Pyronaridine-artesunate granules versus artemether-lumefantrine crushed tablets in children with Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Children are most vulnerable to malaria. A pyronaridine-artesunate pediatric granule formulation is being developed for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. METHODS: This phase III, multi-center, comparative, open-label, parallel-group, controlled clinical trial included patients aged ≤12 years, bodyweight ≥5 to <25 kg, with a reported history of fever at inclusion or in the previous 24 h and microscopically-confirmed uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria. Patients were randomized (2:1) to pyronaridine-artesunate granules (60/20 mg) once daily or artemether-lumefantrine crushed tablets (20/120 mg) twice daily, both dosed by bodyweight, orally (liquid suspension) for three days. RESULTS: Of 535 patients randomized, 355 received pyronaridine-artesunate and 180 received artemether-lumefantrine. Day-28 adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR), corrected for re-infection using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) genotyping (per-protocol population) was 97.1% (329/339; 95% CI 94.6, 98.6) for pyronaridine-artesunate; 98.8% (165/167; 95% CI 95.7, 99.9) for artemether-lumefantrine. The primary endpoint was achieved: pyronaridine-artesunate PCR-corrected day-28 ACPR was statistically significantly >90% (P < .0001). Pyronaridine-artesunate was non-inferior to artemether-lumefantrine: treatment difference -1.8% (95% CI -4.3 to 1.6). The incidence of drug-related adverse events was 37.2% (132/355) with pyronaridine-artesunate, 44.4% (80/180) with artemether-lumefantrine. Clinical biochemistry results showed similar mean changes versus baseline in the two treatment groups. From day 3 until study completion, one patient in each treatment group had peak alanine aminotransferase (ALT) >3 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) and peak total bilirubin >2xULN (i.e. within the Hy's law definition). CONCLUSIONS: The pyronaridine-artesunate pediatric granule formulation was efficacious and was non-inferior to artemether-lumefantrine. The adverse event profile was similar for the two comparators. Pyronaridine-artesunate should be considered for inclusion in paediatric malaria treatment programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: identifier NCT00541385.

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose oral combination of pyronaridine-artesunate compared with artemether-lumefantrine in children and adults with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for new artemisinin-based combination therapies that are convenient, effective, and safe. We compared the efficacy and safety of pyronaridine-artesunate with that of artemether-lumefantrine for treatment of uncomplicated P falciparum malaria. METHODS: This phase 3, parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial was undertaken in seven sites in Africa and three sites in southeast Asia. In a double-dummy design, patients aged 3-60 years with uncomplicated P falciparum malaria were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive pyronaridine-artesunate once a day or artemether-lumefantrine twice a day, orally for 3 days, plus respective placebo. Randomisation was done by computer-generated randomisation sequence in blocks of nine by study centre. Intervention tablets contained 180 mg pyronaridine and 60 mg artesunate; control tablets contained 20 mg artemether and 120 mg lumefantrine. Both treatments were given according to bodyweight. The primary efficacy outcome was PCR-corrected adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) rate at day 28 in the per-protocol population. Non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between groups was greater than -5%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00422084. FINDINGS: 1272 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (pyronaridine-artesunate, n=849; artemether-lumefantrine, n=423). The per-protocol population consisted of 784 patients in the pyronaridine-artesunate group and 386 patients in the artemether-lumefantrine group. PCR-corrected ACPR rate at day 28 was 99.5% (780 patients; 95% CI 98.7-99.9) in the pyronaridine-artesunate group and 99.2% (383 patients; 95% CI 97.7-99.8) in the artemether-lumefantrine group (treatment difference 0.3%, 95% CI -0.7 to 1.8; p=0.578). There were 509 (60.0%) adverse events in 849 patients assigned to pyronaridine-artesunate and 241 (57.0%) in 423 patients assigned to artemether-lumefantrine. The most frequent drug-related adverse event was eosinophilia (pyronaridine-artesunate, 53 events [6.2%]; artemether-lumefantrine 24 events [5.7%]). 21 (2.5%) patients in the pyronaridine-artesunate group and seven (1.7%) in the artemether-lumefantrine group discontinued study drugs or were withdrawn from the study. Mild and transient increases in alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase concentrations were seen in the pyronaridine-artesunate group but not in the artemether-lumefantrine group. INTERPRETATION: Efficacy of pyronaridine-artesunate was non-inferior to that of artemether-lumefantrine for treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria. Pyronaridine-artesunate should be considered for inclusion in malaria treatment programmes. FUNDING: Shin Poong Pharmaceutical and the Medicines for Malaria Venture.

Reasons for ineligibility in phase 1 and 2A HIV vaccine clinical trials at Kenya AIDS vaccine initiative (KAVI), Kenya.

BACKGROUND: With the persistent challenges towards controlling the HIV epidemic, there is an ongoing need for research into HIV vaccines and drugs. Sub-Saharan African countries--worst affected by the HIV pandemic--have participated in the conduct of clinical trials for HIV vaccines. In Kenya, the Kenya AIDS Vaccine Initiative (KAVI) at the University of Nairobi has conducted HIV vaccine clinical trials since 2001. METHODOLOGY: Participants were recruited after an extensive informed consent process followed by screening to determine eligibility. Screening included an assessment of risk behavior, medical history and physical examination, and if clinically healthy, laboratory testing. In the absence of locally derived laboratory reference ranges, the ranges used in these trials were derived from populations in the West. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Two hundred eighty-one participants were screened between 2003 and 2006 for two clinical trials. Of these, 167 (59.4%) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Overall, laboratory abnormalities based on the non-indigenous laboratory references used were the most frequent reasons (61.4%) for ineligibility. Medical abnormalities contributed 30.7% of the total reasons for ineligibility. Based on the laboratory reference intervals now developed from East and Southern Africa, those ineligible due to laboratory abnormalities would have been 46.3%. Of the eligible participants, 18.6% declined enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Participant recruitment for HIV vaccine clinical trials is a rigorous and time-consuming exercise. Over 61% of the screening exclusions in clinically healthy people were due to laboratory abnormalities. It is essential that laboratory reference ranges generated from local populations for laboratory values be used in the conduct of clinical trials to avoid unnecessary exclusion of willing participants and to avoid over-reporting of adverse events for enrolled participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol IAVI VRC V001 [1]. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00124007 Protocol IAVI 010 [2](registration with ClincalTrials.gov is in progress) Protocols IAVI 002 and IAVI 004 are Phase 1 trials only mentioned in introductory paragraphs; details will not be reported. Registration was not required when they were conducted.

Safety and immunogenicity of recombinant low-dosage HIV-1 A vaccine candidates vectored by plasmid pTHr DNA or modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) in humans in East Africa.

The safety and immunogenicity of plasmid pTHr DNA, modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) vaccine candidates were evaluated in four Phase I clinical trials in Kenya and Uganda. Both vaccines, expressing HIV-1 subtype A gag p24/p17 and a string of CD8 T-cell epitopes (HIVA), were generally safe and well-tolerated. At the dosage levels and intervals tested, the percentage of vaccine recipients with HIV-1-specific cell-mediated immune responses, assessed by a validated ex vivo interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) ELISPOT assay and Cytokine Flow Cytometry (CFC), did not significantly differ from placebo recipients. These trials demonstrated the feasibility of conducting high-quality Phase 1 trials in Africa.