Artemether-Lumefantrine versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Treating Uncomplicated Malaria: A Randomized Trial to Guide Policy in Uganda

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorYeka, Adoke
dc.contributor.authorDorsey, Grant
dc.contributor.authorKamya, Moses R.
dc.contributor.authorTalisuna, Ambrose
dc.contributor.authorLugemwa, Myers
dc.contributor.authorRwakimari, John Bosco
dc.contributor.authorStaedke, Sarah G.
dc.contributor.authorRosenthal, Philip J.
dc.contributor.authorMangen, Fred Wabwire
dc.contributor.authorBukirwa, Hasifa
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-06T14:51:10Z
dc.date.available2022-04-06T14:51:10Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.description.abstractUganda 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citationYeka, A., Dorsey, G., Kamya, M. R., Talisuna, A., Lugemwa, M., Rwakimari, J. B., ... & Bukirwa, H. (2008). Artemether-lumefantrine versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for treating uncomplicated malaria: a randomized trial to guide policy in Uganda. PloS one, 3(6), e2390.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002390en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://nru.uncst.go.ug/handle/123456789/2892
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPloS oneen_US
dc.titleArtemether-Lumefantrine versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Treating Uncomplicated Malaria: A Randomized Trial to Guide Policy in Ugandaen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Artemether-Lumefantrine versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Treating Uncomplicated Malaria A Randomized Trial to Guide Policy in Uganda.pdf
Size:
644.32 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Artemether-Lumefantrine versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Treating Uncomplicated Malaria: A Randomized Trial to Guide Policy in Uganda
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Medical and Health Sciences