METHODS: We carried out a systematic search in 11 electronic databases to identify in vivo studies published between 2001 and 2017 that reported artemisinin resistance. This was then followed by A network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of different ACTs. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool for randomized controlled trials and National Institute of Health (NIH) tool for cross-sectional studies. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42018087574.
RESULTS: With 8400 studies initially identified, 82 were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Artemisinin resistance was only reported in South East Asia. K13 mutation C580Y was the most abundant mutation associated with resistance having an abundance of 63.1% among all K13 mutations reported. Although the overall network meta-analysis had shown good performance of dihydroartemisinin piperaquine in the early years, a subgroup analysis of the recent years revealed a poor performance of the drug in relation to recrudescence, clinical failure and parasitological failure especially in the artemisinin resistant regions.
CONCLUSION: With report of high resistance and treatment failure against the leading artemisinin combination therapy in South East Asia, it is imperative that a new drug or a formulation is developed before further spread of resistance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center, single-dose, open-label, randomized, 2-treatment, 2-sequence and 2- period crossover study with a washout period of 7 days. All 28 adult male subjects were required to fast for at least 10 hours prior to drug administration and they were given access to water ad libitum during this period. Thirty minutes prior to dosing, all subjects were served with a standardized high-fat and high-calorie breakfast with a total calorie of 1000 kcal which was in accordance to the EMA Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. Subsequently, subjects were administered either the test or reference preparation with 240mL of plain water in the first trial period. During the second trial period, they received the alternate preparation. Plasma levels of glibenclamide and metformin were analysed separately using two different high performance liquid chromatography methods.
RESULTS: The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax of the test preparation over those of the reference preparation were 0.9693-1.0739, 0.9598- 1.0561 and 0.9220 - 1.0642 respectively. Throughout the study period, no serious drug reaction was observed. However, a total of 26 adverse events (AE)/side effects were reported, including 24 that were definitely related to the study drugs, namely giddiness (n=17), while diarrheoa (n=3), headache (n=2) and excessive hunger (n=2) were less commonly reported by the subjects.
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the test preparation is bioequivalent to the reference preparation.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with a new histological diagnosis of LAPC were recruited over 20 months. Baseline CT and 18FDG PET-CT were performed and repeated after 12 weeks to assess response to treatment. Following 2 cycles of conventional chemotherapy, patients underwent EUS-guided 32P OncoSil implantation followed by a further six cycles of chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Twelve patients with LAPC (8M:4F; median age 69 years, IQR 61.5-73.3) completed the treatment. Technical success was 100% and no procedural complications were reported. At 12 weeks, there was a median reduction of 8.2cm3 (95% CI 4.95-10.85; p=0.003) in tumour volume, with minimal or no 18FDG uptake in 9 (75%) patients. Tumour downstaging was achieved in 6 (50%) patients, leading to successful resection in 5 (42%) patients, of which 4 patients (80%) had clear (R0) resection margins.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS guided 32P OncoSil implantation is feasible and well tolerated and was associated with a 42% rate of surgical resection in our cohort. However, further evaluation in a larger randomized multicenter trial is warranted. (32P funded by OncoSil Medical Ltd, equipment and staff funded by the Royal Adelaide Hospital, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03003078).