| Literature DB >> 28072872 |
Richard M Hoglund1,2,3, Lesley Workman1,4, Michael D Edstein5, Nguyen Xuan Thanh6, Nguyen Ngoc Quang7, Issaka Zongo8,9, Jean Bosco Ouedraogo8, Steffen Borrmann10,11, Leah Mwai10,12, Christian Nsanzabana1,3, Ric N Price1,3,13, Prabin Dahal1,3, Nancy C Sambol14, Sunil Parikh15, Francois Nosten3,16, Elizabeth A Ashley16, Aung Pyae Phyo16, Khin Maung Lwin16, Rose McGready3,16, Nicholas P J Day2,3, Philippe J Guerin1,3, Nicholas J White2,3, Karen I Barnes1,4, Joel Tarning1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are the mainstay of the current treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria, but ACT resistance is spreading across Southeast Asia. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine is one of the five ACTs currently recommended by the World Health Organization. Previous studies suggest that young children (<5 y) with malaria are under-dosed. This study utilised a population-based pharmacokinetic approach to optimise the antimalarial treatment regimen for piperaquine. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28072872 PMCID: PMC5224788 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002212
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Med ISSN: 1549-1277 Impact factor: 11.069
Fig 1Flowchart of the literature search.
Demographic data of study population for the pooled analysis.
| Population | Country | Number of Individuals | Weight (kg) | Age (Years) | Female (Percent) | Pregnant (Percent) | Malaria Infection | Dose Regimen | Number of Samples | Median (Range) Number of Samples per Individual | Venous or Capillary Measurement | Ethical Approval | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnant and non-pregnant women | Thailand | 48 | 36–78 | 18–45 | 100 | 50 | Pf | 3 doses over 3 d | 1,250 | 33 (23–34) | Venous | MUTM (2007–111), OxTREC (017–07) | [ |
| Pregnant and non-pregnant women | Sudan | 24 | 44–81 | 16–43 | 100 | 50 | Pf | 3 doses over 3 d | 589 | 26 (9–30) | Venous | National College for Medical and Technical Studies (Khartoum) | [ |
| Adults | Viet Nam | 18 | 31–55 | 16–49 | 33.3 | 0 | Pf | 2 doses over 2 d | 18 | 1 | Venous | Viet Nam People’s Army Department of Military Medicine, ADHREC (No. 507/08) | [ |
| Adults | Thailand | 30 | 39–73 | 18–55 | 13.3 | 0 | Pf | 3 doses over 3 d | 1,038 | 36 (27–37) | Venous | OxTREC, ECFTM | [ |
| Adults | Viet Nam | 12 | 48–75 | 19–51 | 0 | 0 | Pf | 3 doses over 3 d | 240 | 20 | Venous | Review and Scientific Board of Military Hospital 175, ADHREC (No. 379/05) | [ |
| Children and adults | Thailand | 98 | 12–74 | 3–55 | 39.8 | 0 | Pf | 3 or 4 doses over 3 d | 482 | 5 (3–10) | Venous | ECFTM, OxTREC | [ |
| Children | Burkina Faso | 236 | 8–34 | 2.0–10 | 44.7 | 0 | Pf | 3 doses over 3 d | 2,471 | 11 (4–12) | Capillary | CEIM, CHRUC | [ |
| Children | Kenya | 105 | 6.3–21 | 0.58–4.9 | 56.2 | 0 | Pf | 3 doses over 3 d | 105 | 1 | Venous | NKEMRIERC, OxTREC, ECHUSM | [ |
| Healthy adults | Viet Nam | 24 | 56–70 | 18–29 | 0 | 0 | Healthy | Single dose | 824 | 17 (16–18) | Venous | Review and Scientific Board of Central Military Hospital 108, ADHREC (No. 437/06) | [ |
| Healthy adults | Viet Nam | 26 | 54–70 | 19–24 | 0 | 0 | Healthy | Single dose and 3 doses over 3 d | 495 | 19.5 (18–20) | Venous | Review and Scientific Board of Central Military Hospital 108, ADHREC (No. 361/04) | [ |
| Children | Uganda | 107 | 5.1–12 | 0.56–1.8 | 40.2 | 0 | Pf | 3 doses over 3 d | 1,264 | 12 (4–25) | Capillary | UNCST, MUREC, UCSFCHR (#10–01881), CDCPGAIDSP (#5145.0) | [ |
| NA | NA | 728 | 5.1–81 | 0.56–55 | 43.3 | 4.9 | NA | NA | 8,776 | 17 (1–37) | NA | NA | NA |
Female (percent) represents the proportion of females in the study. Pregnant (percent) represents the proportion of pregnant women of the total population in the study. Malaria infection indicates whether the individuals were healthy or had an uncomplicated P. falciparum (Pf) malaria infection.
ADHREC, Australian Defence Human Research Ethics Committee (Australia); CDCPGAIDSP, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Global AIDS Program; CEIM, Comité d’Ethique Institutionnel du Centre Muraz (Burkina Faso); CHRUC, Committee on Human Research of the University of California (US); ECFTM, Faculty of Tropical Medicine Mahidol University Ethical Committee (Thailand); ECHUSM, Ethics Committee of the Heidelberg University School of Medicine (Germany); MUREC, Makerere University Research and Ethics Committee; MUTM, Faculty of Tropical Medicine Mahidol University Ethical Committee (Thailand); NA, not applicable; NKEMRIERC, National KEMRI Ethical Review Committee (Kenya); OxTREC, Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee (UK); UCSFCHR, University of California San Francisco Committee on Human Research; UNCST, Uganda National Council for Science and Technology.
Evaluated dose regimens for piperaquine simulations.
| Dose Regimen | Body Weight (kg) | Number of Tablets/Day | PQP/Day (mg/kg) | Total Dosage (mg/kg) by Body Weight Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 5–15 kg | >15 kg | |||||||
| Minimum | Maximum | Minimum | Maximum | Minimum | Maximum | ||||
| 38.4 | 80.1 | 39.9 | 73.8 | 38.4 | 80.1 | ||||
| 5–6 | 0.25 | 13.3–16.0 | |||||||
| 7–12 | 0.5 | 13.3–22.9 | |||||||
| 13–23 | 1 | 13.9–24.6 | |||||||
| 24–35 | 2 | 18.3–26.7 | |||||||
| 36–74 | 3 | 13.0–26.7 | |||||||
| 75–100 | 4 | 12.8–17.1 | |||||||
| 28.8 | 96 | 39.9 | 68.7 | 28.8 | 96 | ||||
| 5–6 | 0.25 | 13.3–16.0 | |||||||
| 7–9 | 0.5 | 17.8–22.9 | |||||||
| 10–14 | 0.5 | 15.2–21.3 | |||||||
| 15–19 | 1 | 16.8–21.3 | |||||||
| 20–39 | 2 | 16.4–32.0 | |||||||
| 40–100 | 3 | 9.60–24.6 | |||||||
| 48 | 96 | 64 | 96 | 48 | 84.7 | ||||
| 5–7 | 0.5 | 22.9–32.0 | |||||||
| 8–10 | 0.75 | 24.0–30.0 | |||||||
| 11–16 | 1 | 20.0–29.1 | |||||||
| 17–24 | 1.5 | 20.0–28.2 | |||||||
| 25–35 | 2 | 18.3–25.6 | |||||||
| 36–59 | 3 | 16.3–26.7 | |||||||
| 60–79 | 4 | 16.2–21.3 | |||||||
| 80–100 | 5 | 16.0–20.0 | |||||||
PQP/day is the total daily dosage of piperaquine phosphate (mg/kg). Minimum total dosage is the minimum total piperaquine dosage an individual receives with each dose regimen. Maximum total dosage is the maximum total piperaquine dosage an individual receives with each dose regimen.
*One tablet given on the first day and half a tablet on the second and third day.
Fig 2A graphical overview of the final piperaquine population pharmacokinetic model.
kTR is the absorption transit rate constant. CL is the elimination clearance. VC is the volume of distribution of the central compartment. VP1 and VP2 are the volumes of distribution of the first and second peripheral compartments, respectively. Q1 and Q2 are the inter-compartment clearances for the first and second peripheral compartments, respectively. F is the relative oral bioavailability.
Final parameter estimates describing piperaquine population pharmacokinetics.
| Parameter | Population Estimate | 95% CI | Coefficient of Variation for IIV/IOVa [%RSE | 95% CI | Shrinkage (Percent) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CL/ | 55.4 [4.22] | 51.2–60.6 | 27.9 [7.43] | 23.7–31.7 | 38.1 |
| 2,910 [6.98] | 2,540–3,340 | 67.0 [15.5] | 49.7–89.4 | 46.9 | |
| 310 [8.03] | 266–366 | — | — | — | |
| 4,910 [5.85] | 4,390–5,510 | 24.0 [44.2] | 1.35–40.4 | 71.4 | |
| 105 [4.98] | 95.1–115 | 23.6 [15.6] | 16.2–30.2 | 55.7 | |
| 30,900 [4.79] | 28,300–34,200 | 34.7 [7.21] | 29.6–39.4 | 46.2 | |
| MTT (h) | 2.11 [4.54] | 1.94–2.30 | 38.0 [15.8]/46.4 [9.36] | 26.7–50.3/38.6–55.1 | 59.1/71.3 |
| Number of transit compartments | 2 | — | — | — | — |
| 100 | — | 41.4 [8.65]/53.5 [6.69] | 34.0–48.2/46.1–60.2 | 31.1/59.7 | |
| RUV | 0.115 [3.43] | 0.108–0.123 | — | — | 14.6 |
| Covariate relationships | |||||
| Scale (percent) | 106 [7.24] | 91.7–122 | — | — | — |
| MF50 (years) | 0.575 [13.6] | 0.413–0.711 | — | — | — |
| HillMF | 5.51 [29.6] | 3.22–9.95 | — | — | — |
| Dose | 23.7 [17.8] | 15.8–32.5 | — | — | — |
| 248 (24.3–1,070) | |||||
| 3.49 (1.13–10.0) | |||||
| 22.5 (9.15–52.3) | |||||
| AUC∞ (h × ng/ml) | 28,800 (2,650–116,000) | ||||
| Day 7 concentration (ng/ml) | 28.1 (2.35–115) |
Population estimates are given for a “typical” adult patient weighting 54 kg with acute falciparum malaria. CL/F is the apparent elimination clearance. Vc/F is the apparent volume of distribution of the central compartment. Q1/F and Q2/F are the inter-compartment clearances between the central and the peripheral compartments. VP1/F and VP2/F are the apparent volumes of distribution of the peripheral compartments. MTT is the mean transit time of the absorption. Number of transit compartments is the number of transit compartments used in the absorption model. F is the relative bioavailability. RUV is the variance of the unexplained residual variability. Scale is the difference between venous and capillary predictions. MF50 is the maturation age (in years) to reach 50% of the full elimination clearance. HillMF is the Hill function in the maturation equation, with an upper limit of 10. Dose represents the increase in relative bioavailability between each dosing occasion. CMAX is the maximum concentration. TMAX is the time after dose to reach the maximum concentration. T1/2 is the terminal elimination half-life. AUC∞ is the area under the concentration–time curve from time 0 to infinity. Day 7 concentration is the venous plasma concentration at day 7 after dosing. Coefficients of variation for inter-individual variability (IIV) and inter-occasion variability (IOV) were calculated as 100 × (evariance − 1)1/2. Relative standard errors (%RSE) were calculated as 100 × (standard deviation/mean). The 95% confidence intervals are given as the 2.5 to 97.5 percentiles of bootstrap estimates. Secondary parameters were calculated after the last dose.
aBased on population mean values from NONMEM.
bBased on 658 successful stratified bootstrap runs (out of 1,000).
Fig 3Basic goodness-of-fit plots for the final piperaquine model.
Observed plasma piperaquine concentrations (from 11 clinical studies) plotted against population predicted concentrations (A) and against individual predicted concentrations (B). Conditional weighted residuals plotted against population prediction (C) and time (D). The solid line is the identity line, and the dashed line is the locally weighted least squares regression line.
Fig 4Prediction-corrected visual predictive check of the final population pharmacokinetic model of piperaquine.
Based on 2,000 stochastic simulations. The insert shows the first 25 h after dosing. Open circles represent the observations, and solid lines represent the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of the observed data. The shaded areas represent the 95% confidence intervals around the simulated 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles.
Fig 5Stochastic simulations of dose regimens.
Maximum plasma piperaquine concentration (A–C) and day 7 plasma piperaquine concentration (D–F) after Sigma-Tau’s recommended dosing (left panels), Beijing Holley-Cotec’s recommended dosing (middle panels), and the revised dose regimen (right panels). Circles represent the median values, and vertical lines represent the 25th to 75th percentiles of simulated concentrations. The dashed line indicates the previously defined venous plasma piperaquine day 7 concentration threshold value for therapeutic success of 30 ng/ml [35].