IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pctr00/0020020.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Artemether-Lumefantrine versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Treatment of Malaria: A Randomized Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Moses R Kamya
  • Adoke Yeka
  • Hasifa Bukirwa
  • Myers Lugemwa
  • John B Rwakimari
  • Sarah G Staedke
  • Ambrose O Talisuna
  • Bryan Greenhouse
  • François Nosten
  • Philip J Rosenthal
  • Fred Wabwire-Mangen
  • Grant Dorsey

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Uganda. Design: Randomized single-blinded clinical trial. Setting: Apac, Uganda, an area of very high malaria transmission intensity. Participants: Children aged 6 mo to 10 y with uncomplicated falciparum malaria. Intervention: Treatment of malaria with AL or DP, each following standard 3-d dosing regimens. Outcome measures: Risks of recurrent parasitemia at 28 and 42 d, unadjusted and adjusted by genotyping to distinguish recrudescences and new infections. Results: Of 421 enrolled participants, 417 (99%) completed follow-up. The unadjusted risk of recurrent falciparum parasitemia was significantly lower for participants treated with DP than for those treated with AL after 28 d (11% versus 29%; risk difference [RD] 18%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 11%–26%) and 42 d (43% versus 53%; RD 9.6%, 95% CI 0%–19%) of follow-up. Similarly, the risk of recurrent parasitemia due to possible recrudescence (adjusted by genotyping) was significantly lower for participants treated with DP than for those treated with AL after 28 d (1.9% versus 8.9%; RD 7.0%, 95% CI 2.5%–12%) and 42 d (6.9% versus 16%; RD 9.5%, 95% CI 2.8%–16%). Patients treated with DP had a lower risk of recurrent parasitemia due to non-falciparum species, development of gametocytemia, and higher mean increase in hemoglobin compared to patients treated with AL. Both drugs were well tolerated; serious adverse events were uncommon and unrelated to study drugs. Conclusion: DP was superior to AL for reducing the risk of recurrent parasitemia and gametocytemia, and provided improved hemoglobin recovery. DP thus appears to be a good alternative to AL as first-line treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Uganda. To maximize the benefit of artemisinin-based combination therapy in Africa, treatment should be integrated with aggressive strategies to reduce malaria transmission intensity. Trial Registration: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN75606663 : Background: The burden of death and disease caused by malaria is very high, particularly amongst young children in sub-Saharan Africa. Many African countries have adopted combinations of drugs for first-line malaria treatment that include a compound based on the plant-derived molecule artemisinin. In Uganda, the artemisinin-based compound therapy (ACT) adopted as first-line therapy is artemether-lumefantrine (AL). However, there are limitations to the use of this drug; dosing is not convenient and it needs to be given with fatty food. There are also concerns that even though AL and other ACTs successfully treat the initial infection, there is a risk of malaria recurring soon after therapy, particularly in areas where mosquito attack rates are high. Therefore, the researchers here wanted to compare AL treatment with another ACT, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP), for treatment of uncomplicated malaria in children who live in an area of Uganda where malaria is transmitted at a very high rate.

Suggested Citation

  • Moses R Kamya & Adoke Yeka & Hasifa Bukirwa & Myers Lugemwa & John B Rwakimari & Sarah G Staedke & Ambrose O Talisuna & Bryan Greenhouse & François Nosten & Philip J Rosenthal & Fred Wabwire-Mangen & , 2007. "Artemether-Lumefantrine versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Treatment of Malaria: A Randomized Trial," PLOS Clinical Trials, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(5), pages 1-9, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pctr00:0020020
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pctr.0020020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosclinicaltrials/article?id=10.1371/journal.pctr.0020020
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosclinicaltrials/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pctr.0020020&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pctr.0020020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pctr00:0020020. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://collections.plos.org/plos-clinical-trials .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.