Different methodological approaches to the assessment of in vivo efficacy of three artemisinin-based combination antimalarial treatments for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in African children.

BACKGROUND: Use of different methods for assessing the efficacy of artemisinin-based combination antimalarial treatments (ACTs) will result in different estimates being reported, with implications for changes in treatment policy. METHODS: Data from different in vivo studies of ACT treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria were combined in a single database. Efficacy at day 28 corrected by PCR genotyping was estimated using four methods. In the first two methods, failure rates were calculated as proportions with either (1a) reinfections excluded from the analysis (standard WHO per-protocol analysis) or (1b) reinfections considered as treatment successes. In the second two methods, failure rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit formula using either (2a) WHO (2001) definitions of failure, or (2b) failure defined using parasitological criteria only. RESULTS: Data analysed represented 2926 patients from 17 studies in nine African countries. Three ACTs were studied: artesunate-amodiaquine (AS+AQ, N = 1702), artesunate-sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (AS+SP, N = 706) and artemether-lumefantrine (AL, N = 518).Using method (1a), the day 28 failure rates ranged from 0% to 39.3% for AS+AQ treatment, from 1.0% to 33.3% for AS+SP treatment and from 0% to 3.3% for AL treatment. The median [range] difference in point estimates between method 1a (reference) and the others were: (i) method 1b = 1.3% [0 to 24.8], (ii) method 2a = 1.1% [0 to 21.5], and (iii) method 2b = 0% [-38 to 19.3].The standard per-protocol method (1a) tended to overestimate the risk of failure when compared to alternative methods using the same endpoint definitions (methods 1b and 2a). It either overestimated or underestimated the risk when endpoints based on parasitological rather than clinical criteria were applied. The standard method was also associated with a 34% reduction in the number of patients evaluated compared to the number of patients enrolled. Only 2% of the sample size was lost when failures were classified on the first day of parasite recurrence and survival analytical methods were used. CONCLUSION: The primary purpose of an in vivo study should be to provide a precise estimate of the risk of antimalarial treatment failure due to drug resistance. Use of survival analysis is the most appropriate way to estimate failure rates with parasitological recurrence classified as treatment failure on the day it occurs

An Open Label, Randomised Trial of Artesunate+Amodiaquine, Artesunate+Chlorproguanil-Dapsone and Artemether-Lumefantrine for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Malaria

BACKGROUND: Artesunate+amodiaquine (AS+AQ) and artemether-lumefantrine (AL) are now the most frequently recommended first line treatments for uncomplicated malaria in Africa. Artesunate+chlorproguanil-dapsone (AS+CD) was a potential alternative for treatment of uncomplicated malaria. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of these three drug combinations was necessary to make evidence based drug treatment policies. METHODS: Five hundred and thirty-four, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) normal children were randomised in blocks of 15 to the AS+AQ, AL or AS+CD groups. Administration of study drugs was supervised by project staff and the children were followed up at r home on days 1,2,3,7,14 and 28 post treatment. Parasitological and clinical failures and adverse events were compared between the study groups. MAIN FINDINGS: In a per-protocol analysis, the parasitological and clinical failure rate at day 28 post treatment (PCF28) was lower in the AS+AQ group compared to the AL or AS+CD groups (corrected for re-infections: 6.6% vs 13.8% and 13.8% respectively, p = 0.08; uncorrected: 14.6% vs 27.6% and 28.1% respectively, p = 0.005). In the intention to treat analysis, the rate of early treatment failure was high in all three groups (AS+AQ 13.3%; AL 15.2%; and AS+CD 9.3%, p = 0.2) primarily due to vomiting. However, the PCF28 corrected for re-infection was lower, though not significantly, in the AS+AQ group compared to the AL or the AS+CD groups (AS+AQ 18.3%; AL 24.2%; AS+CD 20.8%, p = 0.4) The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: AS+AQ is an appropriate first line treatment for uncomplicated malaria in Ghana and possibly in the neighbouring countries in West Africa. The effectiveness of AL in routine programme conditions needs to be studied further in West Africa. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00119145

Artemether-Lumefantrine versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Treating Uncomplicated Malaria: A Randomized Trial to Guide Policy in Uganda

BACKGROUND: Uganda recently adopted artemether-lumefantrine (AL) as the recommended first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria. However, AL has several limitations, including a twice-daily dosing regimen, recommendation for administration with fatty food, and a high risk of reinfection soon after therapy in high transmission areas. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) is a new alternative artemisinin-based combination therapy that is dosed once daily and has a long post-treatment prophylactic effect. We compared the efficacy and safety of AL with DP in Kanungu, an area of moderate malaria transmission. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patients aged 6 months to 10 years with uncomplicated falciparum malaria were randomized to therapy and followed for 42 days. Genotyping was used to distinguish recrudescence from new infection. Of 414 patients enrolled, 408 completed follow-up. Compared to patients treated with artemether-lumefantrine, patients treated with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine had a significantly lower risk of recurrent parasitaemia (33.2% vs. 12.2%; risk difference = 20.9%, 95% CI 13.0-28.8%) but no statistically significant difference in the risk of treatment failure due to recrudescence (5.8% vs. 2.0%; risk difference = 3.8%, 95% CI -0.2-7.8%). Patients treated with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine also had a lower risk of developing gametocytaemia after therapy (4.2% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.01). Both drugs were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: DP is highly efficacious, and operationally preferable to AL because of a less intensive dosing schedule and requirements. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine should be considered for a role in the antimalarial treatment policy of Uganda. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN75606663

Evaluation and pharmacovigilance of projects promoting cultivation and local use of Artemisia annua for malaria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are promoting the use of <it>Artemisia annua </it>teas as a home-based treatment for malaria in situations where conventional treatments are not available. There has been controversy about the effectiveness and safety of this approach, but no pharmacovigilance studies or evaluations have been published to date.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>A questionnaire about the cultivation of <it>A. annua</it>, treatment of patients, and side-effects observed, was sent to partners of the NGO Anamed in Kenya and Uganda. Some of the respondents were then selected purposively for more in-depth semi-structured interviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighteen partners in Kenya and 21 in Uganda responded. 49% reported difficulties in growing the plant, mainly due to drought. Overall about 3,000 cases of presumed malaria had been treated with <it>A. annua </it>teas in the previous year, of which about 250 were in children and 54 were in women in the first trimester of pregnancy. The commonest problem observed in children was poor compliance due to the bitter taste, which was improved by the addition of sugar or honey. Two miscarriages were reported in pregnant patients. Only four respondents reported side-effects in other patients, the commonest of which was vomiting. 51% of respondents had started using <it>A. annua </it>tea to treat illnesses other than malaria.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Local cultivation and preparation of <it>A. annua </it>are feasible where growing conditions are appropriate. Few adverse events were reported even in children and pregnant women. Where ACT is in short supply, it would make sense to save it for young children, while using <it>A. annua </it>infusions to treat older patients who are at lower risk. An ongoing pharmacovigilance system is needed to facilitate reporting of any adverse events.</p

Improved Malaria Case Management through the Implementation of a Health Facility-Based Sentinel Site Surveillance System in Uganda

Heath facility-based sentinel site surveillance has been proposed as a means of monitoring trends in malaria morbidity but may also provide an opportunity to improve malaria case management. Here we described the impact of a sentinel site malaria surveillance system on promoting laboratory testing and rational antimalarial drug use.Sentinel site malaria surveillance was established at six health facilities in Uganda between September 2006 and January 2007. Data were collected from all patients presenting to the outpatient departments including demographics, laboratory results, diagnoses, and treatments prescribed. Between the start of surveillance and March 2010, a total 424,701 patients were seen of which 229,375 (54%) were suspected of having malaria. Comparing the first three months with the last three months of surveillance, the proportion of patients with suspected malaria who underwent diagnostic testing increased from 39% to 97% (p<0.001). The proportion of patients with an appropriate decision to prescribe antimalarial therapy (positive test result prescribed, negative test result not prescribed) increased from 64% to 95% (p<0.001). The proportion of patients appropriately prescribed antimalarial therapy who were prescribed the recommended first-line regimen artemether-lumefantrine increased from 48% to 69% (p<0.001).The establishment of a sentinel site malaria surveillance system in Uganda achieved almost universal utilization of diagnostic testing in patients with suspected malaria and appropriate decisions to prescribed antimalarial based on test results. Less success was achieved in promoting prescribing practice for the recommended first-line therapy. This system could provide a model for improving malaria case management in other health facilities in Africa

Monitoring antimalarial safety and tolerability in clinical trials: A case study from Uganda

BACKGROUND: New antimalarial regimens, including artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs), have been adopted widely as first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria. Although these drugs appear to be safe and well-tolerated, experience with their use in Africa is limited and continued assessment of safety is a priority. However, no standardized guidelines for evaluating drug safety and tolerability in malaria studies exist. A system for monitoring adverse events in antimalarial trials conducted in Uganda was developed. Here the reporting system is described, and difficulties faced in analysing and interpreting the safety results are illustrated, using data from the trials. CASE DESCRIPTION: Between 2002 and 2007, eleven randomized, controlled clinical trials were conducted to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different antimalarial regimens for treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Uganda. The approach to adverse event monitoring was similar in all studies. A total of 5,614 treatments were evaluated in 4,876 patients. Differences in baseline characteristics and patterns of adverse event reporting were noted between the sites, which limited the ability to pool and analyse data. Clinical failure following antimalarial treatment confounded associations between treatment and adverse events that were also common symptoms of malaria, particularly in areas of lower transmission intensity. DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION: Despite prospectively evaluating for adverse events, limitations in the monitoring system were identified. New standardized guidelines for monitoring safety and tolerability in antimalarial trials are needed, which should address how to detect events of greatest importance, including serious events, those with a causal relationship to the treatment, those which impact on adherence, and events not previously reported. CONCLUSION: Although the World Health Organization has supported the development of pharmacovigilance systems in African countries deploying ACTs, additional guidance on adverse events monitoring in antimalarial clinical trials is needed, similar to the standardized recommendations available for assessment of drug efficacy

Designing Adverse Event Forms for Real-World Reporting: Participatory Research in Uganda

The wide-scale roll-out of artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs) for the treatment of malaria should be accompanied by continued surveillance of their safety. Post-marketing pharmacovigilance (PV) relies on adverse event (AE) reporting by clinicians, but as a large proportion of treatments are provided by non-clinicians in low-resource settings, the effectiveness of such PV systems is limited. To facilitate reporting, AE forms should be easily completed; however, most are challenging for lower-level health workers and non-clinicians to complete. Through participatory research, we sought to develop user-friendly AE report forms to capture information on events associated with ACTs

Serological Markers Suggest Heterogeneity of Effectiveness of Malaria Control Interventions on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea

BACKGROUND: In order to control and eliminate malaria, areas of on-going transmission need to be identified and targeted for malaria control interventions. Immediately following intense interventions, malaria transmission can become more heterogeneous if interventions are more successful in some areas than others. Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea, has been subject to comprehensive malaria control interventions since 2004. This has resulted in substantial reductions in the parasite burden, although this drop has not been uniform across the island. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In 2008, filter paper blood samples were collected from 7387 people in a cross-sectional study incorporating 18 sentinel sites across Bioko, Equatorial Guinea. Antibodies were measured to P. falciparum Apical Membrane Antigen-1 (AMA-1) by Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). Age-specific seropositivity rates were used to estimate seroconversion rates (SCR). Analysis indicated there had been at least a 60% decline in SCR in four out of five regions on the island. Changes in SCR showed a high degree of congruence with changes in parasite rate (PR) and with regional reductions in all cause child mortality. The mean age adjusted concentration of anti-AMA-1 antibodies was mapped to identify areas where individual antibody responses were higher than expected. This approach confirmed the North West of the island as a major focus of continuing infection and an area where control interventions need to be concentrated or re-evaluated. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Both SCR and PR revealed heterogeneity in malaria transmission and demonstrated the variable effectiveness of malaria control measures. This work confirms the utility of serological analysis as an adjunct measure for monitoring transmission. Age-specific seroprevalence based evidence of changes in transmission over time will be of particular value when no baseline data are available. Importantly, SCR data provide additional evidence to link malaria control activities to contemporaneous reductions in all-cause child mortality

Experience of safety monitoring in the context of a prospective observational study of artemether-lumefantrine in rural Tanzania: lessons learned for pharmacovigilance reporting

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>To identify and implement strategies that help meet safety monitoring requirements in the context of an observational study for artemether-lumefantrine (AL) administered as first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria in rural Tanzania.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Pharmacovigilance procedures were developed through collaboration between the investigating bodies, the relevant regulatory authority and the manufacturer of AL. Training and refresher sessions on the pharmacovigilance system were provided for healthcare workers from local health facilities and field recorders of the Ifakara Health Demographic Surveillance System (IHDSS). Three distinct channels for identification of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) were identified and implemented. Passive reporting took place through IHDSS and health care facilities, starting in October 2007. The third channel was through solicited reporting that was included in the context of a survey on AL as part of the ALIVE (<b>A</b>rtemether-<b>L</b>umefantrine <b>I</b>n <b>V</b>ulnerable patients: <b>E</b>xploring health impact) study (conducted only in March-April 2008).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Training was provided for 40 healthcare providers (with refresher training 18 months later) and for six field recorders. During the period 1^stSeptember 2007 to 31^stMarch 2010, 67 AEs were reported including 52 under AL, five under sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine, one under metakelfin, two after antibiotics; the remaining seven were due to anti-pyretic or anti-parasite medications. Twenty patients experienced SAEs; in 16 cases, a relation to AL was suspected. Six of the 20 cases were reported within 24 hours of occurrence.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Safety monitoring and reporting is possible even in settings with weak health infrastructure. Reporting can be enhanced by regular and appropriate training of healthcare providers. SMS text alerts provide a practical solution to communication challenges.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Experience gained in this setting could help to improve spontaneous reporting of AEs and SAEs to health authorities or marketing authorization holders.</p

Efficacy of artesunate-amodiaquine for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria in sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-centre analysis

BACKGROUND: Artesunate and amodiaquine (AS&AQ) is at present the world's second most widely used artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT). It was necessary to evaluate the efficacy of ACT, recently adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and deployed over 80 countries, in order to make an evidence-based drug policy. METHODS: An individual patient data (IPD) analysis was conducted on efficacy outcomes in 26 clinical studies in sub-Saharan Africa using the WHO protocol with similar primary and secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 11,700 patients (75% under 5 years old), from 33 different sites in 16 countries were followed for 28 days. Loss to follow-up was 4.9% (575/11,700). AS&AQ was given to 5,897 patients. Of these, 82% (4,826/5,897) were included in randomized comparative trials with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) genotyping results and compared to 5,413 patients (half receiving an ACT). AS&AQ and other ACT comparators resulted in rapid clearance of fever and parasitaemia, superior to non-ACT. Using survival analysis on a modified intent-to-treat population, the Day 28 PCR-adjusted efficacy of AS&AQ was greater than 90% (the WHO cut-off) in 11/16 countries. In randomized comparative trials (n = 22), the crude efficacy of AS&AQ was 75.9% (95% CI 74.6-77.1) and the PCR-adjusted efficacy was 93.9% (95% CI 93.2-94.5). The risk (weighted by site) of failure PCR-adjusted of AS&AQ was significantly inferior to non-ACT, superior to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP, in one Ugandan site), and not different from AS+SP or AL (artemether-lumefantrine). The risk of gametocyte appearance and the carriage rate of AS&AQ was only greater in one Ugandan site compared to AL and DP, and lower compared to non-ACT (p = 0.001, for all comparisons). Anaemia recovery was not different than comparator groups, except in one site in Rwanda where the patients in the DP group had a slower recovery. CONCLUSION: AS&AQ compares well to other treatments and meets the WHO efficacy criteria for use against falciparum malaria in many, but not all, the sub-Saharan African countries where it was studied. Efficacy varies between and within countries. An IPD analysis can inform general and local treatment policies. Ongoing monitoring evaluation is required