Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus artesunate-amodiaquine: superior efficacy and posttreatment prophylaxis against multidrug-resistant Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax malaria

BACKGROUND

Antimalarial drug resistance is now well established in both Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax. In southern Papua, Indonesia, where both strains of plasmodia coexist, we have been conducting a series of studies to optimize treatment strategies.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized trial that compared the efficacy and safety of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP) with artesunate-amodiaquine (AAQ). The primary end point was the overall cumulative parasitological failure rate at day 42.

RESULTS

Of the 334 patients in the evaluable patient population, 185 were infected with P. falciparum, 80 were infected with P. vivax, and 69 were infected with both species. The overall parasitological failure rate at day 42 was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36%-53%) for AAQ and 13% (95% CI, 7.2%-19%) for DHP (hazard ratio [HR], 4.3; 95% CI, 2.5-7.2; P<.001). Rates of both recrudescence of P. falciparum infection and recurrence of P. vivax infection were significantly higher after receipt of AAQ than after receipt of DHP (HR, 3.4 [95% CI, 1.2-9.4] and 4.3 [95% CI, 2.2-8.2], respectively; P<.001). By the end of the study, AAQ recipients were 2.95-fold (95% CI, 1.2- to 4.9-fold) more likely to be anemic and 14.5-fold (95% CI, 3.4- to 61-fold) more likely to have carried P. vivax gametocytes.

CONCLUSIONS

DHP was more effective and better tolerated than AAQ against multidrug-resistant P. falciparum and P. vivax infections. The prolonged therapeutic effect of piperaquine delayed the time to P. falciparum reinfection, decreased the rate of recurrence of P. vivax infection, and reduced the risk of P. vivax gametocyte carriage and anemia.

Two fixed-dose artemisinin combinations for drug-resistant falciparum and vivax malaria in Papua, Indonesia: an open-label randomised comparison

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.