Adequate clinical and parasitologic cure by artemisinin combination therapies relies on the artemisinin component and the partner drug. Polymorphisms in the Plasmodium falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter (pfcrt) and P. falciparum multidrug resistance 1 (pfmdr1) genes are associated with decreased sensitivity to amodiaquine and lumefantrine, but effects of these polymorphisms on therapeutic responses to artesunate-amodiaquine (ASAQ) and artemether-lumefantrine (AL) have not been clearly defined. Individual patient data from 31 clinical trials were harmonized and pooled by using standardized methods from the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network. Data for more than 7,000 patients were analyzed to assess relationships between parasite polymorphisms in pfcrt and pfmdr1 and clinically relevant outcomes after treatment with AL or ASAQ. Presence of the pfmdr1 gene N86 (adjusted hazards ratio = 4.74, 95% confidence interval = 2.29 – 9.78, P < 0.001) and increased pfmdr1 copy number (adjusted hazards ratio = 6.52, 95% confidence interval = 2.36–17.97, P < 0.001) were significant independent risk factors for recrudescence in patients treated with AL. AL and ASAQ exerted opposing selective effects on single-nucleotide polymorphisms in pfcrt and pfmdr1. Monitoring selection and responding to emerging signs of drug resistance are critical tools for preserving efficacy of artemisinin combination therapies; determination of the prevalence of at least pfcrt K76T and pfmdr1 N86Y should now be routine.

Background Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitors show activity against Plasmodium falciparum in vitro. We hypothesized that the incidence of malaria in HIV-infected children would be lower among children receiving lopinavir–ritonavir–based antiretroviral therapy (ART) than among those receiving nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)–based ART. Methods We conducted an open-label trial in which HIV-infected children 2 months to 5 years of age who were eligible for ART or were currently receiving NNRTI-based ART were randomly assigned to either lopinavir–ritonavir–based ART or NNRTI-based ART and were followed for 6 months to 2 years. Cases of uncomplicated malaria were treated with artemether–lumefantrine. The primary end point was the incidence of malaria. Results We enrolled 176 children, of whom 170 received the study regimen: 86 received NNRTI-based ART, and 84 lopinavir–ritonavir–based ART. The incidence of malaria was lower among children receiving the lopinavir–ritonavir–based regimen than among those receiving the NNRTI-based regimen (1.32 vs. 2.25 episodes per person-year; incidence-rate ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.97; P = 0.04), as was the risk of a recurrence of malaria after treatment with artemether–lumefantrine (28.1% vs. 54.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.76; P = 0.004). The median lumefantrine level on day 7 after treatment for malaria was significantly higher in the lopinavir–ritonavir group than in the NNRTI group. In the lopinavir–ritonavir group, lumefantrine levels exceeding 300 ng per milliliter on day 7 were associated with a reduction of more than 85% in the 63-day risk of recurrent malaria. A greater number of serious adverse events occurred in the lopinavir–ritonavir group than in the NNRTI group (5.6% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.16). Pruritus occurred significantly more frequently in the lopinavir–ritonavir group, and elevated alanine aminotransferase levels significantly more frequently in the NNRTI group. Conclusions Lopinavir–ritonavir–based ART as compared with NNRTI-based ART reduced the incidence of malaria by 41%, with the lower incidence attributable largely to a significant reduction in the recurrence of malaria after treatment with artemether–lumefantrine. Lopinavir–ritonavir–based ART was accompanied by an increase in serious adverse events. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00978068.)

BackgroundMeasuring the impact of capacity strengthening support is a priority for the international development community. Several frameworks exist for monitoring and evaluating funding results and modalities. Based on its long history of support, we report on the impact of individual and institutional capacity strengthening programmes conducted by the UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) and on the factors that influenced the outcome of its Research Capacity Strengthening (RCS) activities.Methodology and Principal FindingsA mix of qualitative and quantitative methods (questionnaires and in-depth interviews) was applied to a selected group of 128 individual and 20 institutional capacity development grant recipients that completed their training/projects between 2000 and 2008. A semi-structured interview was also conducted on site with scientists from four institutions. Most of the grantees, both individual and institutional, reported beneficial results from the grant. However, glaring inequities stemming from gender imbalances and a language bias towards English were identified. The study showed that skills improvement through training contributed to better formulation of research proposals, but not necessarily to improved project implementation or communication of results. Appreciation of the institutional grants' impact varied among recipient countries. The least developed countries saw the programmes as essential for supporting basic infrastructure and activities. Advanced developing countries perceived the research grants as complementary to available resources, and particularly suitable for junior researchers who were not yet able to compete for major international grants.ConclusionThe study highlights the need for a more equitable process to improve the effectiveness of health research capacity strengthening activities. Support should be tailored to the existing research capacity in disease endemic countries and should focus on strengthening national health research systems, particularly in the least developing countries. The engagement of stakeholders at country level would facilitate the design of more specific and comprehensive strategies based on local needs.

Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) have become the mainstay for malaria treatment in almost all malaria endemic settings. Artemisinin derivatives are highly potent and fast acting antimalarials; but they have a short half-life and need to be combined with partner drugs with a longer half-life to clear the remaining parasites after a standard 3-day ACT regimen. When introduced, ACTs were highly efficacious and contributed to the steep decrease of malaria over the last decades. However, parasites with decreased susceptibility to artemisinins have emerged in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), followed by ACTs’ failure, due to both decreased susceptibility to artemisinin and partner drug resistance. Therefore, there is an urgent need to strengthen and expand current resistance surveillance systems beyond the GMS to track the emergence or spread of artemisinin resistance. Great attention has been paid to the spread of artemisinin resistance over the last five years, since molecular markers of decreased susceptibility to artemisinin in the GMS have been discovered. However, resistance to partner drugs is critical, as ACTs can still be effective against parasites with decreased susceptibility to artemisinins, when the latter are combined with a highly efficacious partner drug. This review outlines the different mechanisms of resistance and molecular markers associated with resistance to partner drugs for the currently used ACTs. Strategies to improve surveillance and potential solutions to extend the useful therapeutic lifespan of the currently available malaria medicines are proposed.