Pharmacopeial quality of artemether–lumefantrine anti-malarial agents in Uganda

Abstract Background Substandard anti-malarial agents pose a significant challenge to effective malaria control and elimination efforts especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The quality of anti-malarials in most low-and-middle income countries (LMICs) is affected by several factors including inadequate regulation and limited resources. In this study, the pharmacopeial quality of artemether–lumefantrine (AL) in low and high malaria transmission settings in Uganda was assessed. Methods This was a cross-sectional study conducted among randomly selected private drug outlets. The AL anti-malarials available in drug outlets were purchased using overt method. The samples were screened for quality using visual inspection, weight uniformity, content assay and dissolution tests. The assay test was done using liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS). The samples were considered substandard if the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) content was outside 90–110% range of the label claim. Dissolution test was conducted following United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) method. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and presented as means with standard deviations, frequencies, and proportions. Correlation between medicine quality and independent variables was determined using Fisher’s exact test of independence at 95% level of significance. Results A total of 74 AL anti-malarial samples were purchased from high (49/74; 66.2%) and low (25/74; 33.8%) malaria transmission settings. The most common batch of AL was LONART, 32.4% (24/74), with 33.8% (25/74) being ‘Green leaf’. Overall prevalence of substandard quality artemether–lumefantrine was 18.9% (14/74; 95% CI: 11.4–29.7). Substandard quality AL was significantly associated with setting (p = 0.002). A total of 10 samples (13.5%) failed artemether content assay test while, 4 samples (5.4%, 4/74) failed the lumefantrine assay test. One sample from a high malaria transmission setting failed both artemether and lumefantrine assay content test. Of the samples that failed artemether assay test, 90% had low (< 90%) artemether content. All the samples passed visual inspection and dissolution tests. Conclusion Artemether–lumefantrine agents, the recommended first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria with APIs outside the recommended pharmacopeial content assay limit is common especially in high malaria transmission settings. There is need for continuous surveillance and monitoring of the quality of artemisinin-based anti-malarials across the country by the drug regulatory agency

Efficacy of antimalarial herbal medicines used by communities in malaria affected regions globally: a protocol for systematic review and evidence and gap map

Introduction With the rising resistance to artemisinin-based combination treatments, there is a need to hasten the discovery and development of newer antimalarial agents. Herbal medicines are key for the development of novel drugs. Currently, herbal medicine usage in communities for treatment of malaria symptoms is common as an alternative to conventional (modern) antimalarial agents. However, the efficacy and safety of most of the herbal medicines has not yet been established. Therefore, this systematic review and evidence gap map (EGM) is intended to collate and map the available evidence, identify the gaps and synthesise the efficacy of herbal antimalarial medicines used in malaria affected regions globally.Methods and analysis The systematic review and EGM will be done following PRISMA and Campbell Collaboration guidelines respectively. This protocol has been registered in PROSPERO. Data sources will include PubMed, MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and grey literature search. Data extraction will be done in duplicate using a data extraction tool tailored in Microsoft Office excel for herbal antimalarials discovery research questions following the PICOST framework. The Risk of Bias and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool (clinical trials), QUIN tool (in vitro studies), Newcastle-Ottawa tool (observational studies) and SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies (in vivo studies). Data analysis will be done using both structured narrative and quantitative synthesis. The primary review outcomes will be clinically important efficacy and adverse drug reactions. Laboratory parameters will include Inhibitory Concentration killing 50% of parasites, IC50; Ring Stage Assay, RSA0–3 hou; Trophozoite Survival Assay, TSA50.Ethics and dissemination The review protocol was approved by the School of Biomedical Science Research Ethics Committee, Makerere University College of Health Sciences (SBS-2022-213).PROSPERO registration number CRD42022367073