Search

BackgroundArtesunate-amodiaquine (AS-AQ) is one of the most widely used artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Africa. We investigated the impact of different dosing strategies on the efficacy of this combination for the treatment of falciparum malaria.MethodsIndividual patient data from AS-AQ clinical trials were pooled using the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) standardised methodology. Risk factors for treatment failure were identified using a Cox regression model with shared frailty across study sites.ResultsForty-three studies representing 9,106 treatments from 1999-2012 were included in the analysis; 4,138 (45.4%) treatments were with a fixed dose combination with an AQ target dose of 30 mg/kg (FDC), 1,293 (14.2%) with a non-fixed dose combination with an AQ target dose of 25 mg/kg (loose NFDC-25), 2,418 (26.6%) with a non-fixed dose combination with an AQ target dose of 30 mg/kg (loose NFDC-30), and the remaining 1,257 (13.8%) with a co-blistered non-fixed dose combination with an AQ target dose of 30 mg/kg (co-blistered NFDC). The median dose of AQ administered was 32.1 mg/kg [IQR: 25.9-38.2], the highest dose being administered to patients treated with co-blistered NFDC (median = 35.3 mg/kg [IQR: 30.6-43.7]) and the lowest to those treated with loose NFDC-25 (median = 25.0 mg/kg [IQR: 22.7-25.0]). Patients treated with FDC received a median dose of 32.4 mg/kg [IQR: 27-39.0]. After adjusting for reinfections, the corrected antimalarial efficacy on day 28 after treatment was similar for co-blistered NFDC (97.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 97.0-98.8%]) and FDC (98.1% [95% CI: 97.6%-98.5%]; P = 0.799), but significantly lower for the loose NFDC-25 (93.4% [95% CI: 91.9%-94.9%]), and loose NFDC-30 (95.0% [95% CI: 94.1%-95.9%]) (P

BackgroundHeath facility-based sentinel site surveillance has been proposed as a means of monitoring trends in malaria morbidity but may also provide an opportunity to improve malaria case management. Here we described the impact of a sentinel site malaria surveillance system on promoting laboratory testing and rational antimalarial drug use.Methodology/principal findingsSentinel site malaria surveillance was established at six health facilities in Uganda between September 2006 and January 2007. Data were collected from all patients presenting to the outpatient departments including demographics, laboratory results, diagnoses, and treatments prescribed. Between the start of surveillance and March 2010, a total 424,701 patients were seen of which 229,375 (54%) were suspected of having malaria. Comparing the first three months with the last three months of surveillance, the proportion of patients with suspected malaria who underwent diagnostic testing increased from 39% to 97% (p

Abstract Background As malaria control efforts intensify, it is critical to monitor trends in disease burden and measure the impact of interventions. A key surveillance indicator is the incidence of malaria. Yet measurement of incidence is challenging. The slide positivity rate (SPR) has been used as a surrogate measure of malaria incidence, but limited data exist on the relationship between SPR and the incidence of malaria. Methods A cohort of 690 children aged 1-10 years at enrollment were followed for all their health care needs over a four-year period in Kampala, Uganda. All children with fever underwent laboratory testing, allowing us to measure the incidence of malaria and non-malaria fevers. A formula was derived to estimate relative changes in the incidence of malaria (rΔIm) based on changes in the SPR and the assumption that the incidence of non-malaria fevers was consistent over time. Observed and estimated values of rΔIm were compared over two, six, and 12 month time intervals after restricting the analysis to children contributing observation time between the ages of 4-10 years to control for aging of the cohort. Results Over the four-year observation period the incidence of malaria declined significantly from 0.93 episodes per person-year in 2005 to 0.39 episodes per person-year in 2008 (p < 0.0001) and the incidence of non-malaria fevers declined significantly from 2.31 episodes per person-year in 2005 to 1.31 episodes per person-year in 2008 (p < 0.0001). Younger age was associated with a significantly greater incidence of malaria and the incidence of malaria was significantly higher during seasonal peaks occurring each January-February and May-June. Changes in SPR produced reasonably accurate estimates of rΔIm over all time intervals. The average absolute difference in observed and estimated values of rΔIm was lower for six-month intervals (0.13) than it was for two-month (0.21) or 12 month intervals (0.21). Conclusion Changes in SPR provided a useful estimate of changes in the incidence of malaria in a well defined cohort; however, a gradual decline in the incidence of non-malaria fevers introduced some bias in these estimates.

Abstract Background Artesunate and amodiaquine (AS&AQ) is at present the world's second most widely used artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT). It was necessary to evaluate the efficacy of ACT, recently adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and deployed over 80 countries, in order to make an evidence-based drug policy. Methods An individual patient data (IPD) analysis was conducted on efficacy outcomes in 26 clinical studies in sub-Saharan Africa using the WHO protocol with similar primary and secondary endpoints. Results A total of 11,700 patients (75% under 5 years old), from 33 different sites in 16 countries were followed for 28 days. Loss to follow-up was 4.9% (575/11,700). AS&AQ was given to 5,897 patients. Of these, 82% (4,826/5,897) were included in randomized comparative trials with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) genotyping results and compared to 5,413 patients (half receiving an ACT). AS&AQ and other ACT comparators resulted in rapid clearance of fever and parasitaemia, superior to non-ACT. Using survival analysis on a modified intent-to-treat population, the Day 28 PCR-adjusted efficacy of AS&AQ was greater than 90% (the WHO cut-off) in 11/16 countries. In randomized comparative trials (n = 22), the crude efficacy of AS&AQ was 75.9% (95% CI 74.6–77.1) and the PCR-adjusted efficacy was 93.9% (95% CI 93.2–94.5). The risk (weighted by site) of failure PCR-adjusted of AS&AQ was significantly inferior to non-ACT, superior to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP, in one Ugandan site), and not different from AS+SP or AL (artemether-lumefantrine). The risk of gametocyte appearance and the carriage rate of AS&AQ was only greater in one Ugandan site compared to AL and DP, and lower compared to non-ACT (p = 0.001, for all comparisons). Anaemia recovery was not different than comparator groups, except in one site in Rwanda where the patients in the DP group had a slower recovery. Conclusion AS&AQ compares well to other treatments and meets the WHO efficacy criteria for use against falciparum malaria in many, but not all, the sub-Saharan African countries where it was studied. Efficacy varies between and within countries. An IPD analysis can inform general and local treatment policies. Ongoing monitoring evaluation is required.

BackgroundNew antimalarial regimens, including artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs), have been adopted widely as first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria. Although these drugs appear to be safe and well-tolerated, experience with their use in Africa is limited and continued assessment of safety is a priority. However, no standardized guidelines for evaluating drug safety and tolerability in malaria studies exist. A system for monitoring adverse events in antimalarial trials conducted in Uganda was developed. Here the reporting system is described, and difficulties faced in analysing and interpreting the safety results are illustrated, using data from the trials.Case descriptionBetween 2002 and 2007, eleven randomized, controlled clinical trials were conducted to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different antimalarial regimens for treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Uganda. The approach to adverse event monitoring was similar in all studies. A total of 5,614 treatments were evaluated in 4,876 patients. Differences in baseline characteristics and patterns of adverse event reporting were noted between the sites, which limited the ability to pool and analyse data. Clinical failure following antimalarial treatment confounded associations between treatment and adverse events that were also common symptoms of malaria, particularly in areas of lower transmission intensity.Discussion and evaluationDespite prospectively evaluating for adverse events, limitations in the monitoring system were identified. New standardized guidelines for monitoring safety and tolerability in antimalarial trials are needed, which should address how to detect events of greatest importance, including serious events, those with a causal relationship to the treatment, those which impact on adherence, and events not previously reported.ConclusionAlthough the World Health Organization has supported the development of pharmacovigilance systems in African countries deploying ACTs, additional guidance on adverse events monitoring in antimalarial clinical trials is needed, similar to the standardized recommendations available for assessment of drug efficacy.

BackgroundUganda recently adopted artemether-lumefantrine (AL) as the recommended first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria. However, AL has several limitations, including a twice-daily dosing regimen, recommendation for administration with fatty food, and a high risk of reinfection soon after therapy in high transmission areas. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) is a new alternative artemisinin-based combination therapy that is dosed once daily and has a long post-treatment prophylactic effect. We compared the efficacy and safety of AL with DP in Kanungu, an area of moderate malaria transmission.Methodology/principal findingsPatients aged 6 months to 10 years with uncomplicated falciparum malaria were randomized to therapy and followed for 42 days. Genotyping was used to distinguish recrudescence from new infection. Of 414 patients enrolled, 408 completed follow-up. Compared to patients treated with artemether-lumefantrine, patients treated with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine had a significantly lower risk of recurrent parasitaemia (33.2% vs. 12.2%; risk difference = 20.9%, 95% CI 13.0-28.8%) but no statistically significant difference in the risk of treatment failure due to recrudescence (5.8% vs. 2.0%; risk difference = 3.8%, 95% CI -0.2-7.8%). Patients treated with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine also had a lower risk of developing gametocytaemia after therapy (4.2% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.01). Both drugs were safe and well tolerated.Conclusions/significanceDP is highly efficacious, and operationally preferable to AL because of a less intensive dosing schedule and requirements. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine should be considered for a role in the antimalarial treatment policy of Uganda.Trial registrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN75606663.

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Uganda.DesignRandomized single-blinded clinical trial.SettingApac, Uganda, an area of very high malaria transmission intensity.ParticipantsChildren aged 6 mo to 10 y with uncomplicated falciparum malaria.InterventionTreatment of malaria with AL or DP, each following standard 3-d dosing regimens.Outcome measuresRisks of recurrent parasitemia at 28 and 42 d, unadjusted and adjusted by genotyping to distinguish recrudescences and new infections.ResultsOf 421 enrolled participants, 417 (99%) completed follow-up. The unadjusted risk of recurrent falciparum parasitemia was significantly lower for participants treated with DP than for those treated with AL after 28 d (11% versus 29%; risk difference [RD] 18%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 11%-26%) and 42 d (43% versus 53%; RD 9.6%, 95% CI 0%-19%) of follow-up. Similarly, the risk of recurrent parasitemia due to possible recrudescence (adjusted by genotyping) was significantly lower for participants treated with DP than for those treated with AL after 28 d (1.9% versus 8.9%; RD 7.0%, 95% CI 2.5%-12%) and 42 d (6.9% versus 16%; RD 9.5%, 95% CI 2.8%-16%). Patients treated with DP had a lower risk of recurrent parasitemia due to non-falciparum species, development of gametocytemia, and higher mean increase in hemoglobin compared to patients treated with AL. Both drugs were well tolerated; serious adverse events were uncommon and unrelated to study drugs.ConclusionDP was superior to AL for reducing the risk of recurrent parasitemia and gametocytemia, and provided improved hemoglobin recovery. DP thus appears to be a good alternative to AL as first-line treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Uganda. To maximize the benefit of artemisinin-based combination therapy in Africa, treatment should be integrated with aggressive strategies to reduce malaria transmission intensity.

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of artemisinin combination therapies for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Uganda.DesignRandomized single-blind controlled trial.SettingTororo, Uganda, an area of high-level malaria transmission.ParticipantsChildren aged one to ten years with confirmed uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria.InterventionsAmodiaquine + artesunate or artemether-lumefantrine.Outcome measuresRisks of recurrent symptomatic malaria and recurrent parasitemia at 28 days, unadjusted and adjusted by genotyping to distinguish recrudescences and new infections.ResultsOf 408 participants enrolled, 403 with unadjusted efficacy outcomes were included in the per-protocol analysis. Both treatment regimens were highly efficacious; no recrudescences occurred in patients treated with amodiaquine + artesunate, and only two occurred in those treated with artemether-lumefantrine. However, recurrent malaria due to new infections was common. The unadjusted risk of recurrent symptomatic malaria was significantly lower for participants treated with artemether-lumefantrine than for those treated with amodiaquine + artesunate (27% versus 42%, risk difference 15%, 95% CI 5.9%-24.2%). Similar results were seen for the risk of recurrent parasitemia (51% artemether-lumefantrine versus 66% amodiaquine + artesunate, risk difference 16%, 95% CI 6.2%-25.2%). Amodiaquine + artesunate and artemether-lumefantrine were both well-tolerated. Serious adverse events were uncommon with both regimens.ConclusionsAmodiaquine + artesunate and artemether-lumefantrine were both highly efficacious for treatment of uncomplicated malaria. However, in this holoendemic area, despite the excellent performance of both regimens in terms of efficacy, many patients experienced recurrent parasitemia due to new infections. Artemether-lumefantrine was superior to amodiaquine + artesunate for prevention of new infections. To maximize the benefit of artemisinin combination therapy in Africa, treatment should be integrated with strategies to prevent malaria transmission. The impact of frequent repeated therapy on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of new artemisinin regimens should be further investigated.