Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22900786›Full record

ReviewMalaria journal2012

Primaquine radical cure of Plasmodium vivax: a critical review of the literature.

George K John, Nicholas M Douglas, Lorenz von Seidlein, Francois Nosten, J Kevin Baird, Nicholas J White, Ric N Price

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Malaria journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
118citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
16.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

118 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 197 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Estimating the Proportion ofThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. The Vivax Surveyor: Online mapping database for Plasmodium vivax clinical trials.International journal for parasitology. Drugs and drug resistance · 2017
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

58 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

George K JohnCentre for Tropical Medicine, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nicholas M Douglas
Lorenz von Seidlein
Francois Nosten
J Kevin Baird
Nicholas J White
Ric N Price
University of Oxford · GBNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBCharles Darwin University · AUMenzies School of Health Research · AU

Funding

Wellcome Trust 089275Wellcome Trust 091625Wellcome Trust 093956
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimaquine has been the only widely available hypnozoitocidal anti-malarial drug for half a century. Despite this its clinical efficacy is poorly characterized resulting in a lack of consensus over the optimal regimen for the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax.

methodsPublished studies since 1950 of the use of primaquine regimens for preventing P. vivax relapse were reviewed. Data were extracted systematically from available papers. Primaquine regimens were categorized according to the total dose administered: very low (≤2.5 mg/kg), low (>2.5 mg/kg- < 5.0 mg/kg) and high (≥ 5.0 mg/kg). The risk of recurrent infection were summarized across geographical regions and the odds ratios between treatment regimens calculated after stratifying by total treatment dose and duration of study follow up.

resultsData could be retrieved from 87 clinical trials presenting data in 59,735 patients enrolled into 156 treatment arms, conducted in 20 countries. There was marked heterogeneity in study design, particularly primaquine dosing and duration of follow up. The median rate of recurrence following very low dose of primaquine (n = 44) was 25% (range 0-90%) at 4-6 months, compared to 6.7 % (range 0-59%) following low dose primaquine (n = 82). High dose primaquine regimens were assessed in 28 treatment arms, and were associated with a median recurrence rate of 0% (Range: 0-15%) at one month. In 18 studies with control arms, the effectiveness of a very low dose primaquine regimen was no different from patients who did not receive primaquine (OR = 0.60, 95%CI 0.33-1.09, p = 0.09), whereas for the low dose regimens a significant difference was reported in 50% (6/12) of studies (overall OR = 0.14, 95%CI: 0.06-0.35, p < 0.001). Two studies enrolling 171 patients demonstrated high effectiveness of high dose primaquine compared to a control arm (OR = 0.03 (95%CI: 0.01-0.13); p < 0.0001).

conclusionsLow dose regimens retain adequate efficacy in some areas, but this is not uniform. The efficacy and safety of pragmatic high dose primaquine regimens needs to be assessed in a range of endemic and geographical locations. Such studies will require a prolonged period of follow up and comparison with control arms to account for confounding factors.

Indexed as

AntimalarialsClinical Trials as TopicDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansMalaria, VivaxPrimaquineTreatment OutcomeAntimalarialsPrimaquine

Identifiers

PMID22900786
PMCPMC3489597
OpenAlexW2161252729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.