↓ Skip to main content

A multi-center, open-label trial to compare the efficacy and pharmacokinetics of Artemether-Lumefantrine in children with severe acute malnutrition versus children without severe acute malnutrition…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
A multi-center, open-label trial to compare the efficacy and pharmacokinetics of Artemether-Lumefantrine in children with severe acute malnutrition versus children without severe acute malnutrition: study protocol for the MAL-NUT study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0963-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lise Denoeud-Ndam, Alassane Dicko, Elisabeth Baudin, Ousmane Guindo, Francesco Grandesso, Issaka Sagara, Estrella Lasry, Pedro Pablo Palma, Angeles M. Lima Parra, Kasia Stepniewska, Abdoulaye A. Djimde, Karen I. Barnes, Ogobara K. Doumbo, Jean-François Etard

Abstract

Malnutrition and malaria frequently coexist in sub-Saharan African countries. Studies on efficacy of antimalarial treatments usually follow the WHO standardized protocol in which severely malnourished children are systematically excluded. Few studies have assessed the efficacy of chloroquine, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and quinine in severe acute malnourished children. Overall, efficacy of these treatments appeared to be reduced, attributed to lower immunity and for some antimalarials altered pharmacokinetic profiles and lower drug concentrations. However, similar research on the efficacy and pharmacokinetic profiles of artemisinin-combination therapies (ACTs) and especially artemether-lumefantrine in malnourished children is currently lacking. The main objective of this study is to assess whether artemether-lumefantrine is less efficacious in children suffering from severe acute malnutrition (SAM) compared to non-SAM children, and if so, to what extent this can be attributed to a sub-optimal pharmacokinetic profile. In two sites, Ouelessebougou, Mali and Maradi, Niger, children with uncomplicated microscopically-confirmed P. falciparum malaria aged between 6 and 59 months will be enrolled. Two non-SAM children will be enrolled after the enrolment of each SAM case. Children with severe manifestations of malaria or complications of acute malnutrition needing intensive treatment will be excluded. Treatment intakes will be supervised and children will be followed-up for 42 days, according to WHO guidance for surveillance of antimalarial drug efficacy. Polymerase Chain Reaction genotyping will be used to distinguish recrudescence from re-infection. SAM children will also benefit from the national nutritional rehabilitation program. Outcomes will be compared between the SAM and non-SAM populations. The primary outcome will be adequate clinical and parasitological response at day 28 after PCR correction, estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. To assess the pharmacokinetic profile of lumefantrine, a sparse sampling approach will be used with randomized allocation of sampling times (5 per child). A total of 180 SAM children and 360 non-SAM children will be recruited during the 2013 and 2014 malaria seasons. This study will provide important information that is currently lacking on the effect of SAM on therapeutic efficacy and pharmacokinetic profile of artemether-lumefantrine. If it shows lower therapeutic efficacy and decreased lumefantrine concentrations, it would inform dose optimization studies in SAM children. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01958905.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 98 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 12%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 24 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 29 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,472,265
of 24,077,033 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,082
of 8,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,734
of 268,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#35
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,077,033 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 268,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.