Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21537019›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2011

Development, evaluation, and application of an in silico model for antimalarial drug treatment and failure.

Katherine Winter, Ian M Hastings

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Antimalarial efficacy of MMV390048, an inhibitor ofScience translational medicine · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Katherine WinterLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L5 3QA, United Kingdom. hastings@liverpool.ac.uk.
Ian M Hastings

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacological mechanism-based modeling was refined and used to develop an in silico model of antimalarial drug treatment validated against clinical and field data. We used this approach to investigate key features of antimalarial drug action and effectiveness, with emphasis on the current generation of artemisinin combination therapies. We made the following conclusions. (i) The development of artemisinin tolerance and resistance will, unless checked, have an immediate, large impact on the protection afforded to its partner drug and on the likely clinical efficacy of artemisinin combination therapies. (ii) Long follow-up periods are required in clinical trials to detect all drug failures; the follow-up periods of 28 days recommended by the World Health Organization are likely to miss at least 50% of drug failures, and we confirmed recent suggestions that 63 days would be a more appropriate follow-up period. (iii) Day 7 serum drug concentrations are a significant risk factor of failure, although, paradoxically, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that their predictive power is relatively poor. (iv) The pharmacokinetic properties of the partner drugs in artemisinin-containing combination therapies are the most important determinants of treatment outcome, particularly the maximum killing rate. We discuss the assumptions made in such modeling approaches and how similar approaches may be refined in future work.

Indexed as

AntimalarialsArtemisininsHumansMalariaModels, TheoreticalAntimalarialsartemisininArtemisinins

Identifiers

PMID21537019
PMCPMC3122393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.