Rombo Lars
Department of Infectious Diseases, Mälarsjukhuset Eskilstuna and Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
J Travel Med. 2005 Jul-Aug;12(4):217-21. doi: 10.2310/7060.2005.12408.
A long tradition of successful malaria prophylaxis with chloroquine led to a dogma that drug prophylaxis should be given regardless of risk as soon as a traveler entered endemic areas. This prevailed also when resistance to chloroquine and adverse effects of alternatives became a problem. A cost/benefit analysis of the risk for malaria versus risk for adverse effects and cost of the recommended drug is not uniformly applied and drug prophylaxis is still advocated even when the risk for severe adverse effects greatly exceeds the risk for malaria, which is unethical.
长期以来，氯喹在疟疾预防方面的成功应用导致了一种教条，即一旦旅行者进入疟疾流行地区，无论风险如何，都应立即进行药物预防。当出现对氯喹的耐药性以及替代药物的不良反应问题时，这种做法仍然盛行。对于疟疾风险与不良反应风险以及推荐药物成本之间的成本效益分析并未得到统一应用，即使严重不良反应的风险大大超过疟疾风险，药物预防仍被提倡，这是不道德的。
