EDCTP Alumni Network

Purpose of Review: Five years have passed since the World Health Organization released its Global Technical Strategy for Malaria (GTS). In that time, progress against malaria has plateaued. This review focuses on the implications of antimalarial drug resistance for the GTS and how interim progress in parasite genomics and antimalarial pharmacology offers a bulwark against it.
Recent Findings: For the first time, drug resistance–conferring genes have been identified and validated before their global expansion in malaria parasite populations. More efficient methods for their detection and elaboration have been developed, although low-density infections and polyclonality remain a nuisance to be solved. Clinical trials of alternative regimens for multidrug-resistant malaria have delivered promising results. New agents continue down the development pipeline, while a nascent infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa for conducting phase I trials and trials of transmission-blocking agents has come to fruition after years of preparation.
Summary: These and other developments can help inform the GTS as the world looks ahead to the next two decades of its implementation. To remain ahead of the threat that drug resistance poses, wider application of genomic-based surveillance and optimization of existing and forthcoming antimalarial drugs are essential.

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 artemisininbased 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 AK or MQAS may be used.

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.

Background: Intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is recommended by the World Health Organization for the prevention of malaria in pregnancy (MIP)-associated adverse outcomes in high-burden areas. However, the efficacy of IPTp-SP has decreased in step with increasing parasite drug resistance. Suitable alternative strategies are needed.

Methods: This is a protocol for a phase IIIb open-label, two-armed randomized controlled superiority trial to assess the safety and efficacy of a hybrid approach to IPTp combining screening and treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) to the current IPTp-SP regimen at the first antenatal care clinic visit. Pregnant women without HIV infection and without signs or symptoms of malaria will be randomized to either standard IPTp-SP or hybrid IPTp-SP plus screening and treatment (IPTp-SP+). In the IPTp-SP+ arm, participants who screen positive by rapid diagnostic test for P. falciparum will be treated with DP at the first antenatal visit while those who screen negative will receive SP per current guidelines. All participants will be administered SP on days 35 and 63 and will be actively followed biweekly up to day 63 and then monthly until delivery. Infants will be followed until 1 year after delivery. The primary endpoint is incident PCR-confirmed MIP at day 42. Secondary endpoints include incident MIP at other time points, placental malaria, congenital malaria, hemoglobin trends, birth outcomes, and incidence of adverse events in infants up to the first birthday.

Discussion: A hybrid approach to IPTp that combines screening and treatment with an artemisinin-based combination therapy at the first visit with standard IPTp-SP is hypothesized to confer added benefit over IPTp-SP alone in a high malaria transmission area with prevalent SP-resistant parasites.

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.

Malaria remains a public health crisis in areas where it has resisted control efforts. In Nchelenge District, a high-transmission area in northern Zambia, malaria accounts for more than one-third of pediatric hospitalizations and nearly one-half of hospital deaths in children. To identify risk factors for death due to malaria, we conducted a retrospective, time-matched case-control study of 126 children hospitalized with malaria who died (cases) and 126 children who survived (controls). There were no differences in age, gender, hemoglobin concentration, or prevalence of severe anemia between cases and controls. Children who died were more likely to come from villages located at greater distances from the hospital than children who survived (median 13.5 versus 3.2 km). Each additional kilometer of distance from the hospital increased the odds of death by4%(odds ratio 1.04,95%confidence interval 1.01–1.07,P < 0.01). Extent of anemia and admission during periods when blood was unavailable for transfusion were associated with early death (P £ 0.03). Delays in initiation of treatment of severe malaria contribute to the increased odds of death in children referred from more distant health centers, and might be mitigated by transportation improvements, capacity at rural health posts to administer treatment before transfer, hospital triage systems that minimize time to treatment, and reliable blood product stores at referral hospitals.

Background: Plasmodium falciparum resistance to anti-malarial drugs remains a major obstacle to malaria control and elimination. The parasite has developed resistance to every anti-malarial drug introduced for wide-scale treatment. However, the spread of resistance may be reversible. Malawi was the first country to discontinue chloroquine use due to widespread resistance. Within a decade of the removal of drug pressure, the molecular marker of chloroquine-resistant malaria had disappeared and the drug was shown to have excellent clinical efficacy. Many countries have observed decreases in the prevalence of chloroquine resistance with the discontinuation of chloroquine use. In Zambia, chloroquine was used as first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria until treatment failures led the Ministry of Health to replace it with artemether-lumefantrine in 2003. Specimens from a recent study were analysed to evaluate prevalence of chloroquine-resistant malaria in Nchelenge district a decade after chloroquine use was discontinued.
Methods: Parasite DNA was extracted from dried blood spots collected by finger-prick in pregnant women who were enrolling in a clinical trial. The specimens underwent pyrosequencing to determine the genotype of the P. falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter, the gene that is associated with CQ resistance.
Results: Three-hundred and two specimens were successfully analysed. No chloroquine-resistant genotypes were detected.
Conclusion: The study found the disappearance of chloroquine-resistant malaria after the removal of chloroquine drug pressure. Chloroquine may have a role for malaria prevention or treatment in Zambia and throughout the region in the future.