| Literature DB >> 35544095 |
Will Stone1, Almahamoudou Mahamar2, Merel J Smit3, Koualy Sanogo2, Youssouf Sinaba2, Sidi M Niambele2, Adama Sacko2, Sekouba Keita2, Oumar M Dicko2, Makonon Diallo2, Seydina O Maguiraga2, Siaka Samake2, Oumar Attaher2, Kjerstin Lanke3, Rob Ter Heine4, John Bradley5, Matthew B B McCall3, Djibrilla Issiaka2, Sekou F Traore2, Teun Bousema3, Chris Drakeley6, Alassane Dicko2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tafenoquine was recently approved as a prophylaxis and radical cure for Plasmodium vivax infection, but its Plasmodium falciparum transmission-blocking efficacy is unclear. We aimed to establish the efficacy and safety of three single low doses of tafenoquine in combination with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for reducing gametocyte density and transmission to mosquitoes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35544095 PMCID: PMC9042793 DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00356-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lancet Microbe ISSN: 2666-5247
Figure 1Trial profile
G6PD=glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase.
Baseline characteristics
| Age, years | 17 (14–19) | 13 (12–17) | 15 (12–32) | 15 (13–21) |
| Female | 8 (40%) | 8 (40%) | 6 (30%) | 6 (30%) |
| Male | 12 (60%) | 12 (60%) | 14 (70%) | 14 (70%) |
| Haemoglobin, g/dL | 12·6 (10·9–15·7) | 12·3 (10·2–15·8) | 12·4 (11·1–14·8) | 12·9 (10·8–15·0) |
| Gametocyte prevalence | 20 (100%) | 20 (100%) | 20 (100%) | 20 (100%) |
| Gametocyte density, parasites per μL | 41·5 (12·5–95·9) | 29·5 (12·3–67·8) | 43·7 (18·5–245·0) | 50·1 (17·8–201·8) |
| Asexual parasite prevalence | 12 (60%) | 11 (55%) | 8 (40%) | 15 (75%) |
| Asexual parasite density, parasites per μL | 120 (0–560) | 60 (0–300) | 0 (0–80) | 500 (60–1840) |
Data are median (IQR), n (%), or median (IQR). Gametocyte prevalence and density were calculated from reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR targeting CCP4/PfMGET mRNA (gametocytes). Asexual parasite prevalence and density were assessed by thick film microscopy.
Infectivity to mosquitoes before and after treatment
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine | 12/20 (60%) | 12·50% (2·44 to 35·24) | .. | .. | .. |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·42 mg/kg | 13/20 (65%) | 12·96% (6·67 to 28·79) | .. | .. | .. |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·83 mg/kg | 14/20 (70%) | 13·39% (3·03 to 56·52) | .. | .. | .. |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 1·66 mg/kg | 14/20 (70%) | 11·35% (6·82 to 29·17) | .. | .. | .. |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine | 9/20 (45%) | 8·63% (0 to 31·92) | 70·68% (−19·34 to 100) | 0·33 | Reference |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·42 mg/kg | 11/19 (58%) | 9·39% (4·09 to 19·71) | 36·17% (11·33 to 54·25) | 0·063 | 0·50 |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·83 mg/kg | 15/20 (75%) | 19·77% (7·35 to 43·08) | 15·35% (−100 to 48·96) | 1·00 | 0·094 |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 1·66 mg/kg | 13/20 (65%) | 7·59% (2·38 to 26·79) | 51·23% (−36·67 to 68·63) | 0·12 | 0·58 |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine | 10/20 (50%) | 2·36% (0 to 10·39) | 79·95% (57·15 to 100) | 0·0005 | Reference |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·42 mg/kg | 3/19 (16%) | 0% (0 to 1·52) | 100% (98·36 to 100) | 0·0005 | 0·020 |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·83 mg/kg | 2/20 (10%) | 0% (0 to 0) | 100% (100 to 100) | 0·0001 | 0·011 |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 1·66 mg/kg | 0/19 | 0% (0 to 0) | 100% (100 to 100) | 0·0001 | 0·0006 |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine | 3/19 (16%) | 0% (0 to 1·06) | 0% (0 to 1·06) | 0·0005 | Reference |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·42 mg/kg | 0/19 | 0% (0 to 0) | 0% (0 to 0) | 0·0005 | 0·22 |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·83 mg/kg | 0/19 | 0% (0 to 0) | 0% (0 to 0) | 0·0001 | 0·17 |
| Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine plus tafenoquine 1·66 mg/kg | 0/17 | 0% (0 to 0) | 0% (0 to 0) | 0·0005 | 0·22 |
Individuals were classed as infectious if direct membrane feeding assays resulted in at least one mosquito with any number of oocysts. Mosquito infection measures (percentage infection and oocyst density) are shown for all participants who were infectious at baseline, and oocyst densities are from all infected mosquitoes.
Median proportion of mosquitoes infected by each participant, where for each participant the mosquito infection rate was the number of mosquitoes infected as a proportion of all mosquitoes surviving to dissection.
Median reduction (relative to baseline) in mosquito infection rate at the given timepoints. All values are for individuals who were infectious to mosquitoes before treatment (ie, infected any number of mosquitoes).
Within-group comparison in median reduction in mosquito infection rate (primary outcome).
Between-group comparison in median reduction in mosquito infection rate. Full details of mosquito feeding assay outcomes are in appendix 5 (pp 6–7).
Figure 2Participant infectivity, proportion of mosquitoes infected, and oocyst density in direct membrane feeding assays
(A) Participant infectivity. Error bars are 95% CIs. p values from generalised linear models (family: binary) testing differences within treatment groups with baseline as reference are shown. The denominator for the proportion of infectious participants is the total number of participants still enrolled at a given timepoint, rather than the number tested at that time point for infectivity; infectivity assays were discontinued when a participant did not infect mosquitoes at two subsequent timepoints and were thereafter considered non-infectious. Full mosquito infection data including the proportion of infectious participants with denominator as total participants tested is shown in appendix 5 (p 6). (B) Mosquito infection rate. Each line represents one participant. Statistical analyses are shown in appendix 5 (p 6). (C) Oocyst density. Box plots show the median (central line), IQR (box limits), upper and lower quartiles plus 1·5 × IQR (whiskers), and outliers for mean oocyst densities in infected mosquitoes within each participant. Wilcoxon sign rank tests for differences in average oocyst density are shown. NC=not calculable.
Figure 3Male and female gametocyte density and prevalence
(A) Gametocyte prevalence. Error bars are 95% CIs. (B) Gametocyte density, shown for gametocyte positive individuals only (ie, male or female density >0·01 per μL). Box plots show the median (central line), IQR (box limits), upper and lower quartiles plus 1·5 × IQR (whiskers), and outliers. Within and between group statistical analyses of gametocyte density and prevalence are shown in appendix 5 (p 8). Gametocyte circulation time, area under the curve, and other outcomes are shown in appendix 5 (pp 7–11).