4.4 Article

Reduced ex vivo susceptibility of Plasmodium falciparum after oral artemether-lumefantrine treatment in Mali

期刊

MALARIA JOURNAL
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12936-017-1700-8

关键词

Artemether; Lumefantrine; Plasmodium; Ex vivo; In vivo; K13 propeller

资金

  1. European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) [IP_07_31060_002]
  2. West African Network for Clinical Trials of Antimalarial Drugs (WANECAM)
  3. Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV)
  4. Wellcome Trust through Institute of Infectious Diseases of Poverty (IIDP) [087536/Z/08/Z]
  5. Wellcome Trust [087536/Z/08/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Artemisinin-based combination therapy is the recommended first-line treatment for uncomplicated falciparum malaria worldwide. However, recent studies conducted in Mali showed an increased frequency of recurrent parasitaemia following artemether-lumefantrine (AL) treatment. Methods: Study samples were collected during a large WANECAM study. Ex-vivo Plasmodium falciparum sensitivity to artemether and lumefantrine was assessed using the tritiated hypoxanthine-based assay. The prevalence of molecular markers of anti-malarial drug resistance (pfcrt K76T, pfmdr1 N86Y and K13-propeller) were measured by PCR and/or sequencing. Results: Overall 61 samples were successfully analysed in ex vivo studies. Mean IC(50)s increased significantly between baseline and recurrent parasites for both artemether (1.6 nM vs 3.2 nM, p < 0.001) and lumefantrine (1.4 nM vs 3.4 nM, p = 0.004). Wild type Pfmdr1 N86 allele was selected after treatment (71 vs 91%, 112 of 158 vs 95 of 105, p < 0.001) but not the wild type pfcrt K76 variant (23.5 vs 24.8%, 40 of 170 vs 26 of 105, p = 0.9). Three non-synonymous K13-propeller SNPs (A522C, A578S, and G638R) were found with allele frequencies < 2%. Conclusion: Malian post-AL P. falciparum isolates were less susceptible to artemether and lumefantrine than baseline isolates.

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

4.4
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