Kinde‐Gazard 2012 BEN.
Methods | Trial design: RCT Follow‐up: Patients were hospitalized for the first three days, and monitored clinically and biochemically. Following discharge patients were seen on Day 7, 14, 21, and 28 with a malaria blood film at each visit. Adverse event monitoring: A symptom questionnaire, biochemistry (U and E, LFT), and haematology were conducted at each visit. |
|
Participants | Number: 174 participants randomized Inclusion criteria: Age 6 months to 15 years, clinical signs of uncomplicated malaria, temp > 37.5°C or history of fever in the last 24 hours, asexual P. falciparum density > 2000/μL, able to take oral medication, informed consent. Exclusion criteria: Signs of severe malaria, known hypersensitivity to study medications, treatment with antimalarials within the past 7 days, positive pregnancy test. In addition the trial authors state that they planned to exclude the following groups from the study: severe toxicity, abnormal biochemical tests, unsatisfactory therapeutic response. However, no participants appear to have been excluded for these reasons. |
|
Interventions | 1. Artemesinin‐naphthoquine 125 mg/50 mg, fixed‐dose combination (Arco, Kunming Pharmaceutical Corporation, China):
2. AL 20 mg/120 mg, fixed‐dose combination (Coartem, Novartis SA, Switzerland):
|
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes | Country: Benin Setting: Hospital Transmission: High Resistance: Chloroquine and SP Dates: July to Oct 2008 and May to Sept 2009 Funding: None stated, however the randomization procedure was done by the manufacturer of artemisinin‐naphthoquine |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | "According to a randomization method". |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | None described. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Described as "single blind", however as the drug regimens differed significantly blinding of patients and personnel is unlikely. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | No blinding described. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No loss to follow‐up reported. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | No evidence of selective reporting. |
Other bias | Unclear risk | Funding is unclear, but the pharmaceutical company appear to be involved. |