WITHDRAWN: Drugs for preventing XXXX in travellers.

@entity1 @entity24517 @entity20497 @entity146 @entity3403 @entity8775 @entity12433 @entity3964 @entity311 @entity503 @entity204
BACKGROUND: @entity311 infects 10,000 to 30,000 international travellers each year.  It can be prevented through anti-mosquito measures and drug prophylaxis.  However, antimalaria drugs have adverse effects which are sometimes serious. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of currently used antimalaria drugs when given as prophylaxis to non-immune adult and @entity1 travellers who are travelling to regions with @entity3964 resistance to @entity503 . Specifically, to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of @entity20497 - @entity24517 , @entity3403 , and @entity8775 compared to each other, and also when compared to @entity503 - @entity24517 and to @entity12433 . SEARCH METHODS: In August 2009 we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, BIOSIS, mRCT, and reference lists. We handsearched conference proceedings and one specialist journal, and contacted researchers and drug companies. We searched PubMed for drug-related @entity204 . SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of any antimalaria drug regimen currently used by non-immune international travellers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently extracted data and assessed eligibility and risk of bias using a standardized data collection form. We resolved any disagreement through discussion. We combined dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD), presenting both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials (4240 @entity1 ) met the inclusion criteria. Evidence on comparative efficacy from head-to-head comparisons was limited. @entity20497 - @entity24517 compared to @entity3403 had similar adverse events reported. Compared to @entity8775 , @entity20497 - @entity24517 users had fewer reports of any adverse effect (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.85), gastrointestinal adverse effects (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.7), @entity146 adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99), and @entity146 adverse effects (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.63), besides a better total mood disturbance score (MD -7.20, 95% CI -10.79 to -3.61). Similarly, @entity3403 users had fewer reported @entity146 events than @entity8775 users (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96). We also examined these three regimens against @entity503 - @entity24517 ; this latter regimen had more reports of any adverse effect (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96) and of gastrointestinal adverse effects (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.85). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: @entity20497 - @entity24517 and @entity3403 are the best tolerated regimens, and @entity8775 is associated with adverse @entity146 outcomes.
