Evidence Hub

Assessment of the relative advantage of various artesunate-based combination therapies by a multi-treatment Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis

Jansen FH, Lesaffre E, Penali LK, Zattera MJ, Die-Kakou H, Bissagnene E

The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2007

Abstract

Over the years, multiple articles on Artemisinin-based Combination Therapies (ACTs) were published, highlighting the relative advantages or drawbacks of these combinations. Many studies were comparative. Because none of the studies compare all combinations and methodology varies between studies, there is no homogeneity. A multi-treatment Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was designed to assess the relative effect of each combination therapy to artesunate + sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (4 mg/kg/day for 3 days). By far the most attractive result for the variable adequate clinical and parasitological response at day 28 PCR corrected is given by the combination artemether-lumefantrine. Annual follow-up on the data published is intended to reveal the changes in the relative drug efficacy values of ACTs.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free