LSTM Home > LSTM Research > LSTM Online Archive

Pyronaridine‐artesunate for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria

Tools

Pryce, Joseph, Taylor, Melissa, Fox, Tilly and Hine, Paul (2022) 'Pyronaridine‐artesunate for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria'. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol 6, CD006404.

Preview

Text
CD006404_Pryce_et_al-2022-Cochrane_Database_of_Systematic_Reviews-2.pdf - Published Version
Download (913kB) | Preview

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006404.pub4

Abstract

Background
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin‐based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Concerns about artemisinin resistance have led to global initiatives to develop new partner drugs to protect artemisinin derivatives in ACT. Pyronaridine‐artesunate is a novel ACT.

Objectives
To evaluate the efficacy of pyronaridine‐artesunate compared to alternative ACTs for treating people with uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, and to evaluate the safety of pyronaridine‐artesunate and other pyronaridine treatments compared to alternative treatments.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISRCTN registry for ongoing or recently completed trials. The date of the last search was 27 October 2021.

Selection criteria
For the efficacy analysis, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pyronaridine‐artesunate for treating uncomplicated P falciparum malaria. For the safety analysis, we included RCTs that used pyronaridine alone or in combination with any other antimalarials. In addition to these analyses, we conducted a separate systematic review summarizing data on safety from non‐randomized studies (NRS) of any patient receiving pyronaridine (NRS safety review).

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently extracted all data and assessed the certainty of the evidence. We meta‐analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons.

Main results
We included 10 relevant RCTs. Seven RCTs were co‐funded by Shin Poong Pharmaceuticals, and three were funded by government agencies.

Efficacy analysis (RCTs)

For the efficacy analysis, we identified five RCTs comprising 5711 participants. This included 4465 participants from 13 sites in Africa, and 1246 participants from five sites in Asia. The analysis included 541 children aged less than five years. Overall, pyronaridine‐artesunate had a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5%. We evaluated pyronaridine‐artesunate versus the following.

• Artemether‐lumefantrine. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR‐adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.31; 4 RCTs, 3068 participants, low‐certainty evidence); for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 4 RCTs, 3149 participants, low‐certainty evidence); and for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, 3080 participants, low‐certainty evidence). For PCR‐adjusted failures at day 42, there may be little or no difference between groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 2575 participants, low‐certainty evidence).

• Artesunate‐amodiaquine. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR‐adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.77; 1 RCT, 1245 participants, low‐certainty evidence); probably performs better for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; 1 RCT, 1257 participants, moderate‐certainty evidence); may make little or no difference for PCR‐adjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 1091 participants, low‐certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.23; 1 RCT, 1235 participants, moderate‐certainty evidence).

• Mefloquine plus artesunate. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR‐adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 1117 participants, low‐certainty evidence); probably performs better for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.78; 1 RCT, 1120 participants, moderate‐certainty evidence); may make little or no difference for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 1059 participants, low‐certainty evidence); but may lead to higher PCR‐adjusted failures at day 42 (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.57; 1 RCT, 1037 participants, low‐certainty evidence).

Safety analysis (RCTs)

For the RCT safety analysis, we identified eight RCTs, one of which was delineated by study site, comparing pyronaridine‐artesunate to other antimalarials. Pyronaridine‐artesunate was associated with raised liver enzymes compared to other antimalarials: alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (RR 3.59, 95% CI 1.76 to 7.33; 8 RCTS, 6669 participants, high‐certainty evidence) and aspartate transaminase (AST) (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.41; 8 RCTs, 6669 participants, moderate‐certainty evidence). No such effect was demonstrated with bilirubin (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.18; 7 RCTs, 6384 participants, moderate‐certainty evidence). There was one reported case in which raised ALT occurred with raised bilirubin. No study reported severe drug‐induced liver injury. Electrocardiograph (ECG) abnormalities were less common with pyronaridine‐artesunate compared to other antimalarials. We identified no other safety concerns.

NRS safety review

A review on safety in NRS allowed us to increase the population within which safety was assessed. We included seven studies with 9546 participants: five single‐arm observational studies, one cohort event monitoring study, and one dose‐escalation study. All studies provided data on adverse event frequency, with a small number of participants experiencing serious adverse events and adverse effects related to pyronaridine: serious adverse events average 0.37%; drug‐related 9.0%. In two studies reporting elevations in liver enzymes, small percentages of participants (2.4% and 14.1% respectively) experienced increases in either ALT, AST, or bilirubin on day 7; however, these were small increases that returned to normal by day 42.

Authors' conclusions
Pyronaridine‐artesunate was efficacious against uncomplicated P falciparum malaria; achieved a PCR‐adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5% at days 28 and 42; and may be at least as good as, or better than, other marketed ACTs.

Pyronaridine‐artesunate increases the risk of episodes of abnormally raised ALT. The observational data did not signal an excess of clinically important adverse effects.

Item Type:

Article

Subjects:

WA Public Health > Preventive Medicine > WA 240 Disinfection. Disinfestation. Pesticides (including diseases caused by)
WA Public Health > Health Administration and Organization > WA 530 International health administration
WC Communicable Diseases > Tropical and Parasitic Diseases > WC 750 Malaria
WC Communicable Diseases > Tropical and Parasitic Diseases > WC 765 Prevention and control

Repository link: