Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine-based combinations for malaria: a randomised blinded trial to compare efficacy, safety and selection of resistance in Malawi.
ABSTRACT In Malawi, there has been a return of Plasmodium falciparum sensitivity to chloroquine (CQ) since sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) replaced CQ as first line treatment for uncomplicated malaria. When used for prophylaxis, Amodiaquine (AQ) was associated with agranulocytosis but is considered safe for treatment and is increasingly being used in Africa. Here we compare the efficacy, safety and selection of resistance using SP or CQ+SP or artesunate (ART)+SP or AQ+SP for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria.
455 children aged 1-5 years were recruited into a double-blinded randomised trial comparing SP to the three combination therapies. Using intention to treat analysis with missing outcomes treated as successes, and without adjustment to distinguish recrudescence from new infections, the day 28 adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) rate for SP was 25%, inferior to each of the three combination therapies (p<0.001). AQ+SP had an ACPR rate of 97%, higher than CQ+SP (81%) and ART+SP (70%), p<0.001. Nineteen children developed a neutropenia of </=0.5x10(3) cells/microl by day 14, more commonly after AQ+SP (p = 0.03). The mutation pfcrt 76T, associated with CQ resistance, was detected in none of the pre-treatment or post-treatment parasites. The prevalence of the pfmdr1 86Y mutation was higher after treatment with AQ+SP than after SP, p = 0.002.
The combination AQ+SP was highly efficacious, despite the low efficacy of SP alone; however, we found evidence that AQ may exert selective pressure for resistance associated mutations many weeks after treatment. This study confirms the return of CQ sensitivity in Malawi and importantly, shows no evidence of the re-emergence of pfcrt 76T after treatment with CQ or AQ. Given the safety record of AQ when used as a prophylaxis, our observations of marked falls in neutrophil counts in the AQ+SP group requires further scrutiny.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Christopher V Plowe, May 30, 2015
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In malaria endemic areas, pre-school children are at high risk of severe and repeated malaria illness. One possible public health strategy, known as Intermittent Preventive Treatment in children (IPTc), is to treat all children for malaria at regular intervals during the transmission season, regardless of whether they are infected or not. To evaluate the effects of IPTc to prevent malaria in preschool children living in endemic areas with seasonal malaria transmission. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (July 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2011), EMBASE (1974 to July 2011), LILACS (1982 to July 2011), mRCT (July 2011), and reference lists of identified trials. We also contacted researchers working in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. Individually randomized and cluster-randomized controlled trials of full therapeutic dose of antimalarial or antimalarial drug combinations given at regular intervals compared with placebo or no preventive treatment in children aged six years or less living in an area with seasonal malaria transmission. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. Data were meta-analysed and measures of effects (ie rate ratio, risk ratio and mean difference) are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methods. Seven trials (12,589 participants), including one cluster-randomized trial, met the inclusion criteria. All were conducted in West Africa, and six of seven trials were restricted to children aged less than 5 years.IPTc prevents approximately three quarters of all clinical malaria episodes (rate ratio 0.26; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.38; 9321 participants, six trials, high quality evidence), and a similar proportion of severe malaria episodes (rate ratio 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.76; 5964 participants, two trials, high quality evidence). These effects remain present even where insecticide treated net (ITN) usage is high (two trials, 5964 participants, high quality evidence).IPTc probably produces a small reduction in all-cause mortality consistent with the effect on severe malaria, but the trials were underpowered to reach statistical significance (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.39, moderate quality evidence).The effect on anaemia varied between studies, but the risk of moderately severe anaemia is probably lower with IPTc (risk ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; 8805 participants, five trials, moderate quality evidence).Serious drug-related adverse events, if they occur, are probably rare, with none reported in the six trials (9533 participants, six trials, moderate quality evidence). Amodiaquine plus sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine is the most studied drug combination for seasonal chemoprevention. Although effective, it causes increased vomiting in this age-group (risk ratio 2.78, 95% CI 2.31 to 3.35; two trials, 3544 participants, high quality evidence).When antimalarial IPTc was stopped, no rebound increase in malaria was observed in the three trials which continued follow-up for one season after IPTc. In areas with seasonal malaria transmission, giving antimalarial drugs to preschool children (age < 6 years) as IPTc during the malaria transmission season markedly reduces episodes of clinical malaria, including severe malaria. This benefit occurs even in areas where insecticide treated net usage is high.Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; 2(2):CD003756. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003756.pub4 · 5.94 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Antimalarial chemotherapy is one of the main pillars in the prevention and control of malaria. Following widespread resistance of Plasmodium falciparum to chloroquine, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine came to the scene as an alternative to the cheap and well-tolerated chloroquine. However, widespread resistance to sulfadoxine- pyrimethamine has been documented. In vivo efficacy tests are the gold standard for assessing drug resistance and treatment failure. However, they have many disadvantages, such as influence of host immunity and drug pharmacokinetics. In vitro tests of antimalarial drug efficacy also have many technical difficulties. Molecular markers of resistance have emerged as epidemiologic tools to investigate antimalarial drug resistance even before becoming clinically evident. Mutations in P. falciparum dihydrofolate reductase and dihydrofolate synthase have been extensively studied as molecular markers for resistance to pyrimethamine and sulfadoxine, respectively. This review highlights the resistance of P. falciparum at the molecular level presenting both supporting and opposing studies on the utility of molecular markers.Acta Tropica 11/2012; DOI:10.1016/j.actatropica.2012.10.013 · 2.52 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) has been one of the most widely used antimalarial treatments world-wide, and is also used prophylactically in vulnerable populations. In this paper, we develop a mathematical model which allows us to infer the time distribution of SP protection from drug-trial data. Fitting our model to data from a controlled field study in Mali, we find that SP provided protection from malaria for an average of 37.9 days in this pediatric population. We demonstrate that the duration of SP protection is not well described by an exponential distribution, and in fact has a much narrower dispersal about the mean; the best-fit standard deviation predicted by our model was only 17.0 days, as opposed to 41.8 days for the exponential model. We estimate the monthly entomological inoculation rate and the basic reproductive number for malaria in this population, and demonstrate that extremely high SP treatment rates would be necessary to maintain an effective reproductive number below one throughout a single rainy season. These results have implications for further efforts to model the impact of SP treatment, or for investigations of the optimal timing of prophylactic SP.Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 10/2012; 74(11):2733-51. DOI:10.1007/s11538-012-9775-4 · 1.29 Impact Factor