Abstract
Background The current antiparasitic treatment for chronic Chagas disease of 8 weeks daily benznidazole or nifurtimox is poorly tolerated and reaches only a small minority of those with chronic infections. Defining parasitological cure is compromised by the low blood trypomastigote densities, which fluctuate close to or below the limit of qPCR detection.
Methods To address this limitation and improve the assessment of parasitological cure we developed a probabilistic model of therapeutic efficacy based on serial qPCR data. We pooled clinical and laboratory data from two prospective trials in Bolivian adults with chronic indeterminate Chagas disease. In both trials randomised arms included placebo or standard of care benznida-zole (300mg/day for 8 weeks). In the first trial, the experimental arms were fosravuconazole monotherapies (400mg/week for 4 or 8 weeks, or 200mg/week for 8 weeks); in the second trial the experimental arms were shorter or lower dose benznidazole regimens (300mg/day for 2 or 4, or 150mg/day for 4 weeks), or combinations of fosravuconazole 300mg weekly for 8 weeks with either benznidazole 150mg/day for 4 weeks or benznidazole 300mg/week for 8 weeks. Serial parasite densities were estimated from triplicate qPCRs targeting T. cruzi satellite DNA taken from one to three 5 or 10ml blood samples at 8-12 visits over one year. Treatment efficacies were estimated under a hierarchical Bayesian model, taking as input serial cycle threshold (Ct) data grouped by time point, blood draw and technical replicate. The primary analysis was done in a per-protocol population defined as patients randomised to placebo or patients who took an active treatment >80% of the allocated treatment duration.
Results The two trials randomised 441 patients. 34,804 qPCR Ct values were recorded over 5,402 unique visits, comprising 449 participant years follow-up. In a per-protocol population (n=424), an estimated 81% (95% Credible Interval [CrI] 70 to 89%, n=69) had parasitological cure following benznidazole 300mg/day for 8 weeks. All other benznidazole regimens had similar estimated cure proportions (95% CrIs >63%) except the 2-week regimen (63% cured [95%CrI 43-81%], n=27, probability of inferiority relative 8-week: 0.95). Recurrent parasitaemias following benznidazole were at substantially lower densities than at baseline. In comparison, only 3.9% of patients allocated to placebo were cured (95%CrI 1 to 9%, n=77). Fosravuconazole was relatively ineffective: 23% cured following 400mg for 8 weeks (95%CrI, 10 to 40%, n=45); 9% following 400mg for 4 weeks (95%CrI 3 to 21%, n=46); and 2% following 200mg for 8 weeks (95%CrI 0 to 11%, n=48). Recurrent parasitaemias one year after fosravuconazole treatment were only slightly lower than at baseline. Fosravuconazole caused dose-dependent increases in liver transaminases.
Conclusions Therapeutic assessments in Chagas disease must account probabilistically for qPCR test performance and low density post treatment parasitaemias. In Bolivian chronic Chagas disease, weekly dosing for eight weeks or daily dosing over four weeks both appear as effective as the current eight weeks daily regimen. The total dose of benznidazole in the current standard of care regimen is excessive.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research is funded by the Wellcome Trust grant Optimising pharmacometric assessment in phase 2 studies of Chagas disease (222754/Z/21/Z) awarded to JAW, CC, SSE, PJG, and NJW. JAW is a Sir Henry Dale Fellow funded by the Wellcome Trust (223253/Z/21/Z). NJW is a Principal Research Fellow funded by the Wellcome Trust (093956/Z/10/C).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The curated and standardised data was pseudonymised individual participant data with no identifying variables, so approval was not required for the current analysis, as per the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee requirements. The re-analysis was consistent with the primary intended purpose of the data collection so local ethics approval was not required. The research proposal was reviewed and approved by the DNDi Scientific Advisory Committee. Both studies were implemented in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki after approval by the ethical committees of the participating institutions (Universidad Mayor San Simon, CEADES, Hospital Clinic Barcelona, and ISGlobal). Both trials were pre-registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01489228 and NCT03378661.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data can be requested from the IDDO data sharing platform https://www.iddo.org/chagas/data-sharing/accessing-data.
