Dataset Information

To what extent are the antimalarial markets in African countries ready for a transition to triple artemisinin-based combination therapies?

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Triple artemisinin-based combination therapies (TACTs) are being developed as a response to artemisinin and partner drug resistance in the treatment of falciparum malaria in Southeast Asia. In African countries, where current artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are still effective, TACTs have the potential to benefit the larger community and future patients by mitigating the risk of drug resistance. This study explores the extent to which the antimalarial drug markets in African countries are ready for a transition to TACTs.

Methods

A qualitative study was conducted in Nigeria and Burkina Faso and comprised in-depth interviews (n = 68) and focus group discussions (n = 11) with key actor groups in the innovation system of antimalarial therapies.

Results

Evidence of ACT failure in African countries and explicit support for TACTs by the World Health Organization (WHO) and international funders were perceived important determinants for the market prospects of TACTs in Nigeria and Burkina Faso. At the country level, slow regulatory and implementation procedures were identified as potential barriers towards rapid TACTs deployment. Integrating TACTs in public sector distribution channels was considered relatively straightforward. More challenges were expected for integrating TACTs in private sector distribution channels, which are characterized by patient demand and profit motives. Finally, several affordability and acceptability issues were raised for which ACTs were suggested as a benchmark.

Conclusion

The market prospects of TACTs in Nigeria and Burkina Faso will depend on the demonstration of the added value of TACTs over ACTs, their advocacy by the WHO, the inclusion of TACTs in financial and regulatory arrangements, and their alignment with current distribution and deployment practices. Further clinical, health-economic and feasibility studies are required to inform decision makers about the broader implications of a transition to TACTs in African counties. The recent reporting of artemisinin resistance and ACT failure in Africa might change important determinants of the market readiness for TACTs.

SUBMITTER: de Haan F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8407563 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:There has been a successful push towards parasitological diagnosis of malaria in Africa, mainly with rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs), which has reduced over-prescribing of artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACT) to malaria test-negative patients. The effect on prescribing for test-positive patients has received much less attention. Malaria infection in endemic Africa is often most dangerous for young children and those in low-transmission settings. This study examined non-prescription of antimalarials for patients with malaria infection demonstrated by positive mRDT results, and in particular these groups who are most vulnerable to poor outcomes if antimalarials are not given. METHODS:Analysis of data from 562,762 patients in 8 studies co-designed as part of the ACT Consortium, conducted 2007-2013 in children and adults, in Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda, in a variety of public and private health care sector settings, and across a range of malaria endemic zones. RESULTS:Of 106,039 patients with positive mRDT results (median age 6 years), 7426 (7.0%) were not prescribed an ACT antimalarial. The proportion of mRDT-positive patients not prescribed ACT ranged across sites from 1.3 to 37.1%. For patients under age 5 years, 3473/44,539 (7.8%) were not prescribed an ACT, compared with 3833/60,043 (6.4%) of those aged ??5?years. The proportion of <?5-year-olds not prescribed ACT ranged up to 41.8% across sites. The odds of not being prescribed an ACT were 2-32 times higher for patients in settings with lower-transmission intensity (using test positivity as a proxy) compared to areas of higher transmission. mRDT-positive children in low-transmission settings were especially likely not to be prescribed ACT, with proportions untreated up to 70%. Of the 7426 mRDT-positive patients not prescribed an ACT, 4121 (55.5%) were prescribed other, non-recommended non-ACT antimalarial medications, and the remainder (44.5%) were prescribed no antimalarial. CONCLUSIONS:In eight studies of mRDT implementation in five African countries, substantial proportions of patients testing mRDT-positive were not prescribed an ACT antimalarial, and many were not prescribed an antimalarial at all. Patients most vulnerable to serious outcomes, children <?5?years and those in low-transmission settings, were most likely to not be prescribed antimalarials, and young children in low-transmission settings were least likely to be treated for malaria. This major public health risk must be addressed in training and practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Reported in individual primary studies.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To compare the efficacy and safety of artemisinin combination therapies for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Uganda. DESIGN:Randomized single-blind controlled trial. SETTING:Tororo, Uganda, an area of high-level malaria transmission. PARTICIPANTS:Children aged one to ten years with confirmed uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria. INTERVENTIONS:Amodiaquine + artesunate or artemether-lumefantrine. OUTCOME MEASURES:Risks of recurrent symptomatic malaria and recurrent parasitemia at 28 days, unadjusted and adjusted by genotyping to distinguish recrudescences and new infections. RESULTS: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. CONCLUSIONS: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.

Project description:BackgroundArtemisinin combination therapies (ACTs) are used worldwide as first-line treatment against confirmed or suspected Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Despite the success of ACTs at reducing the global burden of malaria, emerging resistance to artemisinin threatens these gains. Countering onset of resistance might need deliberate tactics aimed at slowing the reduction in ACT effectiveness. We assessed optimum use of ACTs at the population level, specifically focusing on a strategy of multiple first-line therapies (MFT), and comparing it with strategies of cycling or sequential use of single first-line ACTs.MethodsWith an individual-based microsimulation of regional malaria transmission, we looked at how to apply a therapy as widely as possible without accelerating reduction of efficacy by drug resistance. We compared simultaneous distribution of artemether-lumefantrine, artesunate-amodiaquine, and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (ie, MFT) against strategies in which these ACTs would be cycled or used sequentially, either on a fixed schedule or when population-level efficacy reaches the WHO threshold of 10% treatment failure. The main assessment criterion was total number of treatment failures per 100 people per year. Additionally, we analysed the benefits of including a single non-ACT therapy in an MFT strategy, and did sensitivity analyses in which we varied transmission setting, treatment coverage, partner-drug half-life, fitness cost of drug resistance, and the relation between drug concentration and resistance evolution.FindingsUse of MFT was predicted to reduce the long-term number of treatment failures compared with strategies in which a single first-line ACT is recommended. This result was robust to various epidemiological, pharmacological, and evolutionary features of malaria transmission. Inclusion of a single non-ACT therapy in an MFT strategy would have substantial benefits in reduction of pressure on artemisinin resistance evolution, delaying its emergence and slowing its spread.InterpretationAdjusting national antimalarial treatment guidelines to encourage simultaneous use of MFT is likely to extend the useful therapeutic life of available antimalarial drugs, resulting in long-term beneficial outcomes for patients.FundingWellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, Li Ka Shing Foundation.