The rationale and plan for creating a World Antimalarial Resistance Network (WARN)

Drug resistant malaria was a major factor contributing to the failure of a worldwide campaign to eradicate malaria in the last century, and now threatens the large investment being made by the global community in the rollout of effective new drug combinations to replace failed drugs. Four related papers in this issue of Malaria Journal make the case for creating the World Antimalarial Resistance Network (WARN), which will consist of four linked open-access global databases containing clinical, in vitro, molecular and pharmacological data, and networks of reference laboratories that will support these databases and related surveillance activities. WARN will serve as a public resource to guide antimalarial drug treatment and prevention policies and to help confirm and characterize the new emergence of new resistance to antimalarial drugs and to contain its spread

A Randomised Trial to Compare the Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Three Drug Combinations for Intermittent Preventive Treatment in Children

BACKGROUND: Results from trials of intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) in infants and children have shown that IPT provides significant protection against clinical malaria. Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) given alone or in combination with other drugs has been used for most IPT programmes. However, SP resistance is increasing in many parts of Africa. Thus, we have investigated whether SP plus AQ, SP plus piperaquine (PQ) and dihydroartemisinin (DHA) plus PQ might be equally safe and effective when used for IPT in children in an area of seasonal transmission. METHODS: During the 2007 malaria transmission season, 1008 Gambian children were individually randomized to receive SP plus amodiaquine (AQ), SP plus piperaquine (PQ) or dihydroartemisinin (DHA) plus PQ at monthly intervals on three occasions during the peak malaria transmission season. To determine the risk of side effects following drug administration, participants in each treatment group were visited at home three days after the start of each round of drug administration and a side effects questionnaire completed. To help establish whether adverse events were drug related, the same questionnaire was administered to 286 age matched control children recruited from adjacent villages. Morbidity was monitored throughout the malaria transmission season and study children were seen at the end of the malaria transmission season. RESULTS: All three treatment regimens showed good safety profiles. No severe adverse event related to IPT was reported. The most frequent adverse events reported were coughing, diarrhoea, vomiting, abdominal pain and loss of appetite. Cough was present in 15.2%, 15.4% and 18.7% of study subjects who received SP plus AQ, DHA plus PQ or SP plus PQ respectively, compared to 19.2% in a control group. The incidence of malaria in the DHA plus PQ, SP plus AQ and SP plus PQ groups were 0.10 cases per child year (95% CI: 0.05, 0.22), 0.06 (95% CI: 0.022, 0.16) and 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.15) respectively. The incidence of malaria in the control group was 0.79 cases per child year (0.58, 1.08). CONCLUSION: All the three regimens of IPT in children were safe and highly efficacious TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00561899

Some considerations in the design and interpretation of antimalarial drug trials in uncomplicated falciparum malaria

BACKGROUND: Treatments for uncomplicated falciparum malaria should have high cure rates. The World Health Organization has recently set a target cure rate of 95% assessed at 28 days. The use of more effective drugs, with longer periods of patient follow-up, and parasite genotyping to distinguish recrudescence from reinfection raise issues related to the design and interpretation of antimalarial treatment trials in uncomplicated falciparum malaria which are discussed here. METHODS: The importance of adequate follow-up is presented and the advantages and disadvantages of non-inferiority trials are discussed. The different methods of interpreting trial results are described, and the difficulties created by loss to follow-up and missing or indeterminate genotyping results are reviewed. CONCLUSION: To characterize cure rates adequately assessment of antimalarial drug efficacy in uncomplicated malaria requires a minimum of 28 days and as much as 63 days follow-up after starting treatment. The longer the duration of follow-up in community-based assessments, the greater is the risk that this will be incomplete, and in endemic areas, the greater is the probability of reinfection. Recrudescence can be distinguished from reinfection using PCR genotyping but there are commonly missing or indeterminate results. There is no consensus on how these data should be analysed, and so a variety of approaches have been employed. It is argued that the correct approach to analysing antimalarial drug efficacy assessments is survival analysis, and patients with missing or indeterminate PCR results should either be censored from the analysis, or if there are sufficient data, results should be adjusted based on the identified ratio of new infections to recrudescences at the time of recurrent parasitaemia. Where the estimated cure rates with currently recommended treatments exceed 95%, individual comparisons with new regimens should generally be designed as non-inferiority trials with sample sizes sufficient to determine adequate precision of cure rate estimates (such that the lower 95% confidence interval bound exceeds 90%)

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

Multicentric assessment of the efficacy and tolerability of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine compared to artemether-lumefantrine in the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in sub-Saharan Africa

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The choice of appropriate artemisinin-based combination therapy depends on several factors (cost, efficacy, safety, reinfection rate and simplicity of administration). To assess whether the combination dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) could be an alternative to artemether-lumefantrine (AL), the efficacy and the tolerability of the two products for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in sub-Saharan Africa have been compared.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A multicentric open randomized controlled clinical trial of three-day treatment of DP against AL for the treatment of two parallel groups of patients aged two years and above and suffering from uncomplicated falciparum malaria was carried out in Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal. Within each group, patients were randomly assigned supervised treatment. DP was given once a day for three days and AL twice a day for three days. Follow-up visits were performed on day 1 to 4 and on day 7, 14, 21, 28 to evaluate clinical and parasitological results. The primary endpoint was the recovery rate by day 28.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 384 patients enrolled, 197 were assigned DP and 187 AL. The recovery rates adjusted by genotyping, 99.5% in the DP group and 98.9% in the AL group, were not statistically different (p = 0.538). No Early Therapeutic Failure (ETF) was observed. At day 28, two patients in the DP group and five in AL group had recurrent parasitaemia with <it>Plasmodium falciparum</it>. In the DP group, after PCR genotyping, one of the two recurrences was classified as a new infection and the other as recrudescence. In AL group, two recurrences were classified after correction by PCR as recrudescence. All cases of recrudescence were classified as Late Parasitological Failure (LPF). In each group, a rapid recovery from fever and parasitaemia was noticed. More than 90% of patients did no longer present fever or parasitaemia 48 hours after treatment. Both drugs were well tolerated. Indeed, no serious adverse events were reported during the follow-up period. Most of the adverse events which developed were moderate and did not result in the treatment being stopped in either treatment group.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine was as effective and well-tolerated as artemether-lumefantrine in the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria. In addition, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, a single daily dose, could be an advantage over artemether-lumefantrine in Africa because of better treatment observance.</p

Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine and Artemether-Lumefantrine for Treating Uncomplicated Malaria in African Children: A Randomised, Non-Inferiority Trial

BACKGROUND: Artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs) are currently the preferred option for treating uncomplicated malaria. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHA-PQP) is a promising fixed-dose ACT with limited information on its safety and efficacy in African children. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The non-inferiority of DHA-PQP versus artemether-lumefantrine (AL) in children 6-59 months old with uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria was tested in five African countries (Burkina Faso, Kenya, Mozambique, Uganda and Zambia). Patients were randomised (2:1) to receive either DHA-PQP or AL. Non-inferiority was assessed using a margin of -5% for the lower limit of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval on the treatment difference (DHA-PQP vs. AL) of the day 28 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) corrected cure rate. Efficacy analysis was performed in several populations, and two of them are presented here: intention-to-treat (ITT) and enlarged per-protocol (ePP). 1553 children were randomised, 1039 receiving DHA-PQP and 514 AL. The PCR-corrected day 28 cure rate was 90.4% (ITT) and 94.7% (ePP) in the DHA-PQP group, and 90.0% (ITT) and 95.3% (ePP) in the AL group. The lower limits of the one-sided 97.5% CI of the difference between the two treatments were -2.80% and -2.96%, in the ITT and ePP populations, respectively. In the ITT population, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the proportion of new infections up to Day 42 was 13.55% (95% CI: 11.35%-15.76%) for DHA-PQP vs 24.00% (95% CI: 20.11%-27.88%) for AL (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: DHA-PQP is as efficacious as AL in treating uncomplicated malaria in African children from different endemicity settings, and shows a comparable safety profile. The occurrence of new infections within the 42-day follow up was significantly lower in the DHA-PQP group, indicating a longer post-treatment prophylactic effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-trials.com ISRCTN16263443

The Impact of IPTi and IPTc Interventions on Malaria Clinical Burden – In Silico Perspectives

Background: Clinical management of malaria is a major health issue in sub-Saharan Africa. New strategies based on intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) can tackle disease burden by simultaneously reducing frequency of infections and life-threatening illness in infants (IPTi) and children (IPTc), while allowing for immunity to build up. However, concerns as to whether immunity develops efficiently in treated individuals, and whether there is a rebound effect after treatment is halted, have made it imperative to define the effects that IPTi and IPTc exert on the clinical malaria scenario. Methods and Findings: Here, we simulate several schemes of intervention under different transmission settings, while varying immunity build up assumptions. Our model predicts that infection risk and effectiveness of acquisition of clinical immunity under prophylactic effect are associated to intervention impact during treatment and follow-up periods. These effects vary across regions of different endemicity and are highly correlated with the interplay between the timing of interventions in age and the age dependent risk of acquiring an infection. However, even when significant rebound effects are predicted to occur, the overall intervention impact is positive. Conclusions: IPTi is predicted to have minimal impact on the acquisition of clinical immunity, since it does not interfere with the occurrence of mild infections, thus failing to reduce the underlying force of infection. On the contrary, IPTc has

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