Search

Background: Acute seizures are common in pediatric cerebral malaria (CM), but usual care with phenobarbital risks respiratory suppression. We undertook studies of enteral levetiracetam (eLVT) to evaluate pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and efficacy including an open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing eLVT to phenobarbital., Methods: Children 24-83 months old with CM were enrolled in an eLVT dose-finding study starting with standard dose (40 mg/kg load, then 30 mg/kg Q12 hours) titrated upward until seizure freedom was attained in 75% of subjects. The RCT that followed randomized children to eLVT vs. phenobarbital for acute seizures and compared the groups on minutes with seizures based upon continuous electroencephalogram. Due to safety concerns, midway through the study children allocated to phenobarbital received the drug only if they continued to have seizures (either clinically or electrographically) after benzodiazepine treatment. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure requiring cross over, coma duration and neurologic sequelae at discharge. PK and safety assessments were also undertaken., Results: Among 30 comatose CM children, eLVT was rapidly absorbed and well-tolerated. eLVT clearance was lower in patients with higher admission serum creatinine (SCr), but overall PK parameters were similar to prior pediatric PK studies. Within 4 h of the first dose, 90% reached therapeutic levels (> 20 μg/mL) and all were above 6 μg/mL. 7/7 children achieved seizure freedom on the initial eLVT dose. Comparing 23 eLVT to 21 phenobarbital patients among whom 15/21 received phenobarbital, no differences were seen for minutes with seizure, seizure freedom, coma duration, neurologic sequelae or death, but eLVT was safer (p = 0.019). Phenobarbital was discontinued in 3/15 due to respiratory side effects., Conclusion: Enteral LVT offers an affordable option for seizure control in pediatric CM and is safer than phenobarbital., Trial Registration: NCT01660672 . NCT01982812 .

Background: Distinguishing new from recrudescent infections in post-treatment episodes of malaria is standard in anti-malarial drug efficacy trials. New infections are not considered malaria treatment failures and as a result, the prevention of subsequent episodes of malaria infection is not reported as a study outcome. However, in moderate and high transmission settings, new infections are common and the ability of a short-acting medication to cure an initial infection may be outweighed by its inability to prevent the next imminent infection. The clinical benefit of preventing new infections has never been compared to that of curing the initial infection., Methods: Children enrolled in a sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine efficacy study in Blantyre, Malawi from 1998-2004 were prospectively evaluated. Six neutral microsatellites were used to classify new and recrudescent infections in children aged less than 10 years with recurrent malaria infections. Children from the study who did not experience recurrent parasitaemia comprised the baseline group. The odds of fever and anaemia, the rate of haemoglobin recovery and time to recurrence were compared among the groups., Results: Fever and anemia were more common among children with parasitaemia compared to those who remained infection-free throughout the study period. When comparing recrudescent vs. new infections, the incidence of fever was not statistically different. However, children with recrudescent infections had a less robust haematological recovery and also experienced recurrence sooner than those whose infection was classified as new., Conclusions: The results of this study confirm the paramount importance of providing curative treatment for all malaria infections. Although new and recrudescent infections caused febrile illnesses at a similar rate, recurrence due to recrudescent infection did have a worsened haemological outcome than recurrence due to new infections. Local decision-makers should take into account the results of genotyping to distinguish new from recrudescent infections when determining treatment policy on a population level. It is appropriate to weigh recrudescent malaria more heavily than new infection in assessing treatment efficacy.