Not necessarily.<p>Current prevalence of resistance to artemisinin is mostly due to what happened shortly after the drugs discovery. That is, wide-spread single-mode-of-action use. This was due to uncontrolled over-the-counter use in South East Asia, which in recent years has been curtailed.<p>While this still happens, the WHO has gotten much much better at making sure combined therapies are used, which is the essential bit to controlling resistance.<p>The only tool we have to combating biological resistance (in any organism) are combined therapies. Doing so hijacks the mathematics of natural selection to make it almost impossible to evolve resistance (given high enough stacks of modes-of-action and complete treatment courses).<p>As the graph in the article shows, artemisinin resistance is still mostly contained to where it originally evolved (cambodia). Given careful management, we can expect slow spread, if any at all.<p>Fighting malaria isn&#x27;t a one-punch win. It is a marathon, but one that we are very slowly winning. The disease is trending downwards and we are finally making in-roads into the most endemic regions. This slow reduction in the disease burden worldwide makes resistance harder and harder for the parasite to evolve.<p>Drug resistance is deadly serious, but I&#x27;m not as pessimistic as this article. Given proper tracking of resistance, and management, we&#x27;ll easily have several more decades of artemisinin use.