4.7 Editorial Material

High Prevalence of Plasmodium falciparum K13 Mutations in Rwanda Is Associated With Slow Parasite Clearance After Treatment With Artemether-Lumefantrine

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 225, 期 8, 页码 1411-1414

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiab352

关键词

artemisinin-resistance; Rwanda; R561H; P. falciparum malaria; artemether-lumefantrine; K13 mutations; parasite clearance half-lives; clinical study

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [207813/Z/17/Z]
  2. Novartis
  3. Wellcome Trust [207813/Z/17/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations in the Plasmodium falciparum K13 gene have caused treatment failures in malaria patients receiving artemisinin combination therapies in Southeast Asia. Until recently, relevant K13 mutations had been mostly absent from Africa. A phase 2 clinical study in Mali, Gabon, Ghana, Uganda, and Rwanda reported a 22% allele frequency for R561H in Rwanda and associated delayed parasite clearance.
In Southeast Asia, mutations in the Plasmodium falciparum K13 gene have led to delayed parasite clearance and treatment failures in patients with malaria receiving artemisinin combination therapies. Until recently, relevant K13 mutations had been mostly absent from Africa. Between 2018 and 2019, a phase 2 clinical study with 186 patients was conducted in Mali, Gabon, Ghana, Uganda, and Rwanda. Patients with malaria were randomized and treated with artemether-lumefantrine or cipargamin. Here we report an allele frequency of 22% for R561H in Rwanda and associated delayed parasite clearance. Notwithstanding, efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine remained high in Rwanda, with a 94.4% polymerase chain reaction-corrected cure rate. Brief summary: A phase 2 clinical study was conducted in Mali, Gabon, Ghana, Uganda, and Rwanda. Patients with malaria were randomized to artemether-lumefantrine or cipargamin. Here we report an allele frequency of 22% for R561H in Rwanda and associated delayed parasite clearance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据