Grande 2007 PER.

Methods	Trial design: An open‐label RCT Follow‐up: Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, and 63 or any other day they became ill, for a clinical assessment and malaria film. PCV measurement day 0, 7, 14 and 63. P. vivax treated with CQ. Adverse event monitoring: Assessed at each follow‐up visit, an adverse event defined as any unfavourable and unintended sign, symptom or disease temporally associated with the drug administered. Complete blood count, liver, and renal function tests at days 0 and 7.
Participants	Number of participants: 522 Inclusion criteria: Age 5 to 60 yrs, fever > 37.5 °C or history of fever in the previous 24 hrs, P. falciparum mono‐infection 1000 to 200,000/µL. Exclusion criteria: Pregnancy or lactation, severe malaria, any concomitant illness or underlying disease, contraindication to any of the trial drugs, history of treatment with mefloquine in the previous 60 days or chloroquine, primaquine or quinine in previous 14 days.
Interventions	1. DHA‐P, fixed dose combination (Artekin: Holleykin) Total dose: 6.3 mg/kg DHA and 50.4 mg/kg PQP in 3 divided doses, given once daily for 3 days 2. Artesunate plus mefloquine, loose combination (Artesunate: Guilin, Lariam: Hoffman La‐Roche) AS 4 mg/kg once daily for 3 days MQ 8 mg/kg once daily for 3 days All doses were supervised.
Outcomes	Day 63 cure rate PCR‐adjusted and PCR‐unadjusted P. vivax during follow‐up Gametocyte prevalence at day 0, 7, 14, 21, and 28 Gametocyte development during follow‐up Adverse events Not included in this review: Fever clearance Parasite clearance
Notes	Country: Peru Setting: Nine rural health posts Transmission: Low malaria transmission Resistance: High CQ and SP resistance Dates: July 2003 to July 2005 Funding: Directorate‐General for Development and Cooperation of the Belgian Government
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Randomized in blocks of 10". No further details given.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Sealed opaque envelopes were opened only after the final decision to recruit the patient had been made".
Blinding for microscopy outcomes (performance bias and detection bias)	Unclear risk	No comment on blinding of laboratory staff.
Blinding for adverse events (performance and detection bias)	High risk	An open‐label trial.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Similar loss to follow‐up in both groups (8.7% DHA‐P versus 5.9% AS+MQ).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All WHO outcomes reported.
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias identified.