Capacity Development through the US President’s Malaria Initiative–Supported Antimalarial Resistance Monitoring in Africa Network

Halsey, Eric S.; Venkatesan, Meera; Pluciński, Mateusz M.; Talundzic, Eldin; Lucchi, Naomi W.; Zhou, Zhansong; Mandara, Celine I.; Moonga, Hawela; Hamainza, Busiku; Béavogui, Abdoul Habib; Kariuki, Simon; Samuels, Aaron M.; Steinhardt, Laura C.; Mathanga, Don P.; Gutman, Julie; Denon, Yves Eric; Uwimana, Aline; Assefa, Ashenafi; Hwang, Jimee; Shi, Ya Ping; Dimbu, Pedro Rafael; Koïta, Ousmane; Ishengoma, Deus S.; Ndiaye, Daouda; Udhayakumar, Venkatachalam

doi:10.3201/eid2313.170366

Cited by 30 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is mainly a network of researcher institutions aimed at providing up to date spatial and temporal information on anti-malarial resistance on a global level. The PMI supported anti-malarial resistance network (PARMA) is another initiative aiming at standardizing, data sharing and capacity building in African PMI-funded countries [ 141 ]. However, efforts to bring together the scientific community and national stakeholders, especially the National Malaria Control Programmes (NMCPs) remain challenging.…”

Section: Discussion and Outlookmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tools for surveillance of anti-malarial drug resistance: an assessment of the current landscape

Nsanzabana

Djallé

Guérin

et al. 2018

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To limit the spread and impact of anti-malarial drug resistance and react accordingly, surveillance systems able to detect and track in real-time its emergence and spread need to be strengthened or in some places established. Currently, surveillance of anti-malarial drug resistance is done by any of three approaches: (1) in vivo studies to assess the efficacy of drugs in patients; (2) in vitro/ex vivo studies to evaluate parasite susceptibility to the drugs; and/or (3) molecular assays to detect validated gene mutations and/or gene copy number changes that are associated with drug resistance. These methods are complementary, as they evaluate different aspects of resistance; however, standardization of methods, especially for in vitro/ex vivo and molecular techniques, is lacking. The World Health Organization has developed a standard protocol for evaluating the efficacy of anti-malarial drugs, which is used by National Malaria Control Programmes to conduct their therapeutic efficacy studies. Regional networks, such as the East African Network for Monitoring Antimalarial Treatment and the Amazon Network for the Surveillance of Antimalarial Drug Resistance, have been set up to strengthen regional capacities for monitoring anti-malarial drug resistance. The Worldwide Antimalarial Resistance Network has been established to collate and provide global spatial and temporal trends information on the efficacy of anti-malarial drugs and resistance. While exchange of information across endemic countries is essential for monitoring anti-malarial resistance, sustainable funding for the surveillance and networking activities remains challenging. The technology landscape for molecular assays is progressing quite rapidly, and easy-to-use and affordable new techniques are becoming available. They also offer the advantage of high throughput analysis from a simple blood spots obtained from a finger prick. New technologies combined with the strengthening of national reference laboratories in malaria-endemic countries through standardized protocols and training plus the availability of a proficiency testing programme, would contribute to the improvement and sustainability of anti-malarial resistance surveillance networks worldwide.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12936-018-2185-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Outlookmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tools for surveillance of anti-malarial drug resistance: an assessment of the current landscape

Nsanzabana

Djallé

Guérin

et al. 2018

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The P. falciparum lab strain 3D7 Pfcrt, Pfk13, and Pfmdr1 were used as reference sequences for the analysis. Molecular analyses were performed in collaboration with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Malaria Laboratory in Atlanta, USA, as part of the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI)-supported Antimalarial Resistance Monitoring in Africa Network [17].…”

Section: Molecular Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine and artesunate-amodiaquine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Mali, 2015–2016

Diarra

Koné

Sangaré

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The current first-line treatments for uncomplicated malaria recommended by the National Malaria Control Program in Mali are artemether–lumefantrine (AL) and artesunate–amodiaquine (ASAQ). From 2015–2016, we conducted an in vivo study to assess the clinical and parasitological responses to AL and ASAQ in Sélingué, Mali. Methods Children between 6 and 59 months of age with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum infection and 2,000–200,000 asexual parasites/µL of blood were enrolled, randomly assigned to either AL or ASAQ, and followed up for 42 days. Uncorrected and PCR-corrected efficacy results at days 28 and 42 were calculated. Known markers of resistance in the Pfk13, Pfmdr1, and Pfcrt genes were assessed using Sanger sequencing. Results A total of 449 patients were enrolled: 225 in the AL group and 224 in the ASAQ group. Uncorrected efficacy at day 28 was 83.4% (95% CI: 78.5–88.4%) in the AL arm and 93.1% (95% CI: 89.7–96.5%) in the ASAQ arm. The per protocol PCR-corrected efficacy at day 28 was 91.0% (86.0–95.9%) in the AL arm and 97.1% (93.6–100%) in the ASAQ arm. ASAQ was significantly (p < 0.05) better than AL for each of the aforementioned efficacy outcomes. No mutations associated with artemisinin resistance were identified in the Pfk13 gene. Overall, for Pfmdr1, the N86 allele and the NFD haplotype were the most common. The NFD haplotype was significantly more prevalent in the post-treatment than in the pre-treatment isolates in the AL arm (p < 0.01) but not in the ASAQ arm. For Pfcrt, the CVIET haplotype was the most common. Conclusions Our findings indicate that both AL and ASAQ remain effective for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Sélingué, Mali.

show abstract

“…Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) laboratories in Atlanta, USA as part of the PMIsupported Antimalarial Resistance Monitoring in Africa (PARMA) Network [30].…”

Section: Biomolecular Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of artesunate-amodiaquine and artemether-lumefantrine and prevalence of molecular markers associated with resistance, Guinea, 2016

Béavogui¹,

Camara²,

Délamou³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Antimalarial resistance is a threat to recent gains in malaria control. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of artesunate-amodiaquine (ASAQ) and artemether-lumefantrine (AL) in the management of uncomplicated malaria and to measure the prevalence of molecular markers of resistance of Plasmodium falciparum in sentinel sites in Maferinyah and Labé Health Districts in Guinea in 2016.Methods: This was a two-arm randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of AL and ASAQ in children aged 6-59 months with P. falciparum monoinfection in two sites. Children were followed for 28 days to assess clinical and parasitological response. The primary outcome was the Kaplan-Meier estimate of Day 28 (D28) efficacy after correction by microsatellite-genotyping. Pre-treatment (D0) and day of failure samples were assayed for molecular markers of resistance in the pfk13 and pfmdr1 genes.Results: A total of 421 participants were included with 211 participants in the Maferinyah site and 210 in Labé. No early treatment failure was observed in any study arms. However, 22 (5.3%) participants developed a late treatment failure, which were further classified as 2 recrudescences and 20 reinfections. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the corrected efficacy at D28 was 100% for both AL and ASAQ in Maferinyah site and 99% (95% Confidence Interval: 97.2-100%) for ASAQ and 99% (97.1-100%) for AL in Labé. The majority of successfully analyzed D0 (98%, 380/389) and all day of failure (100%, 22/22) samples were wild type for pfk13. All 9 observed pfk13 mutations were polymorphisms not associated with artemisinin resistance. The NFD haplotype was the predominant haplotype in both D0 (197/362, 54%) and day of failure samples (11/18, 61%) successfully analyzed for pfmdr1.Conclusions: This study observed high efficacy and safety of both ASAQ and AL in Guinea, providing evidence for their continued use to treat uncomplicated malaria. Continued monitoring of ACT efficacy and safety and molecular makers of resistance in Guinea is important to detect emergence of parasite resistance and to inform evidence-based malaria treatment policies.

show abstract

Capacity Development through the US President’s Malaria Initiative–Supported Antimalarial Resistance Monitoring in Africa Network

Cited by 30 publications

References 10 publications

Tools for surveillance of anti-malarial drug resistance: an assessment of the current landscape

Tools for surveillance of anti-malarial drug resistance: an assessment of the current landscape

Therapeutic efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine and artesunate-amodiaquine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Mali, 2015–2016

Efficacy and safety of artesunate-amodiaquine and artemether-lumefantrine and prevalence of molecular markers associated with resistance, Guinea, 2016

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About