↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of artemether-lumefantrine and chloroquine with and without primaquine for the treatment of Plasmodium vivax infection in Ethiopia: A randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of artemether-lumefantrine and chloroquine with and without primaquine for the treatment of Plasmodium vivax infection in Ethiopia: A randomized controlled trial
Published in
PLOS Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002299
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tesfay Abreha, Jimee Hwang, Kamala Thriemer, Yehualashet Tadesse, Samuel Girma, Zenebe Melaku, Ashenafi Assef, Moges Kassa, Mark D. Chatfield, Keren Z. Landman, Stella M. Chenet, Naomi W. Lucchi, Venkatachalam Udhayakumar, Zhiyong Zhou, Ya Ping Shi, S. Patrick Kachur, Daddi Jima, Amha Kebede, Hiwot Solomon, Addis Mekasha, Bereket Hailegiorgis Alemayehu, Joseph L. Malone, Gunewardena Dissanayake, Hiwot Teka, Sarah Auburn, Lorenz von Seidlein, Ric N. Price

Abstract

Recent efforts in malaria control have resulted in great gains in reducing the burden of Plasmodium falciparum, but P. vivax has been more refractory. Its ability to form dormant liver stages confounds control and elimination efforts. To compare the efficacy and safety of primaquine regimens for radical cure, we undertook a randomized controlled trial in Ethiopia. Patients with normal glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase status with symptomatic P. vivax mono-infection were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either chloroquine (CQ) or artemether-lumefantrine (AL), alone or in combination with 14 d of semi-supervised primaquine (PQ) (3.5 mg/kg total). A total of 398 patients (n = 104 in the CQ arm, n = 100 in the AL arm, n = 102 in the CQ+PQ arm, and n = 92 in the AL+PQ arm) were followed for 1 y, and recurrent episodes were treated with the same treatment allocated at enrolment. The primary endpoints were the risk of P. vivax recurrence at day 28 and at day 42. The risk of recurrent P. vivax infection at day 28 was 4.0% (95% CI 1.5%-10.4%) after CQ treatment and 0% (95% CI 0%-4.0%) after CQ+PQ. The corresponding risks were 12.0% (95% CI 6.8%-20.6%) following AL alone and 2.3% (95% CI 0.6%-9.0%) following AL+PQ. On day 42, the risk was 18.7% (95% CI 12.2%-28.0%) after CQ, 1.2% (95% CI 0.2%-8.0%) after CQ+PQ, 29.9% (95% CI 21.6%-40.5%) after AL, and 5.9% (95% CI 2.4%-13.5%) after AL+PQ (overall p < 0.001). In those not prescribed PQ, the risk of recurrence by day 42 appeared greater following AL treatment than CQ treatment (HR = 1.8 [95% CI 1.0-3.2]; p = 0.059). At the end of follow-up, the incidence rate of P. vivax was 2.2 episodes/person-year for patients treated with CQ compared to 0.4 for patients treated with CQ+PQ (rate ratio: 5.1 [95% CI 2.9-9.1]; p < 0.001) and 2.3 episodes/person-year for AL compared to 0.5 for AL+PQ (rate ratio: 6.4 [95% CI 3.6-11.3]; p < 0.001). There was no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between treatment arms. The main limitations of the study were the early termination of the trial and the omission of haemoglobin measurement after day 42, resulting in an inability to estimate the cumulative risk of anaemia. Despite evidence of CQ-resistant P. vivax, the risk of recurrence in this study was greater following treatment with AL unless it was combined with a supervised course of PQ. PQ combined with either CQ or AL was well tolerated and reduced recurrence of vivax malaria by 5-fold at 1 y. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01680406.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Lecturer 7 6%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 36 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 40 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,688,987
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#2,191
of 5,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,026
of 325,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#35
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.