BACKGROUND: Artemisinin-based combination regimens are widely advocated for malarial treatment, but other effective regimens might be cheaper and more readily available. Our aim was to compare the risk of recurrent parasitaemia in patients given artemether-lumefantrine with that in those givenamodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for uncomplicated malaria. METHODS: We enrolled 521 patients aged 6 months or older with uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard doses of either artemether-lumefantrine (261) or amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (260) for 3 days. Primary endpoints were the risks of treatment failure within 28 days, either unadjusted or adjusted by genotyping to distinguish recrudescence from new infection. The study is registered at controlled-trials.gov with the identifier ISRCTN54261005. FINDINGS:Of enrolled patients, 478 (92%) completed the 28-day study. The risk of recurrent symptomatic malaria was lowest in the group given amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (1.7%vs 10.2%; risk difference 8.5%; 95% CI 4.3-12.6; p=0.0001); as was the risk of recurrent parasitaemia (4.7%vs 15.1%; 10.4%; 5.1-15.6; p=0.0002). Nearly all recurrences were due to new infections. Recrudescences were four late treatment failures with artemether-lumefantrine and one early treatment failure with amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. Both regimens were safe and well tolerated, with pruritus more common with amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine than with artemether-lumefantrine. Each regimen selected for new isolates with mutations that have been associated with decreased drug susceptibility. INTERPRETATION:Amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine was more effective than was artemether-lumefantrine for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria. For regions of Africa where amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine continues to be effective, this less expensive and more available regimen should be considered as an alternative to blanket recommendations for artemisinin-based combination treatment for malaria.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Artemisinin-based combination regimens are widely advocated for malarial treatment, but other effective regimens might be cheaper and more readily available. Our aim was to compare the risk of recurrent parasitaemia in patients given artemether-lumefantrine with that in those given amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for uncomplicated malaria. METHODS: We enrolled 521 patients aged 6 months or older with uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard doses of either artemether-lumefantrine (261) or amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (260) for 3 days. Primary endpoints were the risks of treatment failure within 28 days, either unadjusted or adjusted by genotyping to distinguish recrudescence from new infection. The study is registered at controlled-trials.gov with the identifier ISRCTN54261005. FINDINGS: Of enrolled patients, 478 (92%) completed the 28-day study. The risk of recurrent symptomatic malaria was lowest in the group given amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (1.7%vs 10.2%; risk difference 8.5%; 95% CI 4.3-12.6; p=0.0001); as was the risk of recurrent parasitaemia (4.7%vs 15.1%; 10.4%; 5.1-15.6; p=0.0002). Nearly all recurrences were due to new infections. Recrudescences were four late treatment failures with artemether-lumefantrine and one early treatment failure with amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. Both regimens were safe and well tolerated, with pruritus more common with amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine than with artemether-lumefantrine. Each regimen selected for new isolates with mutations that have been associated with decreased drug susceptibility. INTERPRETATION:Amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine was more effective than was artemether-lumefantrine for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria. For regions of Africa where amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine continues to be effective, this less expensive and more available regimen should be considered as an alternative to blanket recommendations for artemisinin-based combination treatment for malaria.
Authors: Samuel L Nsobya; Christian Dokomajilar; Moses Joloba; Grant Dorsey; Philip J Rosenthal Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Joel Tarning; Rose McGready; Niklas Lindegardh; Elizabeth A Ashley; Mupawjay Pimanpanarak; Benjamas Kamanikom; Anna Annerberg; Nicholas P J Day; Kasia Stepniewska; Pratap Singhasivanon; Nicholas J White; François Nosten Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2009-06-29 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Abel Kakuru; Prasanna Jagannathan; Emmanuel Arinaitwe; Humphrey Wanzira; Mary Muhindo; Victor Bigira; Emmanuel Osilo; Jaco Homsy; Moses R Kamya; Jordan W Tappero; Grant Dorsey Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: C T Happi; G O Gbotosho; O A Folarin; A Sowunmi; T Hudson; M O'Neil; W Milhous; D F Wirth; A M J Oduola Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Zul Premji; Rich E Umeh; Seth Owusu-Agyei; Fabian Esamai; Emmanuel U Ezedinachi; Stephen Oguche; Steffen Borrmann; Akintunde Sowunmi; Stephan Duparc; Paula L Kirby; Allan Pamba; Lynda Kellam; Robert Guiguemdé; Brian Greenwood; Stephen A Ward; Peter A Winstanley Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 3.240