Search

Background The majority of Plasmodium falciparum malaria cases in Africa are treated with the artemisinin combination therapies artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and artesunate-amodiaquine (AS-AQ), with amodiaquine being also widely used as part of seasonal malaria chemoprevention programs combined with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. While artemisinin derivatives have a short half-life, lumefantrine and amodiaquine may give rise to differing durations of post-treatment prophylaxis, an important additional benefit to patients in higher transmission areas. Methods We analyzed individual patient data from 8 clinical trials of AL versus AS-AQ in 12 sites in Africa (n = 4214 individuals). The time to PCR-confirmed reinfection after treatment was used to estimate the duration of post-treatment protection, accounting for variation in transmission intensity between settings using hidden semi-Markov models. Accelerated failure-time models were used to identify potential effects of covariates on the time to reinfection. The estimated duration of chemoprophylaxis was then used in a mathematical model of malaria transmission to determine the potential public health impact of each drug when used for first-line treatment. Results We estimated a mean duration of post-treatment protection of 13.0 days (95% CI 10.7–15.7) for AL and 15.2 days (95% CI 12.8–18.4) for AS-AQ overall. However, the duration varied significantly between trial sites, from 8.7–18.6 days for AL and 10.2–18.7 days for AS-AQ. Significant predictors of time to reinfection in multivariable models were transmission intensity, age, drug, and parasite genotype. Where wild type pfmdr1 and pfcrt parasite genotypes predominated ( 80%), AL provided up to 1.5-fold longer protection than AS-AQ. Our simulations found that these differences in the duration of protection could alter population-level clinical incidence of malaria by up to 14% in under-5-year-old children when the drugs were used as first-line treatments in areas with high, seasonal transmission. Conclusion Choosing a first-line treatment which provides optimal post-treatment prophylaxis given the local prevalence of resistance-associated markers could make a significant contribution to reducing malaria morbidity.

Background An earlier open label, prospective, non-randomized, non-comparative, multi-centric study conducted within public health facilities in Bihar, India (CTRI/2012/08/002891) measured the field effectiveness of three new treatment regimens for visceral leishmaniasis (VL): single dose AmBisome (SDA), and combination therapies of AmBisome and miltefosine (AmB+Milt) and miltefosine and paromomycin (Milt+PM) up to 6 months follow-up. The National Vector Borne Disease Control Program (NVBDCP) recommended an extended follow up at 12 months post-treatment of the original study cohort to quantify late relapses. Methods The 1,761 patients enrolled in the original study with the three new regimens were contacted and traced between 10 and 36 months following completion of treatment to determine their health status and any occurrence of VL relapse. Results Of 1,761 patients enrolled in the original study, 1,368 were traced at the extended follow-up visit: 711 (80.5%), 295 (83.2%) and 362 (71.5%) patients treated with SDA, AmB+Milt and Milt+PM respectively. Of those traced, a total of 75 patients were reported to have relapsed by the extended follow-up; 45 (6.3%) in the SDA, 25 (8.5%) in the AmB+Milt and 5 (1.4%) in the Milt+PM arms. Of the 75 relapse cases, 55 had already been identified in the 6-months follow-up and 20 were identified as new cases of relapse at extended follow-up; 7 in the SDA, 10 in the AmB+Milt and 3 in the Milt+PM arms. Conclusion Extending follow-up beyond the standard 6 months identified additional relapses, suggesting that 12-month sentinel follow-up may be useful as a programmatic tool to better identify and quantify relapses. With limited drug options, there remains an urgent need to develop effective new chemical entities (NCEs) for VL., Author summary In 2010, the WHO Expert Committee recommended liposomal amphotericin B (in single or multiple doses) along with three short combination treatment regimens containing liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB), miltefosine (Milt) and/or paromomycin (PM) as preferred options to replace the existing miltefosine monotherapy for kala-azar treatment in South Asia. The Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) in partnership with Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Science (RMRI-Regional ICMR institute), State Health Society Bihar, and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) conducted a phase 4 field effectiveness study to determine the effectiveness and to assess the safety and feasibility of using single dose LAmB, and the combination therapies of LAmB+Milt and Milt+PM for the treatment of VL at public healthcare facility settings in India. Based on the provisional results of this effectiveness study at 6 months follow-up, the Indian government revised the national policy in August 2014, introducing SDA as first option and Milt+PM as second option to replace miltefosine monotherapy in the kala-azar elimination initiative. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme (NVBDCP) expert committee recommended to follow up this large cohort of patients for one year to identify relapses yielding further evidence on new treatment regimens.

Artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and artesunate-amodiaquine (AS-AQ) are the most commonly-used treatments against Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Africa. The lumefantrine and amodiaquine partner drugs may provide differing durations of post-treatment prophylaxis, an important additional benefit to patients. Analyzing 4214 individuals from clinical trials in 12 sites, we estimated a mean duration of post-treatment protection of 13.0 days (95% CI 10.7-15.7) for AL and 15.2 days (95% CI 12.8-18.4) for AS-AQ after allowing for transmission intensity. However, the duration varied substantially between sites: where wild type pfmdr1 86 and pfcrt 76 parasite genotypes predominated, AS-AQ provided ∼2-fold longer protection than AL. Conversely, AL provided up to 1.5-fold longer protection than AS-AQ where mutants were common. We estimate that choosing AL or AS-AQ as first-line treatment according to local drug sensitivity could alter population-level clinical incidence of malaria by up to 14% in under-five year olds where malaria transmission is high.

Laboratory and clinical diagnostic classification of seropositive individuals, followed by treatment and supportive therapy, is an established component of Chagas' disease control in areas where this disease is endemic. However, most Chagas' disease patients live in remote areas where neither equipped laboratories nor skilled human resources are widely available. Employing a rapid diagnostic test (RDT), when using whole blood samples, is the best option for Chagas' disease control. A high sensitivity and specificity for the Chagas Stat-Pak RDT (Chembio Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Medford, NY) has been reported for assays using serum and plasma, but its validity for the detection of antibodies to Trypanosoma cruzi infection in whole blood is unknown. This cross-sectional study measured the sensitivity and specificity of the Chagas Stat-Pak with whole blood, using conventional serological assays for comparison. The interobserver reliability in the interpretation of the Chagas Stat-Pak results and “ease-of-use” criterion needed to perform the Chagas Stat-Pak and conventional assays were also measured. The Chagas Stat-Pak yielded a high specificity (99.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 98.4 to 99.4%) but a relatively low sensitivity (93.4%, 95% CI = 87.4 to 97.1%). The interobserver reliability was excellent (kappa [ n = 1,913] = 0.999, P < 0.0001), and the quantified ease-of-use criterion suggested that the RDT is simple to perform. Despite the attributes of the Chagas Stat-Pak, it is not an ideal diagnostic test for the population investigated in the present study due to its relatively low sensitivity and high cost. The RDT manufacturer is called upon to improve the test if the international community hopes to make progress in controlling Chagas infections in areas where this disease is endemic.

Additional file 1: Table S1. Risk factors for reinfection: multivariable analysis with pfcrt 76T. Data from AS-AQ and AL trial arms were analyzed separately using accelerated failure-time analysis. Regression coefficients are the ratio of time to reinfection, such that a coefficient > 1 indicates a longer time to reinfection. Covariates significantly associated with reinfection time after adjusting for EIR (Table 3, main text) were included in the final model. The prevalence of pfmdr1 86Y also had a significant effect in a multivariable model with the same covariates (Table 3, main text) but could not be included in the same model with pfcrt 76T due to strong correlation between the two variables. Models assume a log-normal time to reinfection and random site effects.