Artemisinin-based combination therapy in pregnant women in Zambia: efficacy, safety and risk of recurrent malaria.

BACKGROUND: In Zambia, malaria is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, especially among under five children and pregnant women. For the latter, the World Health Organization recommends the use of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) in the second and third trimester of pregnancy. In a context of limited information on ACT, the safety and efficacy of three combinations, namely artemether-lumefantrine (AL), mefloquine-artesunate (MQAS) and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHAPQ) were assessed in pregnant women with malaria. METHODS: The trial was carried out between July 2010 and August 2013 in Nchelenge district, Luapula Province, an area of high transmission, as part of a multi-centre trial. Women in the second or third trimester of pregnancy and with malaria were recruited and randomized to one of the three study arms. Women were actively followed up for 63 days, and then at delivery and 1 year post-delivery. RESULTS: Nine hundred pregnant women were included, 300 per arm. PCR-adjusted treatment failure was 4.7% (12/258) (95% CI 2.7-8.0) for AL, 1.3% (3/235) (95% CI 0.4-3.7) for MQAS and 0.8% (2/236) (95% CI 0.2-3.0) for DHAPQ, with significant risk difference between AL and DHAPQ (p = 0.01) and between AL and MQAS (p = 0.03) treatments. Re-infections during follow up were more frequent in the AL (HR: 4.71; 95% CI 3.10-7.2; p < 0.01) and MQAS (HR: 1.59; 95% CI 1.02-2.46; p = 0.04) arms compared to the DHAPQ arm. PCR-adjusted treatment failure was significantly associated with women under 20 years [Hazard Ratio (HR) 5.35 (95% CI 1.07-26.73; p = 0.04)] and higher malaria parasite density [3.23 (95% CI 1.03-10.10; p = 0.04)], and still women under 20 years [1.78, (95% CI 1.26-2.52; p < 0.01)] had a significantly higher risk of re-infection. The three treatments were generally well tolerated. Dizziness, nausea, vomiting, headache and asthenia as adverse events (AEs) were more common in MQAS than in AL or DHAPQ (p < 0.001). Birth outcomes were not significantly different between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: As new infections can be prevented by a long acting partner drug to the artemisinins, DHAPQ should be preferred in places as Nchelenge district where transmission is intense while in areas of low transmission intensity AL or MQAS may be used

Inadequate Lopinavir Concentrations With Modified 8-hourly Lopinavir/Ritonavir 4:1 Dosing During Rifampicin-based Tuberculosis Treatment in Children Living With HIV

Background: Lopinavir/ritonavir plasma concentrations are profoundly reduced when co-administered with rifampicin. Super-boosting of lopinavir/ritonavir is limited by nonavailability of single-entity ritonavir, while double-dosing of co-formulated lopinavir/ritonavir given twice-daily produces suboptimal lopinavir concentrations in young children. We evaluated whether increased daily dosing with modified 8-hourly lopinavir/ritonavir 4:1 would maintain therapeutic plasma concentrations of lopinavir in children living with HIV receiving rifampicin-based antituberculosis treatment. // Methods: Children with HIV/tuberculosis coinfection weighing 3.0 to 19.9kg, on rifampicin-based antituberculosis treatment were commenced or switched to 8-hourly liquid lopinavir/ritonavir 4:1 with increased daily dosing using weight-band dosing approach. A standard twice-daily dosing of lopinavir/ritonavir was resumed 2 weeks after completing antituberculosis treatment. Plasma sampling was conducted during and 4 weeks after completing antituberculosis treatment. // Results: Of 20 children enrolled; 15, 1–7 years old, had pharmacokinetics sampling available for analysis. Lopinavir concentrations (median [range]) on 8-hourly lopinavir/ritonavir co-administered with rifampicin (n = 15; area under the curve0–24 55.32mg/h/L [0.30–398.7mg/h/L]; Cmax 3.04mg/L [0.03–18.6mg/L]; C8hr 0.90mg/L [0.01–13.7mg/L]) were lower than on standard dosing without rifampicin (n = 12; area under the curve24 121.63mg/h/L [2.56–487.3mg/h/L]; Cmax 9.45mg/L [0.39–26.4mg/L]; C12hr 3.03mg/L [0.01–17.7mg/L]). During and after rifampicin cotreatment, only 7 of 15 (44.7%) and 8 of 12 (66.7%) children, respectively, achieved targeted pre-dose lopinavir concentrations ≥1mg/L. // Conclusions: Modified 8-hourly dosing of lopinavir/ritonavir failed to achieve adequate lopinavir concentrations with concurrent antituberculosis treatment. The subtherapeutic lopinavir exposures on standard dosing after antituberculosis treatment are of concern and requires further evaluation

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&lt;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.

Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pyronaridine-artesunate in Asymptomatic Malaria-infected Individuals: a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Pyronaridine-artesunate (PA) is a registered artemisinin-based combination therapy, potentially useful for mass drug administration campaigns. However, further data are needed to evaluate its efficacy, safety and tolerability as full or incomplete treatment in asymptomatic Plasmodium falciparum-infected individuals. METHODS: This phase II, multi-center, open label, randomized clinical trial was conducted in The Gambia and Zambia. Participants with microscopically confirmed asymptomatic P. falciparum infection were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a 3-day, 2-day, or 1-day treatment regimen of PA (180:60 mg), dosed according to bodyweight. The primary efficacy outcome was polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-adjusted adequate parasitological response (APR) at day 28 in the per-protocol population. RESULTS: A total of 303 participants were randomized. Day 28 PCR-adjusted APR was 100% for both the 3-day (98/98) and 2-day regimens (96/96), and 96.8% (89/94) for the 1-day regimen. Efficacy was maintained at 100% until day 63 for the 3-day and 2-day regimens but declined to 94.4% (84/89) with the 1-day regimen. Adverse event frequency was similar between the 3-day (51.5% [52/101]), 2-day (52.5% [52/99]), and 1-day (54.4% [56/103]) regimens; the majority of adverse events were of grade 1 or 2 severity (85% [136/160]). Asymptomatic, transient increases (>3 times the upper limit of normal) in alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase were observed for 6/301 (2.0%) participants. CONCLUSIONS: PA had high efficacy and good tolerability in asymptomatic P. falciparum-infected individuals, with similar efficacy for the full 3-day and incomplete 2-day regimens. Although good adherence to the 3-day regimen should be encouraged, these results support the further investigation of PA for mass drug administration campaigns. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03814616

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.)

A year of genomic surveillance reveals how the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic unfolded in Africa.

The progression of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in Africa has so far been heterogeneous, and the full impact is not yet well understood. In this study, we describe the genomic epidemiology using a dataset of 8746 genomes from 33 African countries and two overseas territories. We show that the epidemics in most countries were initiated by importations predominantly from Europe, which diminished after the early introduction of international travel restrictions. As the pandemic progressed, ongoing transmission in many countries and increasing mobility led to the emergence and spread within the continent of many variants of concern and interest, such as B.1.351, B.1.525, A.23.1, and C.1.1. Although distorted by low sampling numbers and blind spots, the findings highlight that Africa must not be left behind in the global pandemic response, otherwise it could become a source for new variants

The evolving SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Africa: Insights from rapidly expanding genomic surveillance.

Investment in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing in Africa over the past year has led to a major increase in the number of sequences that have been generated and used to track the pandemic on the continent, a number that now exceeds 100,000 genomes. Our results show an increase in the number of African countries that are able to sequence domestically and highlight that local sequencing enables faster turnaround times and more-regular routine surveillance. Despite limitations of low testing proportions, findings from this genomic surveillance study underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic and illuminate the distinct dispersal dynamics of variants of concern-particularly Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron-on the continent. Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve while the continent faces many emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century

The evolving SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Africa: Insights from rapidly expanding genomic surveillance

INTRODUCTION Investment in Africa over the past year with regard to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing has led to a massive increase in the number of sequences, which, to date, exceeds 100,000 sequences generated to track the pandemic on the continent. These sequences have profoundly affected how public health officials in Africa have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE We demonstrate how the first 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences from Africa have helped monitor the epidemic on the continent, how genomic surveillance expanded over the course of the pandemic, and how we adapted our sequencing methods to deal with an evolving virus. Finally, we also examine how viral lineages have spread across the continent in a phylogeographic framework to gain insights into the underlying temporal and spatial transmission dynamics for several variants of concern (VOCs). RESULTS Our results indicate that the number of countries in Africa that can sequence the virus within their own borders is growing and that this is coupled with a shorter turnaround time from the time of sampling to sequence submission. Ongoing evolution necessitated the continual updating of primer sets, and, as a result, eight primer sets were designed in tandem with viral evolution and used to ensure effective sequencing of the virus. The pandemic unfolded through multiple waves of infection that were each driven by distinct genetic lineages, with B.1-like ancestral strains associated with the first pandemic wave of infections in 2020. Successive waves on the continent were fueled by different VOCs, with Alpha and Beta cocirculating in distinct spatial patterns during the second wave and Delta and Omicron affecting the whole continent during the third and fourth waves, respectively. Phylogeographic reconstruction points toward distinct differences in viral importation and exportation patterns associated with the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants and subvariants, when considering both Africa versus the rest of the world and viral dissemination within the continent. Our epidemiological and phylogenetic inferences therefore underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic on the continent and highlight key insights and challenges, for instance, recognizing the limitations of low testing proportions. We also highlight the early warning capacity that genomic surveillance in Africa has had for the rest of the world with the detection of new lineages and variants, the most recent being the characterization of various Omicron subvariants. CONCLUSION Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve. This is important not only to help combat SARS-CoV-2 on the continent but also because it can be used as a platform to help address the many emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats in Africa. In particular, capacity building for local sequencing within countries or within the continent should be prioritized because this is generally associated with shorter turnaround times, providing the most benefit to local public health authorities tasked with pandemic response and mitigation and allowing for the fastest reaction to localized outbreaks. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century