36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pyronaridine–artesunate or dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine versus current first-line therapies for repeated treatment of uncomplicated malaria: a randomised, multicentre, open-label, longitudinal, controlled, phase 3b/4 trial

      research-article
      The West African Network for Clinical Trials of Antimalarial Drugs (WANECAM)
      Lancet (London, England)
      Elsevier

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Artemether–lumefantrine and artesunate–amodiaquine are used as first-line artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) in west Africa. Pyronaridine–artesunate and dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine are potentially useful for diversification of ACTs in this region, but further safety and efficacy data are required on malaria retreatment.

          Methods

          We did a randomised, multicentre, open-label, longitudinal, controlled phase 3b/4 clinical trial at seven tertiary centres in Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Mali. Eligible participants for first malaria episode and all retreatment episodes were adults and children aged 6 months and older with microscopically confirmed Plasmodium spp malaria (>0 to <200 000 parasites per μL of blood) and fever or history of fever in the previous 24 h. Individuals with severe or complicated malaria, an alanine aminotransferase concentration of more than twice the upper limit of normal, or a QTc greater than 450 ms were excluded. Using a randomisation list for each site, masked using sealed envelopes, participants were assigned to either pyronaridine–artesunate or dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine versus either artesunate–amodiaquine or artemether–lumefantrine. Block sizes were two or four if two treatments were allocated, and three or six if three treatments were allocated. Microscopists doing the parasitological assessments were masked to treatment allocation. All treatments were once-daily or twice-daily tablets or granules given orally and dosed by bodyweight over 3 days at the study centre. Patients were followed up as outpatients up to day 42, receiving clinical assessments on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42. Two primary outcomes were compared for non-inferiority: the 2-year incidence rate of all microscopically confirmed, complicated and uncomplicated malaria episodes in patients in the intention-to-treat population (ITT; non-inferiority margin 20%); and adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) in uncomplicated malaria across all episodes (unadjusted and PCR-adjusted for Plasmodium falciparum and unadjusted for other Plasmodium spp) in the per-protocol population on days 28 and 42 (non-inferiority margin 5%). Safety was assessed in all participants who received one dose of study drug. This study is registered at the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR201105000286876).

          Findings

          Between Oct 24, 2011, and Feb 1, 2016, we assigned 4710 eligible participants to the different treatment strategies: 1342 to pyronaridine–artesunate, 967 to artemether–lumefantrine, 1061 to artesunate–amodiaquine, and 1340 to dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine. The 2-year malaria incidence rate in the ITT population was non-inferior for pyronaridine–artesunate versus artemether–lumefantrine (1·77, 95% CI 1·63–1·93 vs 1·87, 1·72–2·03; rate ratio [RR] 1·05, 95% CI 0·94–1·17); and versus artesunate–amodiaquine (1·39, 95% CI 1·22–1·59 vs 1·35, 1·18–1·54; RR 0·97, 0·87–1·07). Similarly, this endpoint was non-inferior for dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine versus artemether–lumefantrine (1·16, 95% CI 1·01–1·34 vs 1·42 1·25–1·62; RR 1·22, 95% CI 1·06–1·41) and versus artesunate–amodiaquine (1·35, 1·21–1·51 vs 1·68, 1·51–1·88; RR 1·25, 1·02–1·50). For uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, PCR-adjusted ACPR was greater than 99·5% at day 28 and greater than 98·6% at day 42 for all ACTs; unadjusted ACPR was higher for pyronaridine–artesunate versus comparators at day 28 (96·9% vs 82·3% for artemether–lumefantrine and 95·6% vs 89·0% for artesunate–amodiaquine) and for dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus comparators (99·5% vs 81·6% for artemether–lumefantrine and 99·0% vs 89·0% for artesunate–amodiaquine). For non-falciparum species, unadjusted ACPR was greater than 98% for all study drugs at day 28 and at day 42 was greater than 83% except for artemether–lumefantrine against Plasmodium ovale (in ten [62·5%] of 16 patients) and against Plasmodium malariae (in nine [75·0%] of 12 patients). Nine deaths occurred during the study, none of which were related to the study treatment. Mostly mild transient elevations in transaminases occurred with pyronaridine–artesunate versus comparators, and mild QTcF prolongation with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus comparators.

          Interpretation

          Pyronaridine–artesunate and dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine treatment and retreatment of malaria were well tolerated with efficacy that was non-inferior to first-line ACTs. Greater access to these efficacious treatments in west Africa is justified.

          Funding

          The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trial Partnership, Medicines for Malaria Venture (Geneva, Switzerland), the UK Medical Research Council, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, German Ministry for Education and Research, University Claude Bernard (Lyon, France), University of Science, Techniques and Technologies of Bamako (Bamako, Mali), the Centre National de Recherche et de Formation sur le Paludisme (Burkina Faso), Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé (Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso), and Centre National de Formation et de Recherche en Santé Rurale (Republic of Guinea).

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Two fixed-dose artemisinin combinations for drug-resistant falciparum and vivax malaria in Papua, Indonesia: an open-label randomised comparison.

          The burden of Plasmodium vivax infections has been underappreciated, especially in southeast Asia where chloroquine resistant strains have emerged. Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine with that of artemether-lumefantrine in patients with uncomplicated malaria caused by multidrug-resistant P falciparum and P vivax. 774 patients in southern Papua, Indonesia, with slide-confirmed malaria were randomly assigned to receive either artemether-lumefantrine or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and followed up for at least 42 days. The primary endpoint was the overall cumulative risk of parasitological failure at day 42 with a modified intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, trial number 00157833. Of the 754 evaluable patients enrolled, 466 had infections with P falciparum, 175 with P vivax, and 113 with a mixture of both species. The overall risk of failure at day 42 was 43% (95% CI 38-48) for artemether-lumefantrine and 19% (14-23) for dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (hazard ratio=3.0, 95% CI 2.2-4.1, p<0.0001). After correcting for reinfections, the risk of recrudescence of P falciparum was 4.4% (2.6-6.2) with no difference between regimens. Recurrence of vivax occurred in 38% (33-44) of patients given artemether-lumefantrine compared with 10% (6.9-14.0) given dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (p<0.0001). At the end of the study, patients receiving dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine were 2.0 times (1.2-3.6) less likely to be anaemic and 6.6 times (2.8-16) less likely to carry vivax gametocytes than were those given artemether-lumefantrine. Both dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and artemether-lumefantrine were safe and effective for the treatment of multidrug-resistant uncomplicated malaria. However, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine provided greater post-treatment prophylaxis than did artemether-lumefantrine, reducing P falciparum reinfections and P vivax recurrences, the clinical public-health importance of which should not be ignored.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness of five artemisinin combination regimens with or without primaquine in uncomplicated falciparum malaria: an open-label randomised trial

            Summary Background Artemisinin-combination therapy (ACT) is recommended as first-line treatment of falciparum malaria throughout the world, and fixed-dose combinations are preferred by WHO; whether a single gametocytocidal dose of primaquine should be added is unknown. We aimed to compare effectiveness of four fixed-dose ACTs and a loose tablet combination of artesunate and mefloquine, and assess the addition of a single gametocytocidal dose of primaquine. Methods In an open-label randomised trial in clinics in Rakhine state, Kachin state, and Shan state in Myanmar (Burma) between Dec 30, 2008, and March 20, 2009, we compared the effectiveness of all four WHO-recommended fixed-dose ACTs (artesunate–mefloquine, artesunate–amodiaquine, dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine, artemether–lumefantrine) and loose artesunate–mefloquine in Burmese adults and children. Eligible patients were those who presented to the clinics with acute uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria or mixed infection, who were older than 6 months, and who weighed more than 5 kg. Treatments were randomised in equal numbers within blocks of 50 and allocation was in sealed envelopes. All patients were also randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of primaquine 0·75 mg base/kg or not. Patients were followed up for 63 days. Treatment groups were compared by analysis of variance and multiple logistic regression. The primary outcome was the 63 day recrudescence rate. This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00902811. Findings 155 patients received artesunate–amodiaquine, 162 artemether–lumefantrine, 169 artesunate–mefloquine, 161 loose artesunate–mefloquine, and 161 dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine. By day 63 of follow-up, 14 patients (9·4%; 95% CI 5·7–15·3%) on artesunate–amodiaquine had recrudescent P falciparum infections, a rate significantly higher than for artemether–lumefantrine (two patients; 1·4%; 0·3–5·3; p=0·0013), fixed-dose artesunate–mefloquine (0 patients; 0–2·3; p<0·0001), loose artesunate–mefloquine (two patients; 1·3%; 0·3–5·3; p=0·0018), and dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine (two patients 1·3%; 0·3–5·2%; p=0·0012). Hazard ratios for re-infection (95% CI) after artesunate–amodiaquine were 3·2 (1·3–8·0) compared with the two artesunate–mefloquine groups (p=0·01), 2·6 (1·0–6–0) compared with artemether–lumefantrine (p=0·04), and 2·3 (0·9–6·0) compared with dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine (p=0·08). Mixed falciparum and vivax infections were common: 129 (16%) had a mixed infection at presentation and 330 (41%) patients had one or more episodes of Plasmodium vivax infection during follow-up. The addition of a single dose of primaquine (0·75 mg/kg) reduced P falciparum gametocyte carriage substantially: rate ratio 11·9 (95% CI 7·4–20·5). All regimens were well tolerated. Adverse events were reported by 599 patients, most commonly vomiting and dizziness. Other side-effects were less common and were not related to a specific treatment. Interpretation Artesunate–amodiaquine should not be used in Myanmar, because the other ACTs are substantially more effective. Artesunate–mefloquine provided the greatest post-treatment suppression of malaria. Adding a single dose of primaquine would substantially reduce transmission potential. Vivax malaria, not recurrent falciparum malaria, is the main complication after treatment of P falciparum infections in this region. Funding Médecins sans Frontières (Holland) and the Wellcome Trust Mahidol University Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Programme.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Rapid decline in the susceptibility of Plasmodium falciparum to dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine in the south of Vietnam

              Background Artemisinin resistant Plasmodium falciparum has emerged in the countries of the Greater Mekong sub-region posing a serious threat to global malaria elimination efforts. The relationship of artemisinin resistance to treatment failure has been unclear. Methods In annual studies conducted in three malaria endemic provinces in the south of Vietnam (Binh Phuoc, Ninh Thuan and Gia Lai) between 2011 and 2015, 489 patients with uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria were enrolled in detailed clinical, parasitological and molecular therapeutic response assessments with 42 days follow up. Patients received the national recommended first-line treatment dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for three days. Results Over the 5 years the proportion of patients with detectable parasitaemia on day 3 rose steadily from 38 to 57% (P < 0.001). In Binh Phuoc province, the parasite clearance half-life increased from 3.75 h in 2011 to 6.60 h in 2015 (P < 0.001), while treatment failures rose from 0% in 2012 and 2013, to 7% in 2014 and 26% in 2015 (P < 0.001). Recrudescence was associated with in vitro evidence of artemisinin and piperaquine resistance. In the treatment failures cases of 2015, all 14 parasite isolates carried the C580Y Pfkelch 13 gene, marker of artemisinin resistance and 93% (13/14) of them carried exoE415G mutations, markers of piperaquine resistance. Conclusions In the south of Vietnam recent emergence of piperaquine resistant P. falciparum strains has accelerated the reduced response to artemisinin and has led to treatment failure rates of up to 26% to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, Vietnam’s current first-line ACT. Alternative treatments are urgently needed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-017-1680-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                07 April 2018
                07 April 2018
                : 391
                : 10128
                : 1378-1390
                Affiliations
                [a ]Malaria Research and Training Center, Department of Epidemiology of Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Science, Techniques and Technologies of Bamako, Mali
                [b ]Centre de Formation et de Recherche en Santé Rurale de Mafèrinyah, Conakry, Guinea
                [c ]Institut de Recherche en Science de la Santé, Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso
                [d ]National Center for Research and Training on Malaria, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
                [e ]Medicines for Malaria Venture, Geneva, Switzerland
                [f ]London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                [g ]Malaria Research Unit, UMR 5246, University of Lyon, and Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France
                [h ]Institute for Tropical Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
                [i ]German Centre for Infection Research, Germany
                [j ]Artemida Pharma, Stevenage, UK
                [k ]Shin Poong Pharmaceutical Company, Seoul, South Korea
                [l ]Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Tumor and Cell Biology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
                [m ]Department of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell Biology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Abdoulaye A Djimde, Malaria Research and Training Center, Department of Epidemiology of Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Science, Techniques and Technologies of Bamako, MaliCorrespondence to: Dr Abdoulaye A Djimde, Malaria Research and Training CenterDepartment of Epidemiology of Parasitic DiseasesFaculty of PharmacyUniversity of ScienceTechniques and Technologies of BamakoMali adjimde@ 123456icermali.org
                [†]

                Members listed at end of this report

                Article
                S0140-6736(18)30291-5
                10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30291-5
                5889791
                29606364
                9fc59361-457c-4487-8c7b-85c1da45ddf8
                © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article