Implementing malaria control in South Africa, Eswatini and southern Mozambique during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained healthcare delivery systems in a number of southern African countries. Despite this, it is imperative that malaria control and elimination activities continue, especially to reduce as far as possible the number and rate of hospitalisations caused by malaria. The implementation of enhanced malaria control/elimination activities in the context of COVID-19 requires measures to protect healthcare workers and the communities they serve. The aim of this review is therefore to present innovative ideas for the timely implementation of malaria control without increasing the risk of COVID-19 to healthcare workers and communities. Specific recommendations for parasite and vector surveillance, diagnosis, case management, mosquito vector control and community outreach and sensitisation are given.

Maintaining focus on administering effective malaria treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As September marks the start of the malaria season in South Africa (SA), it is essential that healthcare professionals consider both COVID- 19 and malaria when a patient who lives in or has recently travelled to a malaria area presents with acute febrile illness. Early diagnosis of malaria by either a rapid diagnostic test or microscopy enables prompt treatment with the effective antimalarial, artemether-lumefantrine, preventing progression to severe disease and death. Intravenous artesunate is the preferred treatment for severe malaria in both children and adults. Adding single low-dose primaquine to standard treatment is recommended in endemic areas to block onward transmission. Use of the highly effective artemisinin-based therapies should be limited to the treatment of confirmed malaria infections, as there is no clinical evidence that these antimalarials can prevent or treat COVID-19. Routine malaria case management services must be sustained, in spite of COVID-19, to treat malaria effectively and support SA's malaria elimination efforts.

Implementing malaria control in South Africa, Eswatini and southern Mozambique during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 global pandemic reached South Africa (SA), Mozambique and Eswatini in March 2020.[1] Since then an exponential increase in SARS-CoV-2 infections has severely stretched SA's healthcare system, especially in terms of in-hospital treatment of severe cases. The impact of COVID-19 in Mozambique and Eswatini at the time of writing has been comparatively mild, but is increasing. It is therefore imperative to reduce as far as possible the number and rate of hospitalisations caused by trauma and other diseases, including malaria. Malaria incidence in SA is seasonal and peaks in the wetter summer months, especially during January to April.[2] Although malaria incidence in SA is currently low, the risk of outbreaks is always present, with the most recent having occurred in 2017 and, at a more localised level in Limpopo Province, in 2019. The reasons for these latest outbreaks are varied and include unusually high rainfall and cross-border movement of migrant populations, fuelling local transmission. These issues are particularly pertinent to COVID-19 in SA's malaria-affected districts. They highlight the importance of mitigating factors contributing to high malaria incidence and consequent hospitalisations, which may be further exacerbated by COVID-19/malaria coinfections and the re-opening of SA's borders with those neighbouring countries with higher malaria transmission intensities.

Complex interactions between malaria and malnutrition: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial improvement in the control of malaria and decreased prevalence of malnutrition over the past two decades, both conditions remain heavy burdens that cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in children in resource-poor countries every year. Better understanding of the complex interactions between malaria and malnutrition is crucial for optimally targeting interventions where both conditions co-exist. This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence of the interplay between malaria and malnutrition. METHODS: Database searches were conducted in PubMed, Global Health and Cochrane Libraries and articles published in English, French or Spanish between Jan 1980 and Feb 2018 were accessed and screened. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the risk of bias across studies was assessed using the GRADE approach. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline were followed. RESULTS: Of 2945 articles screened from databases, a total of 33 articles were identified looking at the association between malnutrition and risk of malaria and/or the impact of malnutrition in antimalarial treatment efficacy. Large methodological heterogeneity of studies precluded conducting meaningful aggregated data meta-analysis. Divergent results were reported on the effect of malnutrition on malaria risk. While no consistent association between risk of malaria and acute malnutrition was found, chronic malnutrition was relatively consistently associated with severity of malaria such as high-density parasitemia and anaemia. Furthermore, there is little information on the effect of malnutrition on therapeutic responses to artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs) and their pharmacokinetic properties in malnourished children in published literature. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the effect of malnutrition on malaria risk remains inconclusive. Further analyses using individual patient data could provide an important opportunity to better understand the variability observed in publications by standardising both malaria and nutritional metrics. Our findings highlight the need to improve our understanding of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of ACTs in malnourished children. Further clarification on malaria-malnutrition interactions would also serve as a basis for designing future trials and provide an opportunity to optimise antimalarial treatment for this large, vulnerable and neglected population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017056934 .

Pharmacokinetics of Sulfadoxine and Pyrimethamine for Intermittent Preventive Treatment of Malaria During Pregnancy and After Delivery.

Sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine is recommended for intermittent preventative treatment of malaria during pregnancy. Data from 98 women during pregnancy and 77 after delivery in four African countries were analyzed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling to characterize the effects of pregnancy, postpartum duration, and other covariates such as body weight and hematocrit on sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine pharmacokinetic properties. During pregnancy, clearance increased 3-fold for sulfadoxine but decreased by 18% for pyrimethamine. Postpartum sulfadoxine clearance decreased gradually over 13 weeks. This finding, together with hematocrit-based scaling of plasma to whole-blood concentrations and allometric scaling of pharmacokinetics parameters with body weight, enabled site-specific differences in the pharmacokinetic profiles to be reduced significantly but not eliminated. Further research is necessary to explain residual site-specific differences and elucidate whether dose-optimization, to address the 3-fold increase in clearance of sulfadoxine in pregnant women, is necessary, viable, and safe with the current fixed dose combination of sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine.

Building Capability for Clinical Pharmacology Research in Sub-Saharan Africa.

A strong scientific rationale exists for conducting clinical pharmacology studies in target populations because local factors such as genetics, environment, comorbidities, and diet can affect variability in drug responses. However, clinical pharmacology studies are not widely conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, in part due to limitations in technical expertise and infrastructure. Since 2012, a novel public-private partnership model involving research institutions and a pharmaceutical company has been applied to developing increased capability for clinical pharmacology research in multiple African countries.

The interaction between artemether-lumefantrine and lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 infected patients.

BACKGROUND: Artemether-lumefantrine is currently the most widely recommended treatment of uncomplicated malaria. Lopinavir-based antiretroviral therapy is the commonly recommended second-line HIV treatment. Artemether and lumefantrine are metabolised by cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP3A4, which lopinavir/ritonavir inhibits, potentially causing clinically important drug-drug interactions. METHODS: An adaptive, parallel-design safety and pharmacokinetic study was conducted in HIV-infected (malaria-negative) patients: antiretroviral-naïve and those stable on lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretrovirals. Both groups received the recommended six-dose artemether-lumefantrine treatment. The primary outcome was day-7 lumefantrine concentrations, as these correlate with antimalarial efficacy. Adverse events were solicited throughout the study, recording the onset, duration, severity, and relationship to artemether-lumefantrine. RESULTS: We enrolled 34 patients. Median day-7 lumefantrine concentrations were almost 10-fold higher in the lopinavir than the antiretroviral-naïve group [3170 versus 336 ng/mL; p = 0.0001], with AUC(0-inf) and Cmax increased five-fold [2478 versus 445 µg.h/mL; p = 0.0001], and three-fold [28.2 versus 8.8 µg/mL; p < 0.0001], respectively. Lumefantrine Cmax, and AUC(0-inf) increased significantly with mg/kg dose in the lopinavir, but not the antiretroviral-naïve group. While artemether exposure was similar between groups, Cmax and AUC(0-8h) of its active metabolite dihydroartemisinin were initially two-fold higher in the lopinavir group [p = 0.004 and p = 0.0013, respectively]. However, this difference was no longer apparent after the last artemether-lumefantrine dose. Within 21 days of starting artemether-lumefantrine there were similar numbers of treatment emergent adverse events (42 vs. 35) and adverse reactions (12 vs. 15, p = 0.21) in the lopinavir and antiretroviral-naïve groups, respectively. There were no serious adverse events and no difference in electrocardiographic QTcF- and PR-intervals, at the predicted lumefantrine Tmax. CONCLUSION: Despite substantially higher lumefantrine exposure, intensive monitoring in our relatively small study raised no safety concerns in HIV-infected patients stable on lopinavir-based antiretroviral therapy given the recommended artemether-lumefantrine dosage. Increased day-7 lumefantrine concentrations have been shown previously to reduce the risk of malaria treatment failure, but further evidence in adult patients co-infected with malaria and HIV is needed to assess the artemether-lumefantrine risk : benefit profile in this vulnerable population fully. Our antiretroviral-naïve patients confirmed previous findings that lumefantrine absorption is almost saturated at currently recommended doses, but this dose-limited absorption was overcome in the lopinavir group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration number NCT00869700. Registered on clinicaltrials.gov 25 March 2009.

Case management of malaria: treatment and chemoprophylaxis.

Malaria case management is a vital component of programmatic strategies for malaria control and elimination. Malaria case management encompasses prompt and effective treatment to minimise morbidity and mortality, reduce transmission and prevent the emergence and spread of antimalarial drug resistance. Malaria is an acute illness that may progress rapidly to severe disease and death, especially in non-immune populations, if not diagnosed early and promptly treated with effective drugs. In this article, the focus is on malaria case management, addressing treatment, monitoring for parasite drug resistance, and the impact of drug resistance on treatment policies; it concludes with chemoprophylaxis and treatment strategies for malaria elimination in South Africa. 

Re-defining the extent of malaria transmission in South Africa: implications for chemoprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Malaria case numbers reported in South Africa have reduced considerably over the last decade, necessitating a revision of the national risk map to guide malaria prevention, including the use of chemoprophylaxis. OBJECTIVES: To update the national malaria risk map based on recent case data and to consider the implications of the new transmission profile for guiding prophylaxis. METHODS: The geographical distribution of confirmed malaria cases detected both passively and actively over the last six malaria seasons was used to redefine the geographic distribution and intensity of malaria transmission in the country. RESULTS: The national risk map was revised to reflect zones of transmission reduced both in their extent and their intensity. Most notably, the area of risk has been reduced in the north-western parts of Limpopo Province and is limited to the extreme northern reaches of KwaZulu-Natal Province. Areas previously considered to be of high risk are now regarded to be of moderate risk. CONCLUSION: Chemoprophylaxis is now only recommended from September to May in the north-eastern areas of Limpopo and Mpumalanga Provinces. The recommended options for chemoprophylaxis have not changed from mefloquine, doxycycline or atovaquone-proguanil.

Clinical pharmacology becomes a specialty in South Africa.

South Africa recently became the first African country where clinical pharmacology has been approved as a specialty. This article outlines the need for clinical pharmacologists, their role in advancing public health, the potential benefits to the country, and recommendations for ensuring a healthy future for the discipline.

Interaction between artemether-lumefantrine and nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected patients.

Artemether-lumefantrine and nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) are the most commonly recommended first-line treatments for malaria and HIV, respectively, in Africa. Artemether, lumefantrine, and nevirapine are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 3A4 enzyme system, which nevirapine induces, creating potential for important drug interactions. In a parallel-design pharmacokinetic study, concentration-time profiles were obtained in two groups of HIV-infected patients: ART-naïve patients and those stable on nevirapine-based therapy. Both groups received the recommended artemether-lumefantrine dose. Patients were admitted for intense pharmacokinetic sampling (0 to 72 h) with outpatient sampling until 21 days. Concentrations of lumefantrine, artemether, dihydroartemisinin, and nevirapine were determined by validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods. The primary outcome was observed day 7 lumefantrine concentrations, as these are associated with therapeutic response in malaria. We enrolled 36 patients (32 females). Median (range) day 7 lumefantrine concentrations were 622 ng/ml (185 to 2,040 ng/ml) and 336 ng/ml (29 to 934 ng/ml) in the nevirapine and ART-naïve groups, respectively (P = 0.0002). The median artemether area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 8 h [AUC((0-8 h))] (P < 0.0001) and dihydroartemisinin AUC((60-68 h)) (P = 0.01) were lower in the nevirapine group. Combined artemether and dihydroartemisinin exposure decreased over time only in the nevirapine group (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.65 to 0.90]; P < 0.0001) and increased with the weight-adjusted artemether dose (GMR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.31 to 3.45]; P = 0.002). Adverse events were similar between groups, with no difference in electrocardiographic Fridericia corrected QT and P-R intervals at the expected time of maximum lumefantrine concentration (T(max)). Nevirapine-based ART decreased artemether and dihydroartemisinin AUCs but unexpectedly increased lumefantrine exposure. The mechanism of the lumefantrine interaction remains to be elucidated. Studies investigating the interaction of nevirapine and artemether-lumefantrine in HIV-infected patients with malaria are urgently needed.

Pharmacokinetics of sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine in intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy.

Malaria during pregnancy is associated with maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. In order to minimize the burden, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is widely used in Africa as an intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy (IPTp). However, only limited data are available on the pharmacokinetics of sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine during pregnancy. We conducted a prospective, self-matched, multicenter study of 98 pregnant women in four African countries in order to determine the effects of pregnancy on SP pharmacokinetics. After adjusting for the effects of potential confounders, blood concentrations (associated with therapeutic efficacy) of pyrimethamine were higher (geometric mean ratio (GMR) 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.51; P < 0.001) and those of sulfadoxine were lower (GMR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84-0.98; P = 0.013) on day 7 after SP administration during pregnancy than after the postpartum period. SP pharmacokinetic parameters differed significantly among the study sites. Given the inconsistency of changes in pharmacokinetic parameters between sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine as well as among the study sites, it is not possible to recommend any dose adjustment to prolong the therapeutic life span of the fixed dose combination of SP for IPTp on the basis of our study findings.

Should medical students learn to develop a personal formulary? An international, multicentre, randomised controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to determine whether students who are trained in developing a personal formulary become more competent in rational prescribing than students who have only learned to use existing formularies. METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomised, controlled study conducted in eight universities in India, Indonesia, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain and Yemen. Five hundred and eighty-three medical students were randomised into three groups: the personal formulary group (PF; 94), the existing formulary group (EF; 98) and the control group (C; 191). The PF group was taught how to develop and use a personal formulary, whereas e the EF group was taught how to review and use an existing formulary. The C group received no additional training and participated only in the tests. Student's prescribing skills were measured by scoring their treatment plans for written patient cases. RESULTS: The mean PF group score increased by 23% compared with 19% for the EF group (p < 0.05) and 6% for controls (p < 0.05). The positive effect of PF training was only significant in universities that had a mainly classic curriculum. CONCLUSION: Training in development and use of a personal formulary was particularly effective in universities with a classic curriculum and with traditional pharmacology teaching. In universities with a general problem-based curriculum, pharmacotherapy teaching can be based on either existing or personal formularies.

Malaria deaths as sentinel events to monitor healthcare delivery and antimalarial drug safety.

OBJECTIVES: To identify case management, health system and antimalarial drug factors contributing to malaria deaths. METHOD: We investigated malaria-related deaths in South Africa's three malaria endemic provinces from January 2002 to July 2004. Data from healthcare facility records and a semi-structured interview with patients' contacts were reviewed by an expert panel, which sought to reach consensus on factors contributing to the death. This included possible health system failures, adverse reactions to antimalarials, inappropriate medicine use and failing to respond to treatment. RESULTS: Approximately 177 of 197 cases met inclusion criteria for the study. Delay in seeking formal health care was significantly longer for patients who sought traditional health care [median 4; inter-quartile range (IQR) 3-7 days] than for patients who did not (median 3; IQR 1-5 days; P = 0.033). Patients with confirmed or suspected HIV/AIDS were significantly more likely to use traditional approaches (25%) than those with other comorbidities (0%; P = 0.002). Malaria was neither suspected nor tested for at a primary care facility in 23% of cases with adequate records. Initial hospital assessment was considered inadequate in 74% of cases admitted to hospital and in-patient monitoring and management was adequate in only 27%. There were 32 suspected adverse reactions to antimalarial therapy. CONCLUSION: A confidential enquiry into malaria-related deaths is a useful tool for identifying preventable factors, health system failures and adverse events affecting malaria case management.

Efficacy of rectal artesunate compared with parenteral quinine in initial treatment of moderately severe malaria in African children and adults: a randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with malaria of increasing severity cannot take medicines orally, and delay in injectable treatment can be fatal. We aimed to assess the reliability of absorption, antimalarial efficacy, and tolerability of a single rectal dose of artesunate in the initial management of moderately severe falciparum malaria. METHODS: 109 children and 35 adults were randomly assigned to rectal artesunate (single dose of about 10 mg/kg) or parenteral quinine treatment (10 mg/kg at 0, 4, and 12 h). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with peripheral asexual parasitaemia of less than 60% of that at baseline after 12 h. Secondary endpoints were clinical response and concentrations of drug in plasma. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. FINDINGS: All artesunate-treated patients had pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic evidence of adequate drug absorption. 80 (92%) of 87 artesunate-treated children had a 12 h parasite density lower than 60% of baseline, compared with three of 22 (14%) receiving quinine (relative risk 0.09 [95% CI 0.04-0.19]; p<0.0001). In adults, parasitaemia at 12 h was lower than 60% of baseline in 26 (96%) of 27 receiving artesunate, compared with three (38%) of eight receiving quinine (relative risk 0.06 [0.01-0.44]; p=0.0009). These differences were greater at 24 h. Clinical response was equivalent with rectal artesunate and parenteral quinine. INTERPRETATION: A single rectal dose of artesunate is associated with rapid reduction in parasite density in adults and children with moderately severe malaria, within the initial 24 h of treatment. This option is useful for initiation of treatment in patients unable to take oral medication, particularly where parenteral treatment is unavailable.

An economic comparison of chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine as first-line treatment for malaria in South Africa: development of a model for estimating recurrent direct costs.

The relative cost-effectiveness of chloroquine (CQ) and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) as first-line antimalarial therapy in southern Africa is of great interest to policymakers, clinicians and researchers in the subregion. A model was developed to access the cost-effectiveness of replacing CQ with SP as first-line treatment in Mpumalanga, South Africa, where malaria is seasonal and the population is non-immune. In-vivo drug resistance levels were used to derive a 'resistance variable' for each drug, which was used to compare the costs to the public healthcare provider associated with either therapeutic option. Costs including drugs, staff time, transport, maintenance, utilities, training and consumables were determined and subjected to Monte Carlo simulation and subsequent analysis to generate an average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) with confidence intervals for each drug. SP was found to be 4.8 (95% CI 3.3-6.7) times more cost-effective than CQ in Mpumalanga at 1997 resistance levels and costs, despite the far greater cost per treatment course of SP (US$ 4.02 as opposed to US$ 0.22 for CQ) in South Africa. At the price of SP in Kenya and Uganda (US$ 0.47-4.80 per treatment course), the ACER for SP does not change materially, increasing to between 5.1 and 5.6. Resistance emerged as the factor that most influenced the ACER of a specific drug. Indirect costs, compliance, changes in effectiveness and costs over time and costs of adverse events were not included in the model owing to paucity of data and logistical difficulties. Since most of these are likely to be similar in both drug models, the relative ACER is unlikely to be significantly altered by their inclusion.