ArticleMalaria journal2016
Comparative pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous artelinate versus artesunate in uncomplicated Plasmodium coatneyi-infected rhesus monkey model.
Article in Malaria journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional genomics of simian malaria parasites and host-parasite interactions.Briefings in functional genomics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe US Army designed artelinate/lysine salt (AL) to overcome the instability of sodium artesunate in aqueous solution (AS). To select the most efficacious artemisinin treatment, direct comparison was performed in an uncomplicated non-human primate malaria model.
methodsSplenectomized rhesus monkeys were inoculated with Plasmodium coatneyi and on day six, single equimolar loading dose of IV AL (11.8 mg kg(-1)) or IV AS (8 mg kg(-1)) were administered followed by 1/2 the first dose once daily for 2 more days. Blood smear were performed twice daily and the number of parasites were counted microscopically. Blood samples were obtained after the first dose within 6 h for pharmacokinetic (PK) and ex vivo pharmacodynamic evaluation by simultaneously measuring plasma drug concentration and anti-malarial activity against Plasmodium falciparum in vitro.
resultsThe anti-P. coatneyi in vivo activity of both compounds were comparable, but the ex vivo anti-P. falciparum potency of the IV AS regimen as administered was sevenfold higher than that of IV AL. Comparing in vivo pharmacodynamics of AL and AS, daily assessed parasite counts showed comparable 99 % parasite clearance times (PC99: 2.03, 1.84 day), parasite clearance rates (5.34, 4.13 per min) and clearance half-life (PCt1/2: 7.79, 10.1 h). This study showed strong and significant inverse correlation between PCt1/2 and t1/2 of AS + DHA, and AUC0-∞ of DHA, and correlated with Vz of AS (r(2) > 0.7, p ≤ 0.002). Lastly, following IV AL, there was a modest inverse correlation between PCt1/2 and Cmax (r(2) 0.6, p ≤ 0.04). Although all tested monkeys recrudesced subsequently, two died following AL regimen before parasite clearance. While the aetiology of those deaths could not be definitively determined, pathologic evidence favoured a sepsis-like syndrome and suggested that severe malaria was more likely than drug toxicity.
conclusionThe model demonstrated that both AS and DHA contributed to the anti-malarial activity of IV AS, while IV AL activity was largely restricted to the parent drug. Parasite clearance was strongly and linearly dependent on drug exposure for both artemisinin regimens. However, IV AS had higher ex vivo potency against P. falciparum, leading to an IND filing for GMP manufactured AS in the United States.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.