A Ratcliff1, H Siswantoro2, E Kenangalem3, R Maristela4, R M Wuwung5, F Laihad6, E P Ebsworth4, N M Anstey1, E Tjitra2, R N Price7. 1. International Health Programme, Menzies School of Health Research and Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. 2. National Institute of Health Research and Development, Ministry of Health, Jakarta, Indonesia. 3. MSHR-NIHRD Malaria Research Programme, Timika, Indonesia; District Ministry of Health, Timika, Papua, Indonesia. 4. Public Health and Malaria Control Department, PT Freeport, Indonesia, Tembagapura, Papua, Indonesia; International SOS, Tembagapura, Papua, Indonesia. 5. Public Health and Malaria Control Department, PT Freeport, Indonesia, Tembagapura, Papua, Indonesia. 6. Directorate General of Centre for Disease Control and Environmental Health, Ministry of Health, Jakarta, Indonesia. 7. International Health Programme, Menzies School of Health Research and Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia; Centre for Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: rnp@menzies.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The burden of Plasmodium vivax infections has been underappreciated, especially in southeast Asia where chloroquine resistant strains have emerged. Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine with that of artemether-lumefantrine in patients with uncomplicated malaria caused by multidrug-resistant P falciparum and P vivax. METHODS:774 patients in southern Papua, Indonesia, with slide-confirmed malaria were randomly assigned to receive either artemether-lumefantrine or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and followed up for at least 42 days. The primary endpoint was the overall cumulative risk of parasitological failure at day 42 with a modified intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, trial number 00157833. FINDINGS: Of the 754 evaluable patients enrolled, 466 had infections with P falciparum, 175 with P vivax, and 113 with a mixture of both species. The overall risk of failure at day 42 was 43% (95% CI 38-48) for artemether-lumefantrine and 19% (14-23) for dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (hazard ratio=3.0, 95% CI 2.2-4.1, p<0.0001). After correcting for reinfections, the risk of recrudescence of P falciparum was 4.4% (2.6-6.2) with no difference between regimens. Recurrence of vivax occurred in 38% (33-44) of patients given artemether-lumefantrine compared with 10% (6.9-14.0) given dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (p<0.0001). At the end of the study, patients receiving dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine were 2.0 times (1.2-3.6) less likely to be anaemic and 6.6 times (2.8-16) less likely to carry vivax gametocytes than were those given artemether-lumefantrine. INTERPRETATION: Both dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and artemether-lumefantrine were safe and effective for the treatment of multidrug-resistant uncomplicated malaria. However, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine provided greater post-treatment prophylaxis than did artemether-lumefantrine, reducing P falciparum reinfections and P vivax recurrences, the clinical public-health importance of which should not be ignored.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The burden of Plasmodium vivax infections has been underappreciated, especially in southeast Asia where chloroquine resistant strains have emerged. Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine with that of artemether-lumefantrine in patients with uncomplicated malaria caused by multidrug-resistant P falciparum and P vivax. METHODS: 774 patients in southern Papua, Indonesia, with slide-confirmed malaria were randomly assigned to receive either artemether-lumefantrine or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and followed up for at least 42 days. The primary endpoint was the overall cumulative risk of parasitological failure at day 42 with a modified intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, trial number 00157833. FINDINGS: Of the 754 evaluable patients enrolled, 466 had infections with P falciparum, 175 with P vivax, and 113 with a mixture of both species. The overall risk of failure at day 42 was 43% (95% CI 38-48) for artemether-lumefantrine and 19% (14-23) for dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (hazard ratio=3.0, 95% CI 2.2-4.1, p<0.0001). After correcting for reinfections, the risk of recrudescence of P falciparum was 4.4% (2.6-6.2) with no difference between regimens. Recurrence of vivax occurred in 38% (33-44) of patients given artemether-lumefantrine compared with 10% (6.9-14.0) given dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (p<0.0001). At the end of the study, patients receiving dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine were 2.0 times (1.2-3.6) less likely to be anaemic and 6.6 times (2.8-16) less likely to carry vivax gametocytes than were those given artemether-lumefantrine. INTERPRETATION: Both dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and artemether-lumefantrine were safe and effective for the treatment of multidrug-resistant uncomplicated malaria. However, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine provided greater post-treatment prophylaxis than did artemether-lumefantrine, reducing P falciparum reinfections and P vivax recurrences, the clinical public-health importance of which should not be ignored.
Authors: Joel Tarning; Niklas Lindegårdh; Anna Annerberg; Thida Singtoroj; Nicholas P J Day; Michael Ashton; Nicholas J White Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jason D Maguire; Hariyani Marwoto; Thomas L Richie; David J Fryauff; J Kevin Baird Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2006-03-13 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Patrice Piola; Carole Fogg; Francis Bajunirwe; Samuel Biraro; Francesco Grandesso; Eugene Ruzagira; Joseph Babigumira; Isaac Kigozi; James Kiguli; Juliet Kyomuhendo; Laurent Ferradini; Walter Taylor; Francesco Checchi; Jean-Paul Guthmann Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Apr 23-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A Brockman; R E Paul; T J Anderson; I Hackford; L Phaiphun; S Looareesuwan; F Nosten; K P Day Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: A Ratcliff; H Siswantoro; E Kenangalem; M Wuwung; A Brockman; M D Edstein; F Laihad; E P Ebsworth; N M Anstey; E Tjitra; R N Price Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 2006-10-09 Impact factor: 2.184
Authors: R N Price; J Marfurt; F Chalfein; E Kenangalem; K A Piera; E Tjitra; N M Anstey; B Russell Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: R Suwanarusk; M Chavchich; B Russell; A Jaidee; F Chalfein; M Barends; B Prasetyorini; E Kenangalem; K A Piera; U Lek-Uthai; N M Anstey; E Tjitra; F Nosten; Q Cheng; R N Price Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 5.226
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: Tsin W Yeo; Daniel A Lampah; Retno Gitawati; Emiliana Tjitra; Enny Kenangalem; Kim Piera; Ric N Price; Stephen B Duffull; David S Celermajer; Nicholas M Anstey Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-10-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Brioni R Moore; Kevin T Batty; Christopher Andrzejewski; Jeffrey D Jago; Madhu Page-Sharp; Kenneth F Ilett Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Gabriela Minigo; Tonia Woodberry; Kim A Piera; Ervi Salwati; Emiliana Tjitra; Enny Kenangalem; Ric N Price; Christian R Engwerda; Nicholas M Anstey; Magdalena Plebanski Journal: PLoS Pathog Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 6.823