Cargando…

How radical is radical cure? Site-specific biases in clinical trials underestimate the effect of radical cure on Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites

BACKGROUND: Plasmodium vivax blood-stage relapses originating from re-activating hypnozoites are a major barrier for control and elimination of this disease. Radical cure is a form of therapy capable of addressing this problem. Recent clinical trials of radical cure have yielded efficacy estimates r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huber, John H., Koepfli, Cristian, España, Guido, Nekkab, Narimane, White, Michael T., Alex Perkins, T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8686294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34930278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-021-04017-1
_version_ 1784617987091726336
author Huber, John H.
Koepfli, Cristian
España, Guido
Nekkab, Narimane
White, Michael T.
Alex Perkins, T.
author_facet Huber, John H.
Koepfli, Cristian
España, Guido
Nekkab, Narimane
White, Michael T.
Alex Perkins, T.
author_sort Huber, John H.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Plasmodium vivax blood-stage relapses originating from re-activating hypnozoites are a major barrier for control and elimination of this disease. Radical cure is a form of therapy capable of addressing this problem. Recent clinical trials of radical cure have yielded efficacy estimates ranging from 65 to 94%, with substantial variation across trial sites. METHODS: An analysis of simulated trial data using a transmission model was performed to demonstrate that variation in efficacy estimates across trial sites can arise from differences in the conditions under which trials are conducted. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that differences in transmission intensity, heterogeneous exposure and relapse rate can yield efficacy estimates ranging as widely as 12–78%, despite simulating trial data under the uniform assumption that treatment had a 75% chance of clearing hypnozoites. A longer duration of prophylaxis leads to a greater measured efficacy, particularly at higher transmission intensities, making the comparison between the protection of different radical cure treatment regimens against relapse more challenging. Simulations show that vector control and parasite genotyping offer two potential means to yield more standardized efficacy estimates that better reflect prevention of relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Site-specific biases are likely to contribute to variation in efficacy estimates both within and across clinical trials. Future clinical trials can reduce site-specific biases by conducting trials in low-transmission settings where re-infections from mosquito bite are less common, by preventing re-infections using vector control measures, or by identifying and excluding likely re-infections that occur during follow-up, by using parasite genotyping methods. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-021-04017-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8686294
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86862942021-12-20 How radical is radical cure? Site-specific biases in clinical trials underestimate the effect of radical cure on Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites Huber, John H. Koepfli, Cristian España, Guido Nekkab, Narimane White, Michael T. Alex Perkins, T. Malar J Research BACKGROUND: Plasmodium vivax blood-stage relapses originating from re-activating hypnozoites are a major barrier for control and elimination of this disease. Radical cure is a form of therapy capable of addressing this problem. Recent clinical trials of radical cure have yielded efficacy estimates ranging from 65 to 94%, with substantial variation across trial sites. METHODS: An analysis of simulated trial data using a transmission model was performed to demonstrate that variation in efficacy estimates across trial sites can arise from differences in the conditions under which trials are conducted. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that differences in transmission intensity, heterogeneous exposure and relapse rate can yield efficacy estimates ranging as widely as 12–78%, despite simulating trial data under the uniform assumption that treatment had a 75% chance of clearing hypnozoites. A longer duration of prophylaxis leads to a greater measured efficacy, particularly at higher transmission intensities, making the comparison between the protection of different radical cure treatment regimens against relapse more challenging. Simulations show that vector control and parasite genotyping offer two potential means to yield more standardized efficacy estimates that better reflect prevention of relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Site-specific biases are likely to contribute to variation in efficacy estimates both within and across clinical trials. Future clinical trials can reduce site-specific biases by conducting trials in low-transmission settings where re-infections from mosquito bite are less common, by preventing re-infections using vector control measures, or by identifying and excluding likely re-infections that occur during follow-up, by using parasite genotyping methods. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-021-04017-1. BioMed Central 2021-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8686294/ /pubmed/34930278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-021-04017-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Huber, John H.
Koepfli, Cristian
España, Guido
Nekkab, Narimane
White, Michael T.
Alex Perkins, T.
How radical is radical cure? Site-specific biases in clinical trials underestimate the effect of radical cure on Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites
title How radical is radical cure? Site-specific biases in clinical trials underestimate the effect of radical cure on Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites
title_full How radical is radical cure? Site-specific biases in clinical trials underestimate the effect of radical cure on Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites
title_fullStr How radical is radical cure? Site-specific biases in clinical trials underestimate the effect of radical cure on Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites
title_full_unstemmed How radical is radical cure? Site-specific biases in clinical trials underestimate the effect of radical cure on Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites
title_short How radical is radical cure? Site-specific biases in clinical trials underestimate the effect of radical cure on Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites
title_sort how radical is radical cure? site-specific biases in clinical trials underestimate the effect of radical cure on plasmodium vivax hypnozoites
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8686294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34930278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-021-04017-1
work_keys_str_mv AT huberjohnh howradicalisradicalcuresitespecificbiasesinclinicaltrialsunderestimatetheeffectofradicalcureonplasmodiumvivaxhypnozoites
AT koepflicristian howradicalisradicalcuresitespecificbiasesinclinicaltrialsunderestimatetheeffectofradicalcureonplasmodiumvivaxhypnozoites
AT espanaguido howradicalisradicalcuresitespecificbiasesinclinicaltrialsunderestimatetheeffectofradicalcureonplasmodiumvivaxhypnozoites
AT nekkabnarimane howradicalisradicalcuresitespecificbiasesinclinicaltrialsunderestimatetheeffectofradicalcureonplasmodiumvivaxhypnozoites
AT whitemichaelt howradicalisradicalcuresitespecificbiasesinclinicaltrialsunderestimatetheeffectofradicalcureonplasmodiumvivaxhypnozoites
AT alexperkinst howradicalisradicalcuresitespecificbiasesinclinicaltrialsunderestimatetheeffectofradicalcureonplasmodiumvivaxhypnozoites