Ivermectin as a novel malaria control tool: Getting ahead of the resistance curse.

Reduction in malaria clinical cases is strongly dependent on the ability to prevent Anopheles infectious bites. Vector control strategies using long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying with insecticides have contributed to significantly reduce the incidence of malaria in many endemic countries, especially in the Sub-Saharan region. However, global progress in reducing malaria cases has plateaued since 2015 mostly due to the increased insecticide resistance and behavioral changes in Anopheles vectors. Additional control strategies are thus required to further reduce the burden of malaria and contain the spread of resistant and invasive Anopheles vectors. The use of endectocides such as ivermectin as an additional malaria control tool is now receiving increased attention, driven by its different mode of action compared to insecticides used so far and its excellent safety record for humans. In this opinion article, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using ivermectin for malaria control with a focus on the risk of selecting ivermectin resistance in malaria vectors. We also highlight the importance of understanding how ivermectin resistance could develop in mosquitoes and what its underlying mechanisms and associated molecular markers are, and propose a research agenda to manage this phenomenon.

Hepatic safety of repeated treatment with pyronaridine-artesunate versus artemether-lumefantrine in patients with uncomplicated malaria: a secondary analysis of the WANECAM 1 data from Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso.

BACKGROUND: The use of pyronaridine-artesunate (PA) has been associated with scarce transaminitis in patients. This analysis aimed to evaluate the hepatic safety profile of repeated treatment with PA versus artemether-lumefantrine (AL) in patients with consecutive uncomplicated malaria episodes in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. METHODS: This study analysed data from a clinical trial conducted from 2012 to 2015, in which participants with uncomplicated malaria were assigned to either PA or AL arms and followed up to 42 days. Subsequent malaria episodes within a 2-years follow up period were also treated with the same ACT initially allocated. Transaminases (AST/ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), total and direct bilirubin were measured at days 0 (baseline), 3, 7, 28 and on some unscheduled days if required. The proportions of non-clinical hepatic adverse events (AEs) following first and repeated treatments with PA and AL were compared within study arms. The association of these AEs with retreatment in each arm was also determined using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 1379 malaria episodes were included in the intention to treat analysis with 60% of all cases occurring in the AL arm. Overall, 179 non-clinical hepatic AEs were recorded in the AL arm versus 145 in the PA arm. Elevated ALT was noted in 3.05% of treated malaria episodes, elevated AST 3.34%, elevated ALP 1.81%, and elevated total and direct bilirubin in 7.90% and 7.40% respectively. Retreated participants were less likely to experience elevated ALT and AST than first episode treated participants in both arms. One case of Hy's law condition was recorded in a first treated participant of the PA arm. Participants from the retreatment group were 76% and 84% less likely to have elevated ALT and AST, respectively, in the AL arm and 68% less likely to present elevated ALT in the PA arm. In contrast, they were almost 2 times more likely to experience elevated total bilirubin in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Pyronaridine-artesunate and artemether-lumefantrine showed similar hepatic safety when used repeatedly in participants with uncomplicated malaria. Pyronaridine-artesunate represents therefore a suitable alternative to the current first line anti-malarial drugs in use in endemic areas. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trials Registry. PACTR201105000286876.

Safety and efficacy of re-treatments with pyronaridine-artesunate in African patients with malaria: a substudy of the WANECAM randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Sparse data on the safety of pyronaridine-artesunate after repeated treatment of malaria episodes restrict its clinical use. We therefore compared the safety of pyronaridine-artesunate after treatment of the first episode of malaria versus re-treatment in a substudy analysis. METHODS: This planned substudy analysis of the randomised, open-label West African Network for Clinical Trials of Antimalarial Drugs (WANECAM) phase 3b/4 trial was done at six health facilities in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Guinea in patients (aged ≥6 months and bodyweight ≥5 kg) with uncomplicated microscopically confirmed Plasmodium spp malaria (parasite density <200 000 per µL blood) and fever or history of fever. The primary safety endpoint was incidence of hepatotoxicity: alanine aminotransferase of greater than five times the upper limit of normal (ULN) or Hy's criteria (alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase greater than three times the ULN and total bilirubin more than twice the ULN) after treatment of the first episode of malaria and re-treatment (≥28 days after first treatment) with pyronaridine-artesunate. Pyronaridine-artesunate efficacy was compared with artemether-lumefantrine with the adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) in an intention-to-treat analysis. WANECAM is registered with PACTR.org, number PACTR201105000286876. FINDINGS: Following first treatment, 13 (1%) of 996 patients had hepatotoxicity (including one [<1%] possible Hy's law case) versus two (1%) of 311 patients on re-treatment (neither a Hy's law case). No evidence was found that pyronaridine-artesunate re-treatment increased safety risk based on laboratory values, reported adverse event frequencies, or electrocardiograph findings. For all first treatment or re-treatment episodes, pyronaridine-artesunate (n=673) day 28 crude ACPR was 92·7% (95% CI 91·0-94·3) versus 80·4% (77·8-83·0) for artemether-lumefantrine (n=671). After exclusion of patients with PCR-confirmed new infections, ACPR was similar on treatment and re-treatment and greater than 95% at day 28 and greater than 91% at day 42 in both treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The findings that pyronaridine-artesunate safety and efficacy were similar on first malaria treatment versus re-treatment of subsequent episodes lend support for the wider access to pyronaridine-artesunate as an alternative artemisinin-based combination treatment for malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. FUNDING: European and Developing Countries Clinical Trial Partnership, Medicines for Malaria Venture (Geneva, Switzerland), UK Medical Research Council, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, German Ministry for Education and Research, University Claude Bernard (Lyon, France), Malaria Research and Training Centre (Bamako, Mali), Centre National de Recherche et de Formation sur le Paludisme (Burkina Faso), Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé (Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso), and Centre National de Formation et de Recherche en Santé Rurale (Republic of Guinea).