Background The World Health Organization recommends regularly assessing the efficacy of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT), which is a critical tool in the fight against malaria. This study evaluated the efficacy of two artemisinin-based combinations recommended to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Burkina Faso in three sites: Niangoloko, Nanoro, and Gourcy. Methods This was a two-arm randomized control trial of the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP). Children aged 6–59 months old were monitored for 42 days. The primary outcomes of the study were uncorrected and PCR-corrected efficacies to day 28 for AL and 42 for DP. Molecular markers of resistance to artemisinin derivatives and partner drugs were also analysed. Results Of 720 children enrolled, 672 reached study endpoints at day 28, 333 in the AL arm and 339 in the DP arm. PCR-corrected 28-day per protocol efficacy in the AL arm was 74% (64–83%) in Nanoro, 76% (66–83%) in Gourcy, and 92% (84–96%) in Niangoloko. The PCR-corrected 42-day per protocol efficacy in the DP arm was 84% (75–89%) in Gourcy, 89% (81–94%) in Nanoro, and 97% (92–99%) in Niangoloko. No Pfk13 mutation previously associated with artemisinin-resistance was observed. No statistically significant association was found between treatment outcome and presence of the 86Y mutation in the Pfmdr1 gene. There was also no association observed between treatment outcome and Pfpm2 or Pfmdr1 copy number variation. Conclusion The results of this study indicate evidence of inadequate efficacy of AL at day 28 and DP at day 42 in the same two sites. A change of first-line ACT may be warranted in Burkina Faso. Trial Registry Pan African Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: PACTR201708002499311. Date of registration: 8/3/2017 https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/Search.aspx
BackgroundThe recent reports on the decreasing susceptibility of Plasmodium falciparum to artemisinin derivatives along the Thailand and Myanmar border are worrying. Indeed it may spread to India and then Africa, repeating the same pattern observed for chloroquine resistance. Therefore, it is essential to start monitoring P. falciparum sensitivity to artemisinin derivatives and its partner drugs in Africa. Efficacy of AL and ASAQ were tested by carrying out an in vivo drug efficacy test, with an ex vivo study against six anti-malarial drugs nested into it. Results of the latter are reported here.MethodsPlasmodium falciparum ex-vivo susceptibility to chloroquine (CQ), quinine (Q), lumefantrine (Lum), monodesethylamodiaquine (MDA), piperaquine (PPQ) and dihydroartemisinin (DHA) was investigated in children (6 months – 15 years) with a parasitaemia of at least ≥4,000/μl. The modified isotopic microtest technique was used. The results of cellular proliferation were analysed using ICEstimator software to determine the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) values.ResultsDHA was the most potent among the 6 drugs tested, with IC50 values ranging from 0.8 nM to 0.9 nM (Geometric mean IC50 = 0.8 nM; 95% CI [0.8 - 0.9]). High IC50 values ranged between 0.8 nM to 166.1 nM were reported for lumefantrine (Geometric mean IC50 = 25.1 nM; 95% CI [22.4 - 28.2]). MDA and Q IC50s were significantly higher in CQ-resistant than in CQ-sensitive isolates (P = 0.0001). However, the opposite occurred for Lum and DHA (P < 0.001). No difference was observed for PPQ.ConclusionArtemisinin derivatives are still very efficacious in Burkina Faso and DHA-PPQ seems a valuable alternative ACT. The high lumefantrine IC50 found in this study is worrying as it may indicate a decreasing efficacy of one of the first-line treatments. This should be further investigated and monitored over time with large in vivo and ex vivo studies that will include also plasma drug measurements.
Background: Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is recommended to improve malaria treatment efficacy and limit drug-resistant parasites selection in malaria endemic areas. 5 years after they were adopted, the efficacy and safety of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and artesunate-amodiaquine (ASAQ), the first-line treatments for uncomplicated malaria were assessed in Burkina Faso. Methods: In total, 440 children with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria were randomized to receive either AL or ASAQ for 3 days and were followed up weekly for 42 days. Blood samples were collected to investigate the ex vivo susceptibility of P. falciparum isolates to lumefantrine, dihydroartemisinin (the active metabolite of artemisinin derivatives) and monodesethylamodiaquine (the active metabolite of amodiaquine). The modified isotopic micro test technique was used to determine the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) values. Primary endpoints were the risks of treatment failure at days 42. Results: Out of the 440 patients enrolled, 420 (95.5%) completed the 42 days follow up. The results showed a significantly higher PCR unadjusted cure rate in ASAQ arm (71.0%) than that in the AL arm (49.8%) on day 42, and this trend was similar after correction by PCR, with ASAQ performing better (98.1%) than AL (91.1%). Overall adverse events incidence was low and not significantly different between the two treatment arms. Ex vivo results showed that 6.4% P. falciparum isolates were resistant to monodesthylamodiaquine. The coupled in vivo/ex vivo analysis showed increased IC50 values for lumefantrine and monodesethylamodiaquine at day of recurrent parasitaemia compared to baseline values while for artesunate, IC50 values remained stable at baseline and after treatment failure (p > 0.05). Conclusion: These findings provide substantial evidence that AL and ASAQ are highly efficacious for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in children in Burkina Faso. However, the result of P. falciparum susceptibility to the partner drugs advocates the need to regularly replicate such surveillance studies. This would be particularly indicated when
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.