Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin‐based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum (P falciparum) malaria. Concerns about artemisinin resistance have led to global initiatives to develop new partner drugs to protect artemisinin derivatives in ACT. Pyronaridine‐artesunate is a novel ACT.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of pyronaridine‐artesunate compared to alternative ACTs for treating people with uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, and to evaluate the safety of pyronaridine‐artesunate and other pyronaridine treatments compared to alternative treatments.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry for ongoing or recently completed trials. The date of the last search was 8 May 2018.Selection criteriaEfficacy analysis: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pyronaridine‐artesunate for treating uncomplicated P falciparum malaria.Safety analysis: RCTs of pyronaridine‐artesunate or pyronaridine for treating P falciparum or P vivax malaria.Data collection and analysisFor this update, two review authors independently re‐extracted all data and assessed certainty of evidence. We meta‐analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons.Main resultsWe included 10 relevant studies. Seven studies were co‐funded by Shin Poong Pharmaceuticals which manufactures the drug. Three studies were funded by government agencies.For efficacy analysis we identified five RCTs with 5711 participants. This included 4465 participants from 13 sites in Africa, and 1246 participants from five sites in Asia. It included 541 children aged less than five years.For polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐adjusted failures at day 28, pyronaridine‐artesunate may have fewer failures compared to artemether‐lumefantrine (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.31; 4 RCTs, 3068 participants, low‐certainty evidence), artesunate‐amodiaquine (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.77; 1 RCT, 1245 participants, low‐certainty evidence), and mefloquine plus artesunate (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 1117 participants, low‐certainty evidence).For unadjusted failures at day 28, pyronaridine‐artesunate may have fewer failures compared to artemether‐lumefantrine (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 4 RCTs, 3149 participants, low‐certainty evidence), and probably has fewer failures compared to artesunate‐amodiaquine (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; 1 RCT, 1257 participants, moderate‐certainty evidence) and mefloquine plus artesunate (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.78; 1 RCT, 1120 participants, moderate‐certainty evidence).For PCR‐adjusted failures at day 42, pyronaridine‐artesunat...
BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin‐based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum (P falciparum) malaria. Concerns about artemisinin resistance have led to global initiatives to develop new partner drugs to protect artemisinin derivatives in ACT. Pyronaridine‐artesunate is a novel ACT.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of pyronaridine‐artesunate compared to alternative ACTs for treating people with uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, and to evaluate the safety of pyronaridine‐artesunate and other pyronaridine treatments compared to alternative treatments.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry for ongoing or recently completed trials. The date of the last search was 8 May 2018.Selection criteriaEfficacy analysis: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pyronaridine‐artesunate for treating uncomplicated P falciparum malaria.Safety analysis: RCTs of pyronaridine‐artesunate or pyronaridine for treating P falciparum or P vivax malaria.Data collection and analysisFor this update, two review authors independently re‐extracted all data and assessed certainty of evidence. We meta‐analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons.Main resultsWe included 10 relevant studies. Seven studies were co‐funded by Shin Poong Pharmaceuticals which manufactures the drug. Three studies were funded by government agencies.For efficacy analysis we identified five RCTs with 5711 participants. This included 4465 participants from 13 sites in Africa, and 1246 participants from five sites in Asia. It included 541 children aged less than five years.For polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐adjusted failures at day 28, pyronaridine‐artesunate may have fewer failures compared to artemether‐lumefantrine (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.31; 4 RCTs, 3068 participants, low‐certainty evidence), artesunate‐amodiaquine (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.77; 1 RCT, 1245 participants, low‐certainty evidence), and mefloquine plus artesunate (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 1117 participants, low‐certainty evidence).For unadjusted failures at day 28, pyronaridine‐artesunate may have fewer failures compared to artemether‐lumefantrine (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 4 RCTs, 3149 participants, low‐certainty evidence), and probably has fewer failures compared to artesunate‐amodiaquine (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; 1 RCT, 1257 participants, moderate‐certainty evidence) and mefloquine plus artesunate (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.78; 1 RCT, 1120 participants, moderate‐certainty evidence).For PCR‐adjusted failures at day 42, pyronaridine‐artesunat...
Background The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin‐based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Concerns about artemisinin resistance have led to global initiatives to develop new partner drugs to protect artemisinin derivatives in ACT. Pyronaridine‐artesunate is a novel ACT. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of pyronaridine‐artesunate compared to alternative ACTs for treating people with uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, and to evaluate the safety of pyronaridine‐artesunate and other pyronaridine treatments compared to alternative treatments. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISRCTN registry for ongoing or recently completed trials. The date of the last search was 27 October 2021. Selection criteria For the efficacy analysis, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pyronaridine‐artesunate for treating uncomplicated P falciparum malaria. For the safety analysis, we included RCTs that used pyronaridine alone or in combination with any other antimalarials. In addition to these analyses, we conducted a separate systematic review summarizing data on safety from non‐randomized studies (NRS) of any patient receiving pyronaridine (NRS safety review). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted all data and assessed the certainty of the evidence. We meta‐analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons. Main results We included 10 relevant RCTs. Seven RCTs were co‐funded by Shin Poong Pharmaceuticals, and three were funded by government agencies. Efficacy analysis (RCTs) For the efficacy analysis, we identified five RCTs comprising 5711 participants. This included 4465 participants from 13 sites in Africa, and 1246 participants from five sites in Asia. The analysis included 541 children aged less than five years. Overall, pyronaridine‐artesunate had a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5%. We evaluated pyronaridine‐artesunate versus the following. • Artemether‐lumefantrine. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR‐adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.31; 4 RCTs, 3068 participants, low‐certainty evidence); for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 4 RCTs, 3149 participants, low‐certainty evidence); and for unadjus...
Background In endemic malarial areas, young children have high levels of malaria morbidity and mortality. The World Health Organization recommends oral artemisinin‐based combination therapy (ACT) for treating uncomplicated malaria. Paediatric formulations of ACT have been developed to make it easier to treat children. Objectives To evaluate evidence from trials on the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability of paediatric ACT formulations compared to tablet ACT formulations for uncomplicated P falciparum malaria in children up to 14 years old. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS); ISI Web of Science; Google Scholar; Scopus; and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) to 11 December 2019. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of paediatric versus non‐paediatric formulated ACT in children aged 14 years or younger with acute uncomplicated malaria. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction. We analyzed the primary outcomes of efficacy, safety and tolerability of paediatric versus non‐paediatric ACT using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Secondary outcomes were: treatment failure on the last day of observation (day 42), fever clearance time, parasite clearance time, pharmacokinetics, and acceptability. Main results Three trials met the inclusion criteria. Two compared a paediatric dispersible tablet formulation against crushed tablets of artemether‐lumefantrine (AL) and dihydroartemisinin‐piperaquine (DHA‐PQ), and one trial assessed artemether‐lumefantrine formulated as powder for suspension compared with crushed tablets. The trials were carried out between 2006 and 2015 in sub‐Saharan Africa (Benin, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burkina Faso, and The Gambia). In all three trials, the paediatric and control ACT achieved polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐adjusted treatment failure rates of < 10% on day 28 in the per‐protocol (PP) population. For the comparison of dispersible versus crushed tablets, the two trials did not detect a difference for treatment failure by day 28 (PCR‐adjusted PP population: RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.72; 1061 participants, 2 studies, low‐certainty evidence). Similarly, for the comparison of suspension versus crushed tablet ACT, we did not detect any difference in treatment failure at day 28 (PCR‐adjusted PP population: RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.87; 245 participants, 1 study). We did not detect any difference in serious adverse events for the comparison of dispers...
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.