by targeting different parasite metabolic processes is being developed to achieve effective molecules and mitigate parasite resistance.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Unité de Parasitologie, Département d’Infectiologie de Terrain, Institut de Recherche Biomédicale des Armées
(2)
Unité de Recherche sur les Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales Emergentes, Aix Marseille Université
(3)
Fédération des Laboratoires, Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées Saint Anne
(4)
Unité de Parasitologie et d’Entomologie, Département des Maladies Infectieuses, Institut de Recherche Biomédicale des Armées
(5)
Equipe Résidente de Recherche en Infectiologie Tropicale, Institut de Recherche Biomédicale des Armées, Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées
(6)
Centre National de Référence du Paludisme

References

  1. WHO. World malaria report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.Google Scholar
  2. Lell B, Kremsner PG. Clindamycin as an antimalarial drug: review of clinical trials. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:2315–20.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dunne MW, Singh N, Shukla M, Valecha N, Bhattacharyya PC, Dev V, et al. A multicenter study of azithromycin, alone and in combination with chloroquine, for the treatment of acute uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in India. J Infect Dis. 2005;191:1582–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chico RM, Pittrof R, Greenwood B, Chandramohan D. Azithromycin–chloroquine and the intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy. Malar J. 2008;7:255.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. McGready R, Cho T, Samuel S, Villegas L, Brockman A, van Vugt M, et al. Randomized comparison of quinine–clindamycin versus artesunate in the treatment of falciparum malaria in pregnancy. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001;95:651–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Borrmann S, Issifou S, Esser G, Adegnika AA, Ramharter M, Matsiegui P-B, et al. Fosmidomycin–clindamycin for the treatment of Plasmodium falciparum malaria. J Infect Dis. 2004;190:1534–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ramharter M, Oyakhirome S, Klein Klouwenberg P, Adégnika AA, Agnandji ST, Missinou MA, et al. Artesunate–clindamycin versus quinine–clindamycin in the treatment of Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:1777–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kalilani L, Mofolo I, Chaponda M, Rogerson SJ, Alker AP, Kwiek JJ, et al. A randomized controlled pilot trial of azithromycin or artesunate added to sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine as treatment for malaria in pregnant women. PLoS One. 2007;2:1166.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Sykes A, Hendriksen I, Mtove G, Mandea V, Mrema H, Rutta B, et al. Azithromycin plus artesunate versus artemether–lumefantrine for treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Tanzanian children: a randomized, controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:1195–201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Laufer MK, Thesing PC, Dzinjalamala FK, Nyirenda OM, Masonga R, Laurens MB, et al. A longitudinal trial comparing chloroquine as monotherapy or in combination with artesunate, azithromycin or atovaquone–proguanil to treat malaria. PLoS One. 2012;7:42284.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Sagara I, Oduro AR, Mulenga M, Dieng Y, Ogutu B, Tiono AB, et al. Efficacy and safety of a combination of azithromycin and chloroquine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in two multi-country randomised clinical trials in African adults. Malar J. 2014;13:458.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Mazzei T, Mini E, Novelli A, Periti P. Chemistry and mode of action of macrolides. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993;31(Suppl C):1–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Carbon C. Pharmacodynamics of macrolides, azalides, and streptogramins: effect on extracellular pathogens. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27:28–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodman CD, Useglio M, Peirú S, Labadie GR, McFadden GI, Rodríguez E, et al. Chemobiosynthesis of new antimalarial macrolides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:907–13.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ballow CH, Amsden GW. Azithromycin: the first azalide antibiotic. Ann Pharmacother. 1992;26:1253–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Sidhu ABS, Sun Q, Nkrumah LJ, Dunne MW, Sacchettini JC, Fidock DA. In vitro efficacy, resistance selection, and structural modeling studies implicate the malarial parasite apicoplast as the target of azithromycin. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:2494–504.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gingras BA, Jensen JB. Activity of azithromycin (CP-62,993) and erythromycin against chloroquine-sensitive and chloroquine-resistant strains of Plasmodium falciparum in vitro. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1992;47:378–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Parnham MJ. Erakovic Haber V, Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Perletti G, Verleden GM, Vos R. Azithromycin: mechanisms of action and their relevance for clinical applications. Pharmacol Ther. 2014;143:225–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Nilsen OG. Comparative pharmacokinetics of macrolides. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1987;20(Suppl B):81–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kremsner PG, Zotter GM, Feldmeier H, Graninger W, Rocha RM, Wiedermann G. A comparative trial of three regimens for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Acre, Brazil. J Infect Dis. 1988;158:1368–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Touze JE, Heno P, Fourcade L, Deharo JC, Thomas G, Bohan S, et al. The effects of antimalarial drugs on ventricular repolarization. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002;67:54–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Traebert M, Dumotier B, Meister L, Hoffmann P, Dominguez-Estevez M, Suter W. Inhibition of hERG K + currents by antimalarial drugs in stably transfected HEK293 cells. Eur J Pharmacol. 2004;484:41–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Fossa AA, Wisialowski T, Duncan JN, Deng S, Dunne M. Azithromycin/chloroquine combination does not increase cardiac instability despite an increase in monophasic action potential duration in the anesthetized guinea pig. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;77:929–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Aminov RI. Biotic acts of antibiotics. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:241.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fleige T, Soldati-Favre D. Targeting the transcriptional and translational machinery of the endosymbiotic organelle in apicomplexans. Curr Drug Targets. 2008;9:948–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Yeh E, DeRisi JL. Chemical rescue of malaria parasites lacking an apicoplast defines organelle function in blood-stage Plasmodium falciparum. PLoS Biol. 2011;9:e1001138.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodman CD, Su V, McFadden GI. The effects of anti-bacterials on the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2007;152:181–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pradines B, Rogier C, Fusai T, Mosnier J, Daries W, Barret E, et al. In vitro activities of antibiotics against Plasmodium falciparum are inhibited by iron. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:1746–50.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fichera ME, Bhopale MK, Roos DS. In vitro assays elucidate peculiar kinetics of clindamycin action against Toxoplasma gondii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39:1530–7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hutinec A, Rupčić R, Ziher D, Smith KS, Milhous W, Ellis W, Ohrt C, et al. An automated, polymer-assisted strategy for the preparation of urea and thiourea derivatives of 15-membered azalides as potential antimalarial chemotherapeutics. Bioorg Med Chem. 2011;19:1692–701.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Perić M, Fajdetić A, Rupčić R, Alihodžić S, Ziher D, Bukvić Krajačić M, et al. Antimalarial activity of 9a-N substituted 15-membered azalides with improved in vitro and in vivo activity over azithromycin. J Med Chem. 2012;55:1389–401.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pešić D, Starčević K, Toplak A, Herreros E, Vidal J, Almela MJ, et al. Design, synthesis, and in vitro activity of novel 2′-O-substituted 15-membered azalides. J Med Chem. 2012;55:3216–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Camps M, Arrizabalaga G, Boothroyd J. An rRNA mutation identifies the apicoplast as the target for clindamycin in Toxoplasma gondii. Mol Microbiol. 2002;43:1309–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Fichera ME, Roos DS. A plastid organelle as a drug target in apicomplexan parasites. Nature. 1997;390:407–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Seaberg LS, Parquette AR, Gluzman IY, Phillips GW, Brodasky TF, Krogstad DJ. Clindamycin activity against chloroquine-resistant Plasmodium falciparum. J Infect Dis. 1984;150:904–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Poehlsgaard J, Douthwaite S. The bacterial ribosome as a target for antibiotics. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005;3:870–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Gingras BA, Jensen JB. Antimalarial activity of azithromycin and erythromycin against Plasmodium berghei. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993;49:101–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Gao D, Amza A, Nassirou B, Kadri B, Sippl-Swezey N, Liu F, et al. Optimal seasonal timing of oral azithromycin for malaria. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91:936–42.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Eijk AM, Terlouw DJ: Azithromycin for treating uncomplicated malaria. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;CD006688.Google Scholar
  40. Ohrt C, Willingmyre GD, Lee P, Knirsch C, Milhous W. Assessment of azithromycin in combination with other antimalarial drugs against Plasmodium falciparum in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:2518–24.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Noedl H, Krudsood S, Chalermratana K, Silachamroon U, Leowattana W, Tangpukdee N, et al. Azithromycin combination therapy with artesunate or quinine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in adults: a randomized, phase 2 clinical trial in Thailand. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43:1264–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Nakornchai S, Konthiang P. Activity of azithromycin or erythromycin in combination with antimalarial drugs against multidrug-resistant Plasmodium falciparum in vitro. Acta Trop. 2006;100:185–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Thriemer K, Starzengruber P, Khan WA, Haque R, Marma ASP, Ley B, et al. Azithromycin combination therapy for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Bangladesh: an open-label randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Infect Dis. 2010;202:392–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller RS, Wongsrichanalai C, Buathong N, McDaniel P, Walsh DS, Knirsch C, et al. Effective treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria with azithromycin–quinine combinations: a randomized, dose-ranging study. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006;74:401–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Clark RL, White TEK, A Clode S, Gaunt I, Winstanley P, Ward SA. Developmental toxicity of artesunate and an artesunate combination in the rat and rabbit. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol. 2004;71:380–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hastings IM, Ward SA. Coartem (artemether–lumefantrine) in Africa: the beginning of the end? J Infect Dis. 2005;192:1303–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Dhawan VK, Thadepalli H. Clindamycin: a review of fifteen years of experience. Rev Infect Dis. 1982;4:1133–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Homer MJ, Aguilar-Delfin I, Telford SR, Krause PJ, Persing DH. Babesiosis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000;13:451–69.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Fishman JA. Prevention of infection due to Pneumocystis carinii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998;42:995–1004.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Clyde DF, Gilman RH, McCarthy VC. Antimalarial effects of clindamycin in man. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1975;24:369–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Kremsner PG, Zotter GM, Feldmeier H, Graninger W, Westerman RL, Rocha RM. Clindamycin treatment of falciparum malaria in Brazil. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989;23:275–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Kremsner PG, Winkler S, Brandts C, Neifer S, Bienzle U, Graninger W. Clindamycin in combination with chloroquine or quinine is an effective therapy for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in children from Gabon. J Infect Dis. 1994;169:467–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller LH, Glew RH, Wyler DJ, Howard WA, Collins WE, Contacos PG, et al. Evaluation of clindamycin in combination with quinine against multidrug-resistant strains of Plasmodium falciparum. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1974;23:565–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Metzger W, Mordmüller B, Graninger W, Bienzle U, Kremsner PG. High efficacy of short-term quinine–antibiotic combinations for treating adult malaria patients in an area in which malaria is hyperendemic. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39:245–6.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. White NJ. Assessment of the pharmacodynamic properties of antimalarial drugs in vivo. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:1413–22.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Kremsner PG, Winkler S, Brandts C, Graninger W, Bienzle U. Curing of chloroquine-resistant malaria with clindamycin. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993;49:650–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Vaillant M, Millet P, Luty A, Tshopamba P, Lekoulou F, Mayombo J, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of clindamycin in combination with quinine for treating uncomplicated malaria in a village dispensary in Gabon. Trop Med Int Health. 1997;2:917–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Missinou MA, Borrmann S, Schindler A, Issifou S, Adegnika AA, Matsiegui P-B, et al. Fosmidomycin for malaria. Lancet. 2002;360:1941–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. World Health Organization. Guidelines for the treatment of malaria. 2nd ed. 2010.Google Scholar
  60. Nosten F, van Vugt M, Price R, Luxemburger C, Thway KL, Brockman A, et al. Effects of artesunate-mefloquine combination on incidence of Plasmodium falciparum malaria and mefloquine resistance in western Thailand: a prospective study. Lancet. 2000;356:297–302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Wongsrichanalai C, Pickard AL, Wernsdorfer WH, Meshnick SR. Epidemiology of drug-resistant malaria. Lancet Infect Dis. 2002;2:209–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. White NJ. Delaying antimalarial drug resistance with combination chemotherapy. Parassitologia. 1999;41:301–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Alecrim M das GC, Carvalho LM, Andrade SD, Arcanjo ARL, Alexandre MA, Alecrim WD. Treatment of children with malaria Plasmodium falciparum with derivatives artemisinin. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2003;36:223–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Vivas L, Rattray L, Stewart LB, Robinson BL, Fugmann B, Haynes RK, et al. Antimalarial efficacy and drug interactions of the novel semi-synthetic endoperoxide artemisone in vitro and in vivo. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;59:658–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Leclercq R. Mechanisms of resistance to macrolides and lincosamides: nature of the resistance elements and their clinical implications. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:482–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Roberts MC, Sutcliffe J, Courvalin P, Jensen LB, Rood J, Seppala H. Nomenclature for macrolide and macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance determinants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43:2823–30.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Weisblum B. Erythromycin resistance by ribosome modification. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39:577–85.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Vester B, Douthwaite S. Macrolide resistance conferred by base substitutions in 23S rRNA. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:1–12.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhong P, Shortridge VD. The role of efflux in macrolide resistance. Drug Resist Updat. 2000;3:325–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Hagman KE, Lucas CE, Balthazar JT, Snyder L, Nilles M, Judd RC, et al. The MtrD protein of Neisseria gonorrhoeae is a member of the resistance/nodulation/division protein family constituting part of an efflux system. Microbiology. 1997;143:2117–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Schoner B, Geistlich M, Rosteck P, Rao RN, Seno E, Reynolds P, et al. Sequence similarity between macrolide-resistance determinants and ATP-binding transport proteins. Gene. 1992;115:93–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Matsuoka M, Endou K, Kobayashi H, Inoue M, Nakajima Y. A plasmid that encodes three genes for resistance to macrolide antibiotics in Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1998;167:221–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Matsuoka M, Sasaki T. Inactivation of macrolides by producers and pathogens. Curr Drug Targets Infect Disord. 2004;4:217–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Lüthje P, von Köckritz-Blickwede M, Schwarz S. Identification and characterization of nine novel types of small staphylococcal plasmids carrying the lincosamide nucleotidyltransferase gene lnu(A). J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;59:600–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Jacobs RL, Koontz LC. Plasmodium berghei: development of resistance to clindamycin and minocycline in mice. Exp Parasitol. 1976;40:116–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Koontz LC, Jacobs RL, Lummis WL, Miller LH. Plasmodium berghei: uptake of clindamycin and its metabolites by mouse erythrocytes with clindamycin-sensitive and clindamycin-resistant parasites. Exp Parasitol. 1979;48:206–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Gardner MJ, Feagin JE, Moore DJ, Rangachari K, Williamson DH, Wilson RJ. Sequence and organization of large subunit rRNA genes from the extrachromosomal 35 kb circular DNA of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Nucleic Acids Res. 1993;21:1067–71.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Na-Bangchang K, Kanda T, Tipawangso P, Thanavibul A, Suprakob K, Ibrahim M, et al. Activity of artemether–azithromycin versus artemether–doxycycline in the treatment of multiple drug resistant falciparum malaria. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1996;27:522–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Hall AP, Doberstyn EB, Nanokorn A, Sonkom P. Falciparum malaria semi-resistant to clindamycin. BMJ. 1975;2:12–4.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Alecrim M das G, Dourado H, Alecrim W, Albuquerque BC, Wanssa E, Wanssa Mdo C. Treatment of malaria (P. falciparum) with clindamycin. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 1981;23:86–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Alecrim WD, Albuquerque BC, Alecrim MG, Dourado H. Treatment of malaria (P. falciparum) with clindamycin. II—dosage schedule for 5 days. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 1982;24:40–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Rivera DG, Cabrera BD, Lara NT. Treatment of falciparum malaria with clindamycin. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 1982;24:70–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Cabrera BD, Rivera DG, Lara NT. Study on clindamycin in the treatment of falciparum malaria. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 1982;24:62–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Restrepo A, Restrepo M, Baena C, Mejia B, Sossa P, Salazar M. Tratamiento con clindamicina de la malaria por falciparum resistente. Acta Med Col. 1984;9:15–21.Google Scholar
  85. El Wakeel ES, Homeida MM, Ali HM, Geary TG, Jensen JB. Clindamycin for the treatment of falciparum malaria in Sudan. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1985;34:1065–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Meira DA, Pereira PC, Marcondes-Machado J, Mendes RP, Barraviera B, Pirola JA, et al. Malaria in Humaita County, State of Amazonas, Brazil. XIX—Evaluation of clindamycin for the treatment of patients with Plasmodium falciparum infection. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 1988;21:123–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Salazar NP, Saniel MC, Estoque MH, Talao FA, Bustos DG, Palogan LP, et al. Oral clindamycin in the treatment of acute uncomplicated falciparum malaria. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1990;21:397–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Oemijati S, Pribadi W, Wartati K, Arbani P, Suprijanto S, Rasisi R, Zambrano D. Treatment of chloroquine-resistant Plasmodium falciparum infections with clindamycin hydrochloride in Dili, East Timor. Indonesia. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 1994;55:468–79.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Metzger W, Mordmüller B, Graninger W, Bienzle U, Kremsner PG. Sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine or chloroquine/clindamycin treatment of Gabonese school children infected with chloroquine resistant malaria. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995;36:723–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Kremsner PG, Radloff P, Metzger W, Wildling E, Mordmüller B, Philipps J, et al. Quinine plus clindamycin improves chemotherapy of severe malaria in children. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39:1603–5.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Parola P, Ranque S, Badiaga S, Niang M, Blin O, Charbit JJ, et al. Controlled trial of 3-day quinine–clindamycin treatment versus 7-day quinine treatment for adult travelers with uncomplicated falciparum malaria imported from the tropics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:932–5.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Pukrittayakamee S, Chantra A, Vanijanonta S, Clemens R, Looareesuwan S, White NJ. Therapeutic responses to quinine and clindamycin in multidrug-resistant falciparum malaria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44:2395–8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Gaillard et al. 2016

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement