Atovaquone 750mg/5ml oral suspension sugar free

BackgroundThe emergence of Plasmodium falciparum strains with reduced susceptibility to the artemisinin component of artemisinin combination therapies poses a serious threat to the treatment and control of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. Regimens consisting of combinations of three or more conventional antimalarials have been proposed as a new treatment paradigm to overcome the impending problem of drug-resistant malaria. It was the aim of the MultiMal study to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the two novel multidrug antimalarial combination therapies, artesunate-pyronaridine-atovaquone-proguanil (APAP) and artesunate-fosmidomycin-clindamycin (AFC), in comparison with standard artesunate-pyronaridine (AP).MethodsThis open-label, randomised, controlled, clinical, phase 2 trial was done in Lambaréné, Gabon, and Kumasi, Ghana. Patients with uncomplicated malaria who had fever or a history of fever in the preceding 24 h and a parasitaemia in the range of 1000-100 000 per μL of blood were enrolled. Random permuted blocks of variable block sizes stratified by country were computed to generate a treatment allocation sequence. Recruitment was done across three age groups: children aged 6 months to 10 years, adolescents aged 11-17 years, and adults aged 18-65 years. Weight-adjusted oral, once-daily therapy was administered for 3 consecutive days for AP and APAP regimens dosed according to the recommendations of the manufacturer and twice daily for AFC (dose: artesunate 2 mg/kg, fosmidomycin 30 mg/kg, and clindamycin 10 mg/kg). Participants were followed up over a 42-day period. The primary endpoints of the trial, related to pharmacokinetic analyses, are being reported elsewhere; this Article reports the secondary endpoints-safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the treatment regimens (defined as adequate clinical and parasitological response [ACPR]) at days 28 and 42 after treatment initiation. ACPRs were calculated in the intention-to-treat and PCR-corrected per-protocol populations at these timepoints, whereas safety and tolerability outcomes were assessed continuously over the 42-day follow-up period in the safety population. This trial is registered with pactr.samrc.ac.za, PACTR202008909968293 and is complete.FindingsRecruitment and follow-up took place between Jan 5 and Nov 5, 2021. Of 309 screened individuals, 100 patients with uncomplicated malaria were recruited into this clinical trial: 20 semi-immune patients aged 18-65 years, 40 adolescents aged between 11 and 17 years, and finally 40 patients aged 6 months to 10 years. PCR-corrected ACPR in the per-protocol set was 100% (95% CI 80-100) for AP, 100% (90-100) for APAP, and 97% (86-100) for AFC for day 28, and 87·5% (62-98) for AP, 85·3% (69-95) for APAP, and 94·4% (81-99) for AFC on day 42. Uncorrected ACPR in the intention-to-treat set was 85% (95% CI 62-97%) for AP, 87·5% (73-96) for APAP, and 82·5% (67-93) for AFC on day 28, and 70% (46-88) for AP, 75% (59-87) for APAP, and 75% (59-87) for AFC on day 42. There was no evidence for a differential efficacy across AP, APAP, and AFC. The proportion of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) did not differ across study groups (p=0·37) and all treatment regimens were safe. Three (7%) of 46 TEAEs in the APAP group were severe compared with two (10%) of 20 in the AP control group and zero of 56 in the AFC group; all severe TEAEs were haematological alterations. The other TEAEs were mild or moderate. Moreover, there were two serious adverse events (SAEs) in the APAP group (peptic ulcer disease and chest contusion) and none in the other groups; these SAEs were rated as not related to the study medication.InterpretationAntimalarial regimens of APAP and AFC have unique characteristics to tackle the development and spread of drug-resistant P falciparum malaria. Given that APAP and AFC were safe, well tolerated, and highly efficacious in this clinical phase 2 study, they constitute promising multidrug combination regimens for further clinical development.FundingGerman Center for Infection Research.

Abstract licence: CC BY