Comparison of anti-malarial drug efficacy in the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in African children and adults using network meta-analysis

Malaria Journal

Methodology

Rachida Tahar¹  Leonardo K. Basco²  Solange Whegang Youdom³ 

[1] Unité Mixte de Recherche 216 Mère et Enfant face aux Infections Tropicales (MERIT), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Université Paris Descartes, Laboratoire de Parasitologie, Faculté de Pharmacie, 4 avenue de l’Observatoire, 75006, Paris, France;Unité de Recherche sur les Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales Emergentes (URMITE), Aix Marseille Université, UM 63, CNRS 7278, IRD 198, INSERM 1095, Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU), Méditerranée Infection, 19-21 boulevard Jean Moulin, 13385, Marseille, France;University of Yaounde I, National Advanced School of Engineering, PO Box 8390, Yaounde, Cameroon;

关键词: Plasmodium falciparum;    Anti-malarial drug;    Drug resistance;    Clinical efficacy;    Bayesian modelling;    Multiple treatment meta-analysis;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12936-017-1963-0

 received in 2017-03-29, accepted in 2017-07-29,  发布年份 2017

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundArtemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) and novel drug combinations are available and used in African countries to treat uncomplicated malaria. Network meta-analysis methods are rarely and poorly applied for the comparison of their efficacies. This method was applied on a set of randomized controlled trials to illustrate its usefulness.MethodsA literature review available in Pubmed was conducted in July 2016. Eligible studies, conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, published between 2002 and 2016, focused on randomized controlled trials of at least two artemisinin-based combinations to treat uncomplicated malaria in children and adults. Agglomerate data were: the number of PCR-corrected adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) on day 28, used as the primary endpoint in all interventions, the number of participants and the list of treatments. A Bayesian random effect meta-analysis using a binary outcome was the method to compare the efficacy. Ranking measure was used to obtain a hierarchy of the competing interventions.ResultsIn total, 76 articles were included; 13 treatment regimens were involved and tested in 36,001 patients. Using artemether–lumefantrine (AL) as the common comparator for the entire network, 12 relative treatment effects were estimated and indirect comparisons were obtained. Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine (DHAP) was shown to be more effective than AL (odds ratio [OR] = 1.92; 95% CI 1.30–2.82; 19,163 patients), ASAQ (OR = 1.70; 95% CI 1.10–2.64; 14,433 patients), and amodiaquine–sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine (AQSP): OR = 2.20; 95% CI 1.21–3.96; 8863 patients. Artesunate–amodiaquine (ASAQ) was comparable to AL (OR = 1.11; 95% CI 0.84–1.45; 21,235 patients). No significant difference was found between artesunate and mefloquine (ASMQ) and AL (OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 0.52-2.8; 13,824 participants). According to treatment ranking, among the WHO-recommended ACT medicines, DHAP was shown to be the most efficacious.ConclusionsBased on the available evidence, this study demonstrated the superiority of DHAP among currently recommended artemisinin-based combinations. The application of the methods described here may be helpful to gain better understanding of treatment efficacy and improve future decisions. However, more data are needed to allow robust conclusions about the results in comparison with novel drugs. Further surveillance of the efficacy of anti-malarial drugs and clinical trials are needed to closely follow the evolution of the epidemiology of drug-resistant malaria in Africa.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2017

【 图 表 】

12951_2017_252_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 4

Fig. 2

12888_2023_5283_Article_IEq1.gif

12936_2017_1963_Article_IEq54.gif

Fig. 4

42004_2023_1031_Figa_HTML.png

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Fig. 7

Fig. 16

Fig. 15

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

12936_2017_1963_Article_IEq41.gif

Fig. 1

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq40.gif

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq39.gif

Fig. 2

Fig. 10

Fig. 5

Fig. 3

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 3

12936_2017_1963_Article_IEq63.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 3

12936_2017_1963_Article_IEq60.gif

40170_2023_319_Article_IEq3.gif

Fig. 2

Fig. 7

Fig. 4

Fig. 3

Fig. 6

Fig. 3

12936_2017_1963_Article_IEq15.gif

Fig. 1

12944_2023_1927_Article_IEq25.gif

12944_2023_1927_Article_IEq13.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 6

12951_2017_315_Article_IEq2.gif

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq23.gif

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq22.gif

Fig. 2

Fig. 4