| Literature DB >> 22554203 |
Emiliana Tjitra1, Armedy R Hasugian, Hadjar Siswantoro, Budi Prasetyorini, Riyanti Ekowatiningsih, Endah A Yusnita, Telly Purnamasari, Srilaning Driyah, Ervi Salwati, Eni Yuwarni, Lidwina Januar, Joseph Labora, Bambang Wijayanto, Fajar Amansyah, Tersila A D Dedang, Asep Purnama.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A practical and simple regimen for allEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22554203 PMCID: PMC3464686 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Characteristics of study subjects by the study drug on enrolment
| | ||||
| 27.6 ± 10.8 (15–69) | 26.2 ± 9.2 (15–67) | 0.18 | 26.9 ± 10.0 (15–69) | |
| 58.7 ± 8.5 (36–81) | 58.5 ± 8.5 (37–85) | 0.86 | 58.6 ± 8.5 (36–85) | |
| 37.9 ± 1.0 (36–40.3) | 37.9 ± 1.1 (35–40.2) | 0.84 | 37.9 ± 1.1 (35–40.3) | |
| 113 ± 13 (90–150) | 114 ± 13 (80–170) | 0.44 | 113 ± 13 (80–170) | |
| 72 ± 9 (50–92) | 73 ± 9 (40–120) | 0.39 | 72 ± 9 (40–120) | |
| 86 ± 13 (52–126) | 87 ± 13 (56–126) | 0.59 | 86 ± 13 (52–126) | |
| 20 ± 3 (16–36) | 20 ± 3 (16–32) | 0.51 | 20 ± 3.0 (16–36) | |
| 181:20 (90:10) | 170:30 (85:15) | 0.17 | 351:50 (87.5:12.5) | |
| 195 (97.0) | 199 (99.5) | 0.12 | 394 (98.3) | |
| 114 (56.7) | 109 (54.5) | 0.73 | 223 (55.6) | |
| 160 (79.6) | 159 (79.5) | 1.00 | 319 (79.6) | |
| 2.6 ± 2.3 (1–20) | 2.4 ± 1.6 (1–12) | 0.53 | 2.7 ± 3 (1–20) | |
| 55 (27.4) | 57 (28.5) | 0.89 | 112 (27.9) |
Figure 1Proportions of malaria symptom and sign on enrolment in artemisinin-naphthoquine (AN) versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP) groups were no significant difference (p > 0.05).
Haematology, blood chemistry and parasitology findings of study subjects on enrolment by the study drug
| | ||||
| 36.1 ± 7.1 (15.5–68.9) | 36.6 ± 6.6 (19.1–63.4) | 0.46 | 36.4 ± 6.8 (15.5–68.9) | |
| 12.5 ± 2.3 (6.2–23.1) | 12.6 ± 2.1 (6.6–21.1) | 0.67 | 12.6 ± 2.2 (6.2–23.1) | |
| 4.5 ± 0.8 (1.5–7.7) | 4.4 ± 0.8 (2.2–7.3) | 0.70 | 4.4 ± 0.8 (1.5–7.7) | |
| 116.4 ± 68.7 (1.8–381.0) | 116.5 ± 65.9 (1 .0–601.0) | 0.98 | 116 ± 67.2 (1.0–601.0) | |
| 6.4 ± 2.2 (2.0–14.0) | 7.1 ± 6.0 (2.2–65.0) | 0.11 | 6.8 ± 4.5 (2.0–65.0) | |
| 1.0 ± 0.6 (0.1–5.2) | 1.0 ± 0.5 (0.1–3.8) | 0.67 | 1.0 ± 0.5 (0.1–5.2) | |
| 4.1 ± 1.0 (2.0–7.4) | 4.2 ± 1.0 (2.2–6.2) | 0.25 | 4.2 ± 1.0 (2.1–7.4) | |
| 28.8 ± 13.0 (5–73) | 28.3 ± 14.2 (6.9–98.0) | 0.71 | 28.5 ± 13.9 (5.0–98.0) | |
| 29.4 ± 14.0 (2.0–87.0) | 28.5 ± 11.8 (2.6–91.0) | 0.49 | 28.9 ± 12.9 (2.0–91.0) | |
| 1.0 ± 0.4 (0.2–2.5) | 0.9 ± 0.3 (0.2–2.0) | 0.15 | 0.9 ± 0.4 (0.2–2.5) | |
| 27.5 ± 11.7 (2.7–80.0) | 27.6 ± 11.7 (8.6–110.0) | 0.94 | 27.6 ± 11.7 (2.7–110.0) | |
| 6310 (304–113550) | 6972 (372–140084) | 0.21 | 6634 (304–140084) | |
| 134 (67.3) | 140 (70.3) | 0.54 | 274 (68.8) | |
| 40 (1–2697) | 35 (2–2208) | 0.55 | 38 (1–2697) |
Figure 2Clinical trial profile of artemisinin-naphthoquine (AN) versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP) groups.
PCR uncorrected efficacy of AN vs DHP in all malaria, Indonesia
| | | | | |
| 179 [89.1 (84.7–93.4)] | 180 [90.0 (85.8–94.2)] | 0.76 | 359 [89.5 (86.1–92.3)] | |
| 179 [92.3 (88.5–96.0)] | 180 [94.7 (91.6–97.9)] | 0.33 | 359 [93.5 (90.5–95.7)] | |
| 179 [93.7 (90.3–97.2)] | 180 [96.3 (93.5–99.0)] | 0.26 | 359 [95.0 (92.3–96.9)] | |
| | | | | |
| 5 [2.5 (0.3–4.6)] | 1 [0.5 (0.5–1.5)] | 0.10 | 6 [1.5 (0.6–3.2)] | |
| 5 [2.6 (0.3–4.8)] | 1 [0.5 (0.5–1.6)] | 0.10 | 6 [1.6 (0.6–3.4)] | |
| 5 [2.6 (0.4–4.9)] | 1 [0.5 (0.5–1.6)] | 0.10 | 6 [1.6 (0.6–3.4)] | |
| | | | | |
| 7 [3.5 (0.9–6.0)] | 6 [3.0 (0.6–5.4)] | 0.78 | 13 [3.2 (1.7–5.5)] | |
| 7 [3.6 (1.0–6.2)] | 6 [3.2 (0.7–5.6)] | 0.81 | 13 [3.4 (1.8–5.7)] | |
| 7 [3.7 (1.0–6.3)] | 6 [3.2 (0.7–5.7)] | 0.81 | 13 [3.4 (1.8–5.8)] | |
| | | | | |
| 10 [5.0 (2.0–8.0)] | 13 [6.5 (3.1–9.9)] | 0.51 | 23 [5.7 (3.7–8.5)] | |
| 3 [1.5 (0.2–3.3)] | 3 [1.6 (0.2–3.4)] | 0.98 | 6 [1.6 (0.6–3.4)] | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
All protocol violations, withdrawn consents, and lost to follow up were classified as “other failures” in ITT analysis.
All protocol violations and withdrawn consents were classified as “other failures” in modified ITT analysis.
Figure 3Proportions of afebrile malaria subject treated with artemisinin-naphthoquine (AN) versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP) groups were similar by point of observation (p > 0.05).
Figure 4Proportions of aparasitaemic (asexual) malaria subject treated with artemisinin-naphthoquine (AN) versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP) groups were significantly difference by Day 0–16 hr (21.8% vs 55.6%, p < 0.0001), Day 1–0 hr (57.5% vs 71.3%, p = 0.01), and Day 1–8 hr (79.8% vs 88.5%, p = 0.03).
PCR corrected efficacy of AN vs Duocotecxin in all malaria, Indonesia
| | | | | |
| 181 [90.0 (85.9–94.2)] | 180 [90.0 (85.8–94.2)] | 0.99 | 361 [90.0 (86.7–92.8)] | |
| 181 [93.3 (89.8–96.8)] | 180 [94.7 (91.6–97.9)] | 0.55 | 361 [94.0 (91.1–96.2)] | |
| 181 [96.3 (93.6–99.0)] | 180 [97.3 (95.0–99.6)] | 0.58 | 361 [96.8 (94.4–98.3)] | |
| | | | | |
| 4 [2.0 (0.1–3.9)] | 1 [0.5 (0.5–1.5)] | 0.18 | 5 [1.2 (0.4–2.9)] | |
| 4 [2.1 (0.1–4.1)] | 1 [0.5 (0.5–1.6)] | 0.18 | 5 [1.3 (0.4–3.0)] | |
| 4 [2.1 (0.1–4.2)] | 1 [0.5 (0.5–1.6)] | 0.18 | 5 [1.3 (0.4–3.1)] | |
| | | | | |
| 3 [1.5 (0.2–3.2)] | 4 [2.0 (0.1–3.9)] | 0.70 | 7 [1.7 (0.7–3.6)] | |
| 3 [1.6 (0.2–3.3)] | 4 [2.1 (0.1–4.1)] | 0.68 | 7 [1.8 (0.7–3.7)] | |
| 3 [1.6 (0.2–3.4)] | 4 [2.2 (0.1–4.3)] | 0.69 | 7 [1.9 (0.8–3.8)] | |
| | | | | |
| 13 [6.5 (3.1–9.9)] | 15 [7.5 (3.8–11.1)] | 0.68 | 28 [7.0 (4.7–9.9)] | |
| 6 [3.1 (0.7–5.5)] | 5[2.6 (0.4–4.9)] | | 11 [2.9 (1.4–5.1)] | |
| 0 | 0 | 0.79 | 0 |
All protocol violations, withdrawn consents, and lost to follow up were classified as “other failures” in ITT analysis.
All protocol violations and withdrawn consents were classified as “other failures” in modified ITT analysis. PCR corrected was carried out only for P.falciparum recurrences.
Figure 5Cumulative risk of failure of artemisinin-naphthoquine (AN) versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP) in ITT population infected with any malaria. The TF by day 28 and 42 were 4.5% (9 of 201) and 10% (20 of 201) in AN group, and 7% (14 of 200) and 10% (20 of 200) in DHP group. The hazard ratio of failure between AN and DHP groups was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.53–1.82) with p = 0.95.
Figure 6Cumulative risk of failure of artemisinin-naphthoquine (AN) versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP) in modified ITT population infected with any malaria. The TF by day 28 and 42 were 2% (4 of 196) and 6.7% (13 of 194) in AN group, and 2.1% (4 of 190) and 5.3% (10 of 190) in DHP group. The hazard ratio of failure between AN and DHP groups was 1.28 (95% CI: 0.56 – 2.92) with p = 0.56.
Figure 7Cumulative risk of failure of artemisinin-naphthoquine (AN) versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP) in PP population infected with any malaria. The TF by day 28 and 42 were 1% (2 of 194) and 3.7% (7 of 188) in AN group, and 0.5% (1 of 187) and 2.7% (5 of 185) in DHP group. The Hazard ratio of failure between AN and DHP groups was 1.38 (95% CI: 0.44 – 4.35) with p = 0.58.