Safety and efficacy of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus artemether-lumefantrine in the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Zambian children

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Malaria in Zambia remains a public health and developmental challenge, affecting mostly children under five and pregnant women. In 2002, the first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria was changed to artemether-lumefantrine (AL) that has proved to be highly efficacious against multidrug resistant <it>Plasmodium falciparum</it>.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>The study objective was to determine whether dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHA/PQP) had similar efficacy, safety and tolerability as AL for the treatment of children with uncomplicated <it>P. falciparum </it>malaria in Ndola, Zambia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Between 2005 and 2006, 304 children (6-59 months old) with uncomplicated <it>P. falciparum </it>were enrolled, randomized to AL (101) or DHA/PQP (203) and followed up for 42 days. Outcome of treatment was defined according to the standard WHO classification, i.e. early treatment failure (ETF), late clinical failure (LCF, late parasitological failure (LPF) and adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR). Recurrent infections were genotyped to distinguish between recrudescence and new infection.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No ETF was observed. At day 28, PCR-uncorrected ACPR was 92% in the DHA/PQP and 74% in the AL arm (OR: 4.05; 95%CI: 1.89-8.74; p < 0.001). Most failure were new infections and PCR-corrected ACPR was similar in the two study arms (OR: 0.69; 95%CI: 0.22-2.26; p = 0.33). Similar results were observed for day 42, i.e. higher PCR-uncorrected ACPR for DHA/PQP, mainly due to the difference observed up to day 28, while the PCR-corrected ACPR was similar: DHA/PQP: 93% (179/192), AL: 93% (84/90), (OR: 0.92; 95%CI: 0.30-2.64; p = 0.85). Except for cough, more frequent in the DHA/PQP arm (p = 0.04), there were no differences between treatment arms in the occurrence of adverse events. Two serious adverse events were probably associated to AL treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>DHA/PQP was as efficacious, safe and well tolerated in treatment of uncomplicated malaria as AL, though in the latter group more new infections during the follow up were observed. DHA/PQP seems a potential candidate to be used as an alternative first-line or rescue treatment in Zambia.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN16263443">ISRCTN16263443</a>, at <url>http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn</url></p

Effect of presumptive co-trimoxazole prophylaxis on pneumococcal colonization rates, seroepidemiology and antibiotic resistance in Zambian infants: a longitudinal cohort study

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the microbiological consequences of WHO's recommendation for presumptive co-trimoxazole prophylaxis for infants with perinatal HIV exposure. METHODS: Using a longitudinal cohort design, we followed HIV-exposed and HIV-unexposed infants trimonthly for up to 18 months per infant. HIV-exposed infants received daily co-trimoxazole prophylaxis from 6 weeks to > 12 months of age. Using Streptococcus pneumoniae as our sentinel pathogen, we measured how co-trimoxazole altered nasopharyngeal colonization, pneumococcal resistance to antibiotics and serotype distribution as a function of co-trimoxazole exposure. FINDINGS: From 260 infants followed for 3096 patient-months, we detected pneumococci in 360/1394 (25.8%) samples. HIV-exposed infants were colonized more frequently than HIV-unexposed infants (risk ratio, RR: 1.4; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.0-1.9, P = 0.04). Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis reduced colonization by ca 7% but increased the risk of colonization with co-trimoxazole-resistant pneumococci within 6 weeks of starting prophylaxis (RR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.3-7.8, P = 0.04). Prophylaxis with co-trimoxazole led to a small but statistically significant increase of nasopharyngeal colonization with pneumococci not susceptible to clindamycin (RR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.0-2.6, P = 0.04) but did not increase the risk of non-susceptibility to penicillin (RR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.7-1.7), erythromycin (RR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.6-1.7), tetracycline (RR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.6-1.5) or chloramphenicol (RR: 0.8; 95% CI: 0.3-2.3). Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis did not cause the prevailing pneumococcal serotypes to differ from those that are targeted by the 7-valent conjugate pneumococcal vaccine (RR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.7-1.6). CONCLUSION: Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis modestly suppresses pneumococcal colonization but accelerates infant acquisition of co-trimoxazole- and clindamycin-resistant pneumococci. Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis appears unlikely to compromise the future efficacy of conjugate vaccines