The evolution of pyrimethamine resistant dhfr in Plasmodium falciparum of south-eastern Tanzania: comparing selection under SP alone vs SP+artesunate combination

BACKGROUND\ud \ud Sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) resistance is now widespread throughout east and southern Africa and artemisinin compounds in combination with synthetic drugs (ACT) are recommended as replacement treatments by the World Health Organization (WHO). As well as high cure rates, ACT has been shown to slow the development of resistance to the partner drug in areas of low to moderate transmission. This study looked for evidence of protection of the partner drug in a high transmission African context. The evaluation was part of large combination therapy pilot implementation programme in Tanzania, the Interdisciplinary Monitoring Programme for Antimalarial Combination Therapy (IMPACT-TZ) METHODS: The growth of resistant dhfr in a parasite population where SP Monotherapy was the first-line treatment was measured for four years (2002-2006), and compared with the development of resistant dhfr in a neighbouring population where SP + artesunate (SP+AS) was used as the first-line treatment during the same interval. The effect of the differing treatment regimes on the emergence of resistance was addressed in three ways. First, by looking at the rate of increase in frequency of pre-existing mutant dhfr alleles under monotherapy and combination therapy. Second, by examining whether de-novo mutant alleles emerged under either treatment. Finally, by measuring diversity at three dhfr flanking microsatellite loci upstream of the dhfr gene.\ud \ud RESULTS\ud \ud The reduction in SP selection pressure resulting from the adoption of ACT slowed the rate of increase in the frequency of the triple mutant resistant dhfr allele. Comparing between the two populations, the higher levels of genetic diversity in sequence flanking the dhfr triple mutant allele in the population where the ACT regimen had been used indicates the reduction in SP selection pressure arising from combination therapy.\ud \ud CONCLUSION\ud \ud The study demonstrated that, alleles containing two mutations at the dhfr have arisen at least four times independently while those containing triple mutant dhfr arose only once, and were found carrying a single unique Asian-type flanking sequence, which apparently drives the spread of pyrimethamine resistance associated dhfr alleles in east Africa. SP+AS is not recommended for use in areas where SP cure rates are less than 80% but this study reports an observed principle of combination protection from an area where pyrimethamine resistance was already high

Drug coverage in treatment of malaria and the consequences for resistance evolution - evidence from the use of sulphadoxine/pyrimethamine

BACKGROUND\ud \ud It is argued that, the efficacy of anti-malarials could be prolonged through policy-mediated reductions in drug pressure, but gathering evidence of the relationship between policy, treatment practice, drug pressure and the evolution of resistance in the field is challenging. Mathematical models indicate that drug coverage is the primary determinant of drug pressure and the driving force behind the evolution of drug resistance. These models show that where the basis of resistance is multigenic, the effects of selection can be moderated by high recombination rates, which disrupt the associations between co-selected resistance genes.\ud \ud METHODS\ud \ud To test these predictions, dhfr and dhps frequency changes were measured during 2000-2001 while SP was the second-line treatment and contrasted these with changes during 2001-2002 when SP was used for first-line therapy. Annual cross sectional community surveys carried out before, during and after the policy switch in 2001 were used to collect samples. Genetic analysis of SP resistance genes was carried out on 4,950 Plasmodium falciparum infections and the selection pressure under the two policies compared.\ud \ud RESULTS\ud \ud The influence of policy on the parasite reservoir was profound. The frequency of dhfr and dhps resistance alleles did not change significantly while SP was the recommended second-line treatment, but highly significant changes occurred during the subsequent year after the switch to first line SP. The frequency of the triple mutant dhfr (N51I,C59R,S108N) allele (conferring pyrimethamine resistance) increased by 37% - 63% and the frequency of the double A437G, K540E mutant dhps allele (conferring sulphadoxine resistance) increased 200%-300%. A strong association between these unlinked alleles also emerged, confirming that they are co-selected by SP.\ud \ud CONCLUSION\ud \ud The national policy change brought about a shift in treatment practice and the resulting increase in coverage had a substantial impact on drug pressure. The selection applied by first-line use is strong enough to overcome recombination pressure and create significant linkage disequilibrium between the unlinked genetic determinants of pyrimethamine and sulphadoxine resistance, showing that recombination is no barrier to the emergence of resistance to combination treatments when they are used as the first-line malaria therapy

A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for correlation between molecular markers of parasite resistance and treatment outcome in falciparum malaria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An assessment of the correlation between anti-malarial treatment outcome and molecular markers would improve the early detection and monitoring of drug resistance by <it>Plasmodium falciparum</it>. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the risk of treatment failure associated with specific polymorphisms in the parasite genome or gene copy number.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Clinical studies of non-severe malaria reporting on target genetic markers (SNPs for <it>pfmdr1</it>, <it>pfcrt</it>, <it>dhfr</it>, <it>dhps</it>, gene copy number for <it>pfmdr1</it>) providing complete information on inclusion criteria, outcome, follow up and genotyping, were included. Three investigators independently extracted data from articles. Results were stratified by gene, codon, drug and duration of follow-up. For each study and aggregate data the random effect odds ratio (OR) with 95%CIs was estimated and presented as Forest plots. An OR with a lower 95^thconfidence interval > 1 was considered consistent with a failure being associated to a given gene mutation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>92 studies were eligible among the selection from computerized search, with information on <it>pfcrt </it>(25/159 studies), <it>pfmdr1 </it>(29/236 studies), <it>dhfr </it>(18/373 studies), <it>dhps </it>(20/195 studies). The risk of therapeutic failure after chloroquine was increased by the presence of <it>pfcrt </it>K76T (Day 28, OR = 7.2 [95%CI: 4.5–11.5]), <it>pfmdr1 </it>N86Y was associated with both chloroquine (Day 28, OR = 1.8 [95%CI: 1.3–2.4]) and amodiaquine failures (OR = 5.4 [95%CI: 2.6–11.3, p < 0.001]). For sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine the <it>dhfr </it>single (S108N) (Day 28, OR = 3.5 [95%CI: 1.9–6.3]) and triple mutants (S108N, N51I, C59R) (Day 28, OR = 3.1 [95%CI: 2.0–4.9]) and <it>dhfr</it>-<it>dhps </it>quintuple mutants (Day 28, OR = 5.2 [95%CI: 3.2–8.8]) also increased the risk of treatment failure. Increased <it>pfmdr1 </it>copy number was correlated with treatment failure following mefloquine (OR = 8.6 [95%CI: 3.3–22.9]).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When applying the selection procedure for comparative analysis, few studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria compared to the large number of papers identified, but heterogeneity was limited. Genetic molecular markers were related to an increased risk of therapeutic failure. Guidelines are discussed and a checklist for further studies is proposed.</p

Effects of Point Mutations in Plasmodium falciparum Dihydrofolate Reductase and Dihydropterate Synthase Genes on Clinical Outcomes and In Vitro Susceptibility to Sulfadoxine and Pyrimethamine

Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine was a common first line drug therapy to treat uncomplicated falciparum malaria, but increasing therapeutic failures associated with the development of significant levels of resistance worldwide has prompted change to alternative treatment regimes in many national malaria control programs. METHODOLOGY AND FINDING: We conducted an in vivo therapeutic efficacy trial of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine at two locations in the Peruvian Amazon enrolling 99 patients of which, 86 patients completed the protocol specified 28 day follow up. Our objective was to correlate the presence of polymorphisms in P. falciparum dihydrofolate reductase and dihydropteroate synthase to in vitro parasite susceptibility to sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine and to in vivo treatment outcomes. Inhibitory concentration 50 values of isolates increased with numbers of mutations (single [108N], sextuplet [BR/51I/108N/164L and 437G/581G]) and septuplet (BR/51I/108N/164L and 437G/540E/581G) with geometric means of 76 nM (35-166 nM), 582 nM (49-6890- nM) and 4909 (3575-6741 nM) nM for sulfadoxine and 33 nM (22-51 nM), 81 nM (19-345 nM), and 215 nM (176-262 nM) for pyrimethamine. A single mutation present in the isolate obtained at the time of enrollment from either dihydrofolate reductase (164L) or dihydropteroate synthase (540E) predicted treatment failure as well as any other single gene alone or in combination. Patients with the dihydrofolate reductase 164L mutation were 3.6 times as likely to be treatment failures [failures 85.4% (164L) vs 23.7% (I164); relative risk = 3.61; 95% CI: 2.14 - 6.64] while patients with the dihydropteroate synthase 540E were 2.6 times as likely to fail treatment (96.7% (540E) vs 37.5% (K540); relative risk = 2.58; 95% CI: 1.88 - 3.73). Patients with both dihydrofolate reductase 164L and dihydropteroate synthase 540E mutations were 4.1 times as likely to be treatment failures [96.7% vs 23.7%; RR = 4.08; 95% CI: 2.45 - 7.46] compared to patients having both wild forms (I164 and K540).In this part of the Amazon basin, it may be possible to predict treatment failure with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine equally well by determination of either of the single mutations dihydrofolate reductase 164L or dihydropteroate synthase 540E.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00951106