4.4 Article

Varying efficacy of artesunate plus amodiaquine and artesunate plus sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a report of two in-vivo studies

Journal

MALARIA JOURNAL
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-8-192

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Very few data on anti-malarial efficacy are available from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). DRC changed its anti-malarial treatment policy to amodiaquine (AQ) and artesunate (AS) in 2005. Methods: The results of two in vivo efficacy studies, which tested AQ and sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) monotherapies and AS+SP and AS+AQ combinations in Boende (Equatorial province), and AS+SP, AS+AQ and SP in Kabalo (Katanga province), between 2003 and 2004 are presented. The methodology followed the WHO 2003 protocol for assessing the efficacy of anti-malarials in areas of high transmission. Results: Out of 394 included patients in Boende, the failure rates on day 28 after PCR-genotyping adjustment of AS+SP and AS+AQ were estimated as 24.6% [95% CI: 16.6-35.5] and 15.1% [95% CI: 8.6-25.7], respectively. For the monotherapies, failure rates were 35.9% [95% CI: 27.0-46.7] for SP and 18.3% [95% CI: 11.6-28.1] for AQ. Out of 207 patients enrolled in Kabalo, the failure rate on day 28 after PCR-genotyping adjustment was 0 [1-sided 95% CI: 5.8] for AS+SP and AS+AQ [1-sided 95% CI: 6.2]. It was 19.6% [95% CI: 11.4-32.7] for SP monotherapy. Conclusion: The finding of varying efficacy of the same combinations at two sites in one country highlights one difficulty of implementing a uniform national treatment policy in a large country. The poor efficacy of AS+AQ in Boende should alert the national programme to foci of resistance and emphasizes the need for systems for the prospective monitoring of treatment efficacy at sentinel sites in the country.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available