Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31307982›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2019

Improving Methods for Analyzing Antimalarial Drug Efficacy Trials: Molecular Correction Based on Length-Polymorphic Markers

S Jones, K Kay, E M Hodel, S Chy, A Mbituyumuremyi, A Uwimana, D Menard, I Felger, I Hastings

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Genotyping and CharacterizingTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Genetic surveillance for monitoring the impact of drug use on Plasmodium falciparum populations.International journal for parasitology. Drugs and drug resistance · 2021
    Review
  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

9 authors.

S JonesDepartment of Tropical Disease Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom sam.jones@lstmed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5084-527X
K KayMetrum Research Group, Tariffville, Connecticut, USA.
E M HodelMolecular & Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
S ChyInstitut Pasteur in Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
A MbituyumuremyiRwanda Biomedical Center, Gasabo, Kigali, Rwanda.
A UwimanaRwanda Biomedical Center, Gasabo, Kigali, Rwanda.
D MenardMalaria Genetics and Resistance Group, Biology of Host-Parasite Interactions Unit, Department of Parasites and Insect Vectors, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1357-4495
I FelgerDepartment of Medical Parasitology and Infection Biology, Molecular Diagnostics Unit, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
I HastingsDepartment of Tropical Disease Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council G1100522Medical Research Council MR/L022508/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug efficacy trials monitor the continued efficacy of front-line drugs against falciparum malaria. Overestimating efficacy results in a country retaining a failing drug as first-line treatment with associated increases in morbidity and mortality, while underestimating drug effectiveness leads to removal of an effective treatment with substantial practical and economic implications. Trials are challenging: they require long durations of follow-up to detect drug failures, and patients are frequently reinfected during that period. Molecular correction based on parasite genotypes distinguishes reinfections from drug failures to ensure the accuracy of failure rate estimates. Several molecular correction "algorithms" have been proposed, but which is most accurate and/or robust remains unknown. We used pharmacological modeling to simulate parasite dynamics and genetic signals that occur in patients enrolled in malaria drug clinical trials. We compared estimates of treatment failure obtained from a selection of proposed molecular correction algorithms against the known "true" failure rate in the model. Our findings are as follows. (i) Molecular correction is essential to avoid substantial overestimates of drug failure rates. (ii) The current WHO-recommended algorithm consistently underestimates the true failure rate. (iii) Newly proposed algorithms produce more accurate failure rate estimates; the most accurate algorithm depends on the choice of drug, trial follow-up length, and transmission intensity. (iv) Long durations of patient follow-up may be counterproductive; large numbers of new infections accumulate and may be misclassified, overestimating drug failure rate. (v) Our model was highly consistent with existing

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAlgorithmsAntigens, ProtozoanAntimalarialsArtemisininsBiomarkersClinical Trials as TopicGene ExpressionHumansLumefantrineMalaria, FalciparumMefloquineMerozoite Surface Protein 1Parasitic Sensitivity TestsPiperazinesPlasmodium falciparumAntigens, ProtozoanAntimalarialsartemisininArtemisininsBiomarkersglutamate-rich protein, PlasmodiumLumefantrineMefloquineMerozoite Surface Protein 1merozoite surface protein 2, PlasmodiumpiperaquinePiperazinesProtozoan ProteinsQuinolinesACTartemisinindrug efficacydrug failurelumefantrinemalariamefloquinemodelingmolecular correctionpiperaquine

Identifiers

PMID31307982
PMCPMC6709465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.