↓ Skip to main content

In vivo efficacy and safety of artemether–lumefantrine and amodiaquine–artesunate for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Mozambique, 2018

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, October 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In vivo efficacy and safety of artemether–lumefantrine and amodiaquine–artesunate for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Mozambique, 2018
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12936-021-03922-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abel Nhama, Lídia Nhamússua, Eusébio Macete, Quique Bassat, Crizolgo Salvador, Sónia Enosse, Baltazar Candrinho, Eva Carvalho, Arsénio Nhacolo, Arlindo Chidimatembue, Abuchahama Saifodine, Rose Zulliger, Naomi Lucchi, Samaly S. Svigel, Leah F. Moriarty, Eric S. Halsey, Alfredo Mayor, Pedro Aide

Abstract

Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) has been the recommended first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria in Mozambique since 2006, with artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and amodiaquine-artesunate (AS-AQ) as the first choice. To assess efficacy of currently used ACT, an in vivo therapeutic efficacy study was conducted. The study was conducted in four sentinel sites: Montepuez, Moatize, Mopeia and Massinga. Patients between 6 and 59 months old with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria (2000-200,000 parasites/µl) were enrolled between February and September of 2018, assigned to either an AL or AS-AQ treatment arm, and monitored for 28 days. A Bayesian algorithm was applied to differentiate recrudescence from new infection using genotyping data of seven neutral microsatellites. Uncorrected and PCR-corrected efficacy results at day 28 were calculated. Totals of 368 and 273 patients were enrolled in the AL and AS-AQ arms, respectively. Of these, 9.5% (35/368) and 5.1% (14/273) were lost to follow-up in the AL and AS-AQ arms, respectively. There were 48 and 3 recurrent malaria infections (late clinical and late parasitological failures) in the AL and AS-AQ arms, respectively. The day 28 uncorrected efficacy was 85.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 81.3-89.2%) for AL and 98.8% (95% CI 96.7-99.8%) for AS-AQ, whereas day 28 PCR-corrected efficacy was 97.9% (95% CI 95.6-99.2%) for AL and 99.6% (95% CI 97.9-100%) for AS-AQ. Molecular testing confirmed that 87.4% (42/48) and 33.3% (1/3) of participants with a recurrent malaria infection in the AL and AS-AQ arms were new infections; an expected finding in a high malaria transmission area. Adverse events were documented in less than 2% of participants for both drugs. Both AL and AS-AQ have therapeutic efficacies well above the 90% WHO recommended threshold and remain well-tolerated in Mozambique. Routine monitoring of therapeutic efficacy should continue to ensure the treatments remain efficacious. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04370977.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Unspecified 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 16 59%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 16 59%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2021.
All research outputs
#15,686,478
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,558
of 5,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,020
of 433,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#83
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 433,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.