BACKGROUND: Despite increasing evidence of the development of Plasmodium vivax chloroquine (CQ) resistance, there have been no trials comparing its efficacy with that of artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) in Latin America. METHODS: (ASAQ) versus CQ for treatment of uncomplicated P. vivax infection in Manaus, Brazil. Patients were followed for 42 days. Primary endpoints were adequate clinical and parasitological responses (ACPR) rates at day 28. Genotype-adjustment was performed. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2013, 380 patients were enrolled. In the per-protocol (PP) analysis, adjusted-ACPR was achieved in 100% (165/165) and 93.6% (161/172) of patients in the ASAQ and CQ arm (difference 6.4%, 95% CI 2.7%; 10.1%) at day 28 and in 97.4% (151/155) and 77.7% (129/166), respectively (difference 19.7%, 95% CI 12.9%; 26.5%), at day 42. Apart from ITT D28 assessment, superiority of ASAQ on ACPR was demonstrated. ASAQ presented faster clearance of parasitaemia and fever. Based on CQ blood level measurements, CQ resistance prevalence was estimated at 11.5% (95% CI: 7.5-17.3) up to day 42. At least one emergent adverse event (AE) was recorded for 79/190 (41x6%) in the ASAQ group and for 85/190 (44x7%) in the CQ group. Both treatments had similar safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS: ASAQ exhibited high efficacy against CQ resistant P. vivax and is an adequate alternative in the study area. Studies with an efficacious comparator, longer follow-up and genotype-adjustment can improve CQR characterization. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01378286.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siqueira et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: