Malaria-treatment policies: when and how should they be changed?

Antimalarial drug resistance: a review of the biology and strategies to delay emergence and spread

The emergence of resistance to former first-line antimalarial drugs has been an unmitigated disaster. In recent years, artemisinin class drugs have become standard and they are considered an essential tool for helping to eradicate the disease. However, their ability to reduce morbidity and mortality and to slow transmission requires the maintenance of effectiveness. Recently, an artemisinin delayed-clearance phenotype was described. This is believed to be the precursor to resistance and threatens local elimination and global eradication plans. Understanding how resistance emerges and spreads is important for developing strategies to contain its spread. Resistance is the result of two processes: (i) drug selection of resistant parasites; and (ii) the spread of resistance. In this review, we examine the factors that lead to both drug selection and the spread of resistance. We then examine strategies for controlling the spread of resistance, pointing out the complexities and deficiencies in predicting how resistance will spread.

Plasmodium falciparum resistance to anti-malarial drugs in Papua New Guinea: evaluation of a community-based approach for the molecular monitoring of resistance

Background

Molecular monitoring of parasite resistance has become an important complementary tool in establishing rational anti-malarial drug policies. Community surveys provide a representative sample of the parasite population and can be carried out more rapidly than accrual of samples from clinical cases, but it is not known whether the frequencies of genetic resistance markers in clinical cases differ from those in the overall population, or whether such community surveys can provide good predictions of treatment failure rates.

Methods

Between 2003 and 2005, in vivo drug efficacy of amodiaquine or chloroquine plus sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine was determined at three sites in Papua New Guinea. The genetic drug resistance profile (i.e., 33 single nucleotide polymorphisms in Plasmodium falciparum crt, mdr1, dhfr, dhps, and ATPase6) was concurrently assessed in 639 community samples collected in the catchment areas of the respective health facilities by using a DNA microarray-based method. Mutant allele and haplotype frequencies were determined and their relationship with treatment failure rates at each site in each year was investigated.

Results

PCR-corrected in vivo treatment failure rates were between 12% and 28% and varied by site and year with variable longitudinal trends. In the community samples, the frequencies of mutations in pfcrt and pfmdr1 were high and did not show significant changes over time. Mutant allele frequencies in pfdhfr were moderate and those in pfdhps were low. No mutations were detected in pfATPase6. There was much more variation between sites than temporal, within-site, variation in allele and haplotype frequencies. This variation did not correlate well with treatment failure rates. Allele and haplotype frequencies were very similar in clinical and community samples from the same site.

Conclusions

The relationship between parasite genetics and in vivo treatment failure rate is not straightforward. The frequencies of genetic anti-malarial resistance markers appear to be very similar in community and clinical samples, but cannot be used to make precise predictions of clinical outcome. Thus, indicators based on molecular data have to be considered with caution and interpreted in the local context, especially with regard to prior drug usage and level of pre-existing immunity. Testing community samples for molecular drug resistance markers is a complementary tool that should help decision-making for the best treatment options and appropriate potential alternatives.

[Knowledge and practice among health workers from the Thiès region with regard to new malaria treatment policies]

The emergence of increasing plasmodium falciparum resistance to chloroquine in Africa has prompted national malaria programmes to develop new policies regarding appropriate and essential treatment, moving from the use of chloroquine to a new set of bi-therapy methods. In Senegal, the malaria treatment policy has shifted from chloroquine to amodiaquine/sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. The authors studied the availability of these new drugs and their use by the care providers in 10 rural health district dispensaries. Patient records were examined and nurses were interviewed on their knowledge about and implementation of the new policy. It was noted that the nurses have not yet mastered the proper use of these new medications, and the prescriptions given were not always in line with regulations and practice corresponding to the required or necessary doses. The families which were interviewed stated that they were not aware of the changes in treatment which had been recommended. The conclusion of this study was that it brought to the forefront the need to put specific emphasis on population information and awareness campaigns as well as that of ensuring that caregivers receive thorough training to secure the successful and sustainable implementation and maintenance of the new policy.

Artesunate plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for uncomplicated malaria in Kenyan children: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Plasmodium falciparum has developed resistance to almost all routinely used antimalarial drugs. Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) has replaced chloroquine as first-line treatment of uncomplicated malaria infection in Kenya but resistance to SP is already reported. The addition of artemisinin derivatives to SP may delay the development of drug resistance, improve cure rates, and reduce transmission. The efficacy and safety of artesunate plus SP in the treatment of uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria was evaluated in a randomized trial of 600 children at Siaya District Hospital, western Kenya between October 1999 and March 2000. Children aged < 5 years were randomly assigned to receive SP alone (1.25 mg/kg based on pyrimethamine), or in combination with artesunate (4 mg/kg/d) for either 1 or 3 d. Parasitological failure by days 14 and 28 (polymerase chain reaction [PCR]-corrected for new infections) were the primary endpoints. Treatment failure rates by day 14 were 25.5% in the SP alone group, 16.2% (risk difference [delta]-9.3%, 95% CI -17.3 to -1.2%, P= 0.027) in the 1-dose artesunate group, and 9.4% (delta-16.2%, 95% CI -23.6 to -8.7%, P< 0.001) in the 3-dose artesunate group. Corresponding rates by day 28 were 46.0% in the SP alone group, 38.2% (delta-7.8%, 95% CI -17.7 to 2.1%, P= 0.16) in the 1-dose artesunate group, and 26.0% (delta-20.0%, 95% CI -29.4 to -10.6%, P < 0.001) in the 3-dose artesunate group. The artesunate and SP combination was well tolerated. There were no serious drug-related adverse events. Parasite clearance and gametocyte carriage were reduced significantly in both combination groups compared with SP alone. Three days of artesunate were required to reduce significantly the risk of treatment failure by day 28. However, the high background rate of parasitological failure with SP may make this combination unsuitable for widespread use in Kenya.

Combination of drug level measurement and parasite genotyping data for improved assessment of amodiaquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine efficacies in treating Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Gabonese children

Many African countries currently use a sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine combination (SP) or amodiaquine (AQ) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Both drugs represent the last inexpensive alternatives to chloroquine. However, resistant P. falciparum populations are largely reported in Africa, and it is compulsory to know the present situation of resistance. The in vivo World Health Organization standard 28-day test was used to assess the efficacy of AQ and SP to treat uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Gabonese children under 10 years of age. To document treatment failures, molecular genotyping to distinguish therapeutic failures from reinfections and drug dosages were undertaken. A total of 118 and 114 children were given AQ or SP, respectively, and were monitored. SP was more effective than AQ, with 14.0 and 34.7% of therapeutic failures, respectively. Three days after initiation of treatment, the mean level of monodesethylamodiaquine (MdAQ) in plasma was 149 ng/ml in children treated with amodiaquine. In those treated with SP, mean levels of sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine in plasma were 100 microg/ml and 212 ng/ml, respectively. Levels of the three drugs were higher in patients successfully treated with AQ (MdAQ plasma levels) or SP (sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine plasma levels). Blood concentration higher than breakpoints of 135 ng/ml for MdAQ, 100 micro g/ml for sulfadoxine, and 175 ng/ml for pyrimethamine were associated with treatment success (odds ratio: 4.5, 9.8, and 11.8, respectively; all P values were <0.009). Genotyping of merozoite surface proteins 1 and 2 demonstrated a mean of 4.0 genotypes per person before treatment. At reappearance of parasitemia, both recrudescent parasites (represented by common bands in both samples) and newly inoculated parasites (represented by bands that were absent before treatment) were present in the blood of most (51.1%) children. Only 3 (6.4%) therapeutic failures were the result not of treatment inefficacy but of new infection. In areas where levels of drug resistance and complexity of infections are high, drug dosage and parasite genotyping may be of limited interest in improving the precision of drug efficacy measurement. Their use should be weighted according to logistical constraints.

Chemoresistance of Plasmodium falciparum in the urban region of Yaounde, Cameroon. Part 2: Evaluation of the efficacy of amodiaquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine combination in the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Yaounde, Cameroon

The spread of chloroquine resistance or its stabilization at a high level calls for a change in the therapeutic strategy, including a possible replacement of chloroquine. We assessed and compared the efficacy of amodiaquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in Yaoundé. Of 140 adults and children > 5 years enrolled in the study, 59 in the amodiaquine and 58 in the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine treatment group were followed until day 14. The efficacy of amodiaquine was 100%, whereas 12.1% of the patients treated with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine responded with an early treatment failure. Side effects in both treatment groups were mild and did not require any specific treatment. We did in vitro drug assays for monodesethylamodiaquine (active metabolite of amodiaquine) and pyrimethamine and measured plasma levels of monodesethylamodiaquine, sulfadoxine, and pyrimethamine. Unlike amodiaquine, the results of the in vitro drug sensitivity test for pyrimethamine were not concordant with the clinical response. A wide inter-individual variation in the plasma drug levels was observed. Unlike chloroquine, the mean plasma concentrations did not vary with age. There was no significant difference in the plasma concentrations of sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine between patients responding with an adequate clinical response and those responding with treatment failure. Amodiaquine has several advantages over sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine combination and may be considered to be an effective drug in an endemic zone with a moderate level of chloroquine resistance.