Research Article (New England Journal of Medicine) Four artemisinin-based treatments in African pregnant women with malaria

Background: Information regarding the safety and efficacy of artemisinin  combination treatments for malaria in pregnant women is limited, particularly among women who live in sub-Saharan Africa.Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of treatments for malaria in pregnant women in four African countries. A total of 3428 pregnant women in the second or third trimester who had falciparum malaria (at any parasite density and regardless of symptoms) were treated with artemether–lumefantrine, amodiaquine–artesunate, mefloquine–artesunate, or dihydroartemisinin– piperaquine. The primary end points were the polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR)–adjusted cure rates (i.e., cure of the original infection; new infections during follow-up were not considered to be treatment failures) at day 63 and safety outcomes.Results: The PCR-adjusted cure rates in the per-protocol analysis were 94.8% in the artemether–lumefantrine group, 98.5% in the amodiaquine– artesunate group, 99.2% in the dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine group, and 96.8% in the mefloquine–artesunate group; the PCR-adjusted cure rates in the intention-to-treat analysis were 94.2%, 96.9%, 98.0%, and 95.5%, respectively. There was no significant difference among the amodiaquine–artesunate group, dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine group, and the mefloquine–artesunate group. The cure rate in the artemether–lumefantrine group was significantly lower than that in the other three groups, although the absolute difference was within the 5-percentage-point margin for equivalence. The unadjusted cure rates, used as a measure of the  post-treatment prophylactic effect, were significantly lower in the artemether–lumefantrine group (52.5%) than in groups that received amodiaquine–artesunate (82.3%), dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine (86.9%), or mefloquine–artesunate (73.8%). No significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events and in birth outcomes was found among the treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events such as asthenia, poor appetite, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting occurred significantly more frequently in the mefloquine–artesunate group (50.6%) and the amodiaquine–artesunate group (48.5%) than in the dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine group (20.6%) and the artemether–lumefantrine group (11.5%) (P<0.001 for comparison among the four groups).Conclusions: Artemether–lumefantrine was associated with the fewest adverse effects and with acceptable cure rates but provided the shortest posttreatment prophylaxis, whereas dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine had the best efficacy and an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00852423.

Four Artemisinin-Based Treatments in African Pregnant Women with Malaria.

BACKGROUND: Information regarding the safety and efficacy of artemisinin combination treatments for malaria in pregnant women is limited, particularly among women who live in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of treatments for malaria in pregnant women in four African countries. A total of 3428 pregnant women in the second or third trimester who had falciparum malaria (at any parasite density and regardless of symptoms) were treated with artemether-lumefantrine, amodiaquine-artesunate, mefloquine-artesunate, or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. The primary end points were the polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR)-adjusted cure rates (i.e., cure of the original infection; new infections during follow-up were not considered to be treatment failures) at day 63 and safety outcomes. RESULTS: The PCR-adjusted cure rates in the per-protocol analysis were 94.8% in the artemether-lumefantrine group, 98.5% in the amodiaquine-artesunate group, 99.2% in the dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine group, and 96.8% in the mefloquine-artesunate group; the PCR-adjusted cure rates in the intention-to-treat analysis were 94.2%, 96.9%, 98.0%, and 95.5%, respectively. There was no significant difference among the amodiaquine-artesunate group, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine group, and the mefloquine-artesunate group. The cure rate in the artemether-lumefantrine group was significantly lower than that in the other three groups, although the absolute difference was within the 5-percentage-point margin for equivalence. The unadjusted cure rates, used as a measure of the post-treatment prophylactic effect, were significantly lower in the artemether-lumefantrine group (52.5%) than in groups that received amodiaquine-artesunate (82.3%), dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (86.9%), or mefloquine-artesunate (73.8%). No significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events and in birth outcomes was found among the treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events such as asthenia, poor appetite, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting occurred significantly more frequently in the mefloquine-artesunate group (50.6%) and the amodiaquine-artesunate group (48.5%) than in the dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine group (20.6%) and the artemether-lumefantrine group (11.5%) (P<0.001 for comparison among the four groups). CONCLUSIONS: Artemether-lumefantrine was associated with the fewest adverse effects and with acceptable cure rates but provided the shortest post-treatment prophylaxis, whereas dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine had the best efficacy and an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00852423.)

Afri-Can Forum 2

CITATION: Mukudu, H., et al. 2016. Afri-Can Forum 2. BMC Infectious Diseases, 16:315, doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1466-6.The original publication is available at https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.comENGLISH ABSTRACT: We are pleased to present peer reviewed forum proceedings of the 2nd synchronicity forum of GHRI/CHVIfunded Canadian and African HIV prevention and vaccine teams Forum objectives ∙GHRI-funded capacity building and HIV prevention research teams presented highlights of achievements ∙Teams discussed how to jointly build on achievements for sustainability ∙Provided an opportunity for inter-team collaboration, synchronize best approach to capacity building, mentoring of new researchers and building leadership ∙Provided opportunities for informal discussions and networking among the teams. ∙Teams learnt about recent advances in the area of African regulatory and ethics review process ∙The forum proceedings was a special supplement in an openaccess journal was producedhttps://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-16-supplement-2Publisher's versio