Browsing by Author "Rwakimari, John Bosco"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Artemether-Lumefantrine versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Treating Uncomplicated Malaria: A Randomized Trial to Guide Policy in Uganda
    (PloS one, 2008) Yeka, Adoke; Dorsey, Grant; Kamya, Moses R.; Talisuna, Ambrose; Lugemwa, Myers; Rwakimari, John Bosco; Staedke, Sarah G.; Rosenthal, Philip J.; Mangen, Fred Wabwire; Bukirwa, Hasifa
    Uganda recently adopted artemether-lumefantrine (AL) as the recommended first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria. However, AL has several limitations, including a twice-daily dosing regimen, recommendation for administration with fatty food, and a high risk of reinfection soon after therapy in high transmission areas. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) is a new alternative artemisinin-based combination therapy that is dosed once daily and has a long post-treatment prophylactic effect. We compared the efficacy and safety of AL with DP in Kanungu, an area of moderate malaria transmission.Patients aged 6 months to 10 years with uncomplicated falciparum malaria were randomized to therapy and followed for 42 days. Genotyping was used to distinguish recrudescence from new infection. Of 414 patients enrolled, 408 completed follow-up. Compared to patients treated with artemether-lumefantrine, patients treated with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine had a significantly lower risk of recurrent parasitaemia (33.2% vs. 12.2%; risk difference = 20.9%, 95% CI 13.0–28.8%) but no statistically significant difference in the risk of treatment failure due to recrudescence (5.8% vs. 2.0%; risk difference = 3.8%, 95% CI −0.2–7.8%). Patients treated with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine also had a lower risk of developing gametocytaemia after therapy (4.2% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.01). Both drugs were safe and well tolerated.DP is highly efficacious, and operationally preferable to AL because of a less intensive dosing schedule and requirements. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine should be considered for a role in the antimalarial treatment policy of Uganda.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Artemisinin Combination Therapies for Treatment of Uncomplicated Malaria in Uganda
    (PLoS clinical trials, 2006) Bukirwa, Hasifa; Yeka, Adoke; Kamya, Moses R.; Talisuna, Ambrose; Banek, Kristin; Bakyaita, Nathan; Rwakimari, John Bosco; Rosenthal, Philip J.; Mangen, Fred Wabwire; Dorsey, Grant; Staedke, Sarah G.
    To compare the efficacy and safety of artemisinin combination therapies for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Uganda.Randomized single-blind controlled trial.Tororo, Uganda, an area of high-level malaria transmission.Children aged one to ten years with confirmed uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria.Amodiaquine + artesunate or artemether–lumefantrine.Risks of recurrent symptomatic malaria and recurrent parasitemia at 28 days, unadjusted and adjusted by genotyping to distinguish recrudescences and new infections.Of 408 participants enrolled, 403 with unadjusted efficacy outcomes were included in the per-protocol analysis. Both treatment regimens were highly efficacious; no recrudescences occurred in patients treated with amodiaquine + artesunate, and only two occurred in those treated with artemether–lumefantrine. However, recurrent malaria due to new infections was common. The unadjusted risk of recurrent symptomatic malaria was significantly lower for participants treated with artemether–lumefantrine than for those treated with amodiaquine + artesunate (27% versus 42%, risk difference 15%, 95% CI 5.9%–24.2%). Similar results were seen for the risk of recurrent parasitemia (51% artemether–lumefantrine versus 66% amodiaquine + artesunate, risk difference 16%, 95% CI 6.2%–25.2%). Amodiaquine + artesunate and artemether–lumefantrine were both well-tolerated. Serious adverse events were uncommon with both regimens.Amodiaquine + artesunate and artemether–lumefantrine were both highly efficacious for treatment of uncomplicated malaria. However, in this holoendemic area, despite the excellent performance of both regimens in terms of efficacy, many patients experienced recurrent parasitemia due to new infections. Artemether–lumefantrine was superior to amodiaquine + artesunate for prevention of new infections. To maximize the benefit of artemisinin combination therapy in Africa, treatment should be integrated with strategies to prevent malaria transmission. The impact of frequent repeated therapy on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of new artemisinin regimens should be further investigated.