Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Jan 12;18(1):e0277362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277362

Therapeutic efficacy of Chloroquine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium vivax infection in Shewa Robit, Northeast Ethiopia

Habtamu Belay 1,*, Megbaru Alemu 2,#, Tadesse Hailu 2, Hussein Mohammed 3,#, Heven Sime 3, Henok Hailegeorgies 3, Bokretsion Gidey 3, Mebrahtom Haile 4, Gudissa Assefa 4, Worku Bekele 5, Mihreteab Alebachew Reta 6, Andargachew Almaw Tamene 7, Geremew Tasew 3,#, Ashenafi Assefa 3,8
Editor: José Luiz Fernandes Vieira9
PMCID: PMC9836259  PMID: 36634046

Abstract

Background

The development of drug resistance to chloroquine is posing a challenge in the prevention and control efforts of malaria globally. Chloroquine is the first-line treatment for uncomplicated P.vivax in Ethiopia. Regular monitoring of anti-malarial drugs is recommended to help early detection of drug-resistant strains of malaria parasites before widely distributed. The emergence of P.vivax resistance to chloroquine in the country endangers the efficacy of P.vivax treatment. This study aimed to assess the therapeutic efficacy of chloroquine among uncomplicated P.vivax infections at Shewa Robit Health Center, northeast Ethiopia.

Methods

One-arm in vivo prospective chloroquine efficacy study was conducted from November 2020 to March 2021. Ninety participants aged between 16 months to 60 years confirmed with P.vivax mono-infection microscopically were selected and treated with a 25 mg/kg standard dose of chloroquine over three days. Thick and thin blood smears were prepared and examined. Clinical examination was performed over 28 follow-up days. Hemoglobin concentration level was measured on days 0, 14, and 28.

Result

Of the 90 enrolled participants, 86 (96%) completed their 28 days follow-up period. The overall cure rate of the drug was 98.8% (95% CI: 95.3–100%). All asexual stages and gametocytes were cleared within 48 hours with rapid clearance of fever. Hemoglobin concentration had significantly recovered between days 0 and 14, 0 and 28, and 14 and 28 days (P = 0.032, P<0.001, and P = 0.005), respectively. Fast resolution of clinical signs and symptoms was also observed. Severe adverse events were not recorded.

Conclusion

The present study revealed that chloroquine remains an efficacious and safe drug in the study setting for treating uncomplicated P.vivax in the study area. Large-scale continuous surveillance is needed to monitor the development of resistance in due time.

Background

Malaria is still a major cause of death and severe illness in many areas of the world. There were an estimated 241 million reported cases and 627 000; malaria-related deaths in 2020. Africa takes the biggest portion of cases and deaths of any continent (∼ 96%) [1]. Plasmodium vivax (P.vivax) is the most prevalent human malaria parasite found in many parts of the tropical and subtropical regions of the world. About 4.5 million cases of P.vivax malaria were reported worldwide in 2020 [1]. The highest burden of P. vivax infection was reported throughout the countries in Southeast Asia and South America [2]. In sub-Saharan countries, the number of P. vivax cases was found sparsely distributed and becoming gradually increased [3].

In Ethiopia, two-thirds of the population (~53.5million people) lives in areas at risk of malaria infection and 26% of malaria cases were caused by P.vivax [4]. Gradual and heterogeneous increase in P. vivax cases has been observed in the past several years [5].

Chloroquine (CQ) is the first-line treatment for P. vivax mono-infection in Ethiopia [6]. However, after long-term extensive use, widespread resistance to CQ has been reported in many parts of the world including Ethiopia [7,8]. The first treatment failure due to chloroquine resistance (CQR) was documented in 1989 in Papua New Guinea [9].

In Ethiopia, the first report of CQ resistance was reported in Debre Zeit (4.6%) and consequently there were reports of failure in different parts of the country [10,11]; on the other hand, the majority of study results revealed that CQ is still sustained as an efficacious drug for P.vivax infection in the country [12,13]. Thus, a continuous monitoring and surveillance system is needed to monitor the therapeutic efficacy of CQ and to trace the development of CQR in due time. This study aimed to deliver updated information about the status of therapeutic efficacy of CQ for the treatment of uncomplicated P.vivax in Shewa Robit Health Center, northeast Ethiopia.

Methods

Study period, site, and population

This study was conducted between November 2020 to March 2021 at Shawa Robit Health Centre, located in Shawa Robit town administration, North Shawa Zone, Amhara Regional State, northeast Ethiopia. Shawa Robit is located at 1280 meters above sea level with; a longitude and a latitude of 10°00′N 39°54′E, 225 km northeast of Addis Ababa. According to the Shewa Robit health office data, the total catchment population of Shewa Robit health center in 2021 was estimated at around 60,234. The area receives high rainfall during the main rainy seasons (June to September) and the annual rainfall is about 1000 mm. The area is characterized by markedly unstable seasonal malaria. Malaria is one of the top ten diseases in the town and is reported throughout the year [14]. The study participants were recruited from all malaria-suspected individuals attending the outpatient department of the study health center. Patients confirmed with uncomplicated P.vivax mono-infection who fulfilled the WHO inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study [15].

Inclusion criteria

Patients aged ≥ 6 months, mono-infected with P.vivax confirmed by microscopic blood smear with asexual parasitemia > 250/μl of blood, body weight > 5 kg, non-pregnant or breastfeeding women, patients living within the health center catchment area (10km radius of the health center), axillary temperature ≥ 37.5 °C or who have a history of fever within the previous 48 hours, informed consent by the patient or by caregivers for children under 12 years old, agreed to return for all scheduled visits, and willing to comply with the study protocol were enrolled to the study [15].

Exclusion criteria

Patients infected with other than P.vivax malaria species, presence of febrile condition other than malaria or known underlining chronic or severe disease, presence of severe malnutrition defined by WHO, known hypersensitivity to the study drug, hemoglobin level who have < 5.0mg/dl, unable to take oral CQ medication or having continuous vomiting, patients who took antimalarial drugs within 2 weeks before enrolment and who had regular medication that may interfere with the study drug pharmacokinetics were excluded from the study [15].

Study design and sample size

World Health Organization (WHO) 2009 guideline, methods for the surveillance of antimalarial drug efficacy was used as a reference standard [15]. A one-arm in vivo prospective study was designed. Sample size was determined by using the single population proportion formula and assuming a 5% margin of error, 95% confidence interval (CI), treatment failure of 5%, and an additional 20% loss to follow-up rate and withdrawal of consent [15]. Accordingly, 90 study participants were enrolled in the study.

Baseline evaluation and data collection

Base-line physical and clinical examinations with particular attention to any danger signs or symptoms associated with severe malaria were thoroughly assessed by a clinician. Febrile patients were treated with an appropriate dose of paracetamol. Socio-demographic information from the study participants was collected and recorded on a standardized CQ efficacy case screening form [15] by well-trained clinicians and senior laboratory technologists using questionnaires. A Patient who meets the selection criteria at this stage was assigned a patient identification number and referred to the laboratory again for further laboratory investigation and sample collection.

Treatment, dosing, and follow up

Enrolled patients were treated with the standard Chloroquine phosphate 250 mg coated tablet, (Manufacturer Rimedica Ltd Aharnon Str, Limassol Industrial Estate, 3056 Limassol, Cyprus, EU, batch number 80368 and expiry date 02/2024) weight-based (a 25 mg/kg) standard dose of chloroquine over three days; 10mg base/kg on Days 0 and 1, and 5mg base/kg on Day 2 was administered under direct observation of qualified clinicians. Drug dosage was determined according to the national malaria treatment guideline of Ethiopia [6].

The study patients were observed for 30 minutes after drug administration for vomiting. Any patient who vomited during the observation period was re-treated with the same dose and observed for an additional 30 min. If the patient vomits again, he or she was withdrawn and offered rescue therapy [15]. The follow-up consisted of a fixed schedule of check-up visits for a 28-day follow-up period using a standardized drug efficacy record form, on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28. Primaquine 0.25 mg base per kg daily for 14 days was administered for radical cure after the study period as per the national malaria treatment guideline [6].

Clinical evaluations

A standard physical examination, body weight, axillary temperature, and clinical conditions were examined and recorded on days 0 and days 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21and 28 days follow-up period.

Laboratory procedures

Microscopic blood film examination

Duplicate thick and thin blood films were prepared from the capillary blood of each study participant and examined for species identification and parasite density on day zero to confirm adherence to the inclusion criteria and at each follow-up day. A fresh 10% Giemsa stain was prepared at least once a day. Thick and thin blood films were stained with 10% Giemsa for 10 minutes and examined by two well-trained qualified microscopists. Parasite densities were calculated by averaging the two counts. If there was discordant, re-examined by a third independent microscopist, and parasite density was calculated by averaging the two closest counts. Parasitemia was calculated by counting the number of asexual parasites against 200 white blood cells (WBCs) and then multiplying by an assumed average white blood cell density (8000 per μl) as listed below [14].

Parasitedensityperμl=numberofparasitescount×8000Numberofleukocytescounted

Hemoglobin examination

Determination of hemoglobin concentration was done by Hemo Cue HB 301+ analyzer (Hemo Cue, Angelholm, Sweden) from peripheral blood collected via finger pricking using sterile disposable lancets on the day, 0, 14, and 28. The photometric determination of hemoglobin was performed by the entry of a drop of blood to the optical window of the micro cuvette placed into the cuvette holder and absorbance was measured spectrophotometrically at 540 nm. Classification of anemia was based on hemoglobin cut-off values set by the WHO (Hgb 7–9.9 g/dl for <5, and 8–10.9 g/dl moderate anemic for 5–15, and >15 of age respectively. Hgb 10–10.9 g/dl, 11–11.9g/dl and 11–12.9g/dl mild anaemic for <5, 5–15 and non-pregnant women and adult male respectively, and Hgb >11g/dl for <5, >11.5g/dl for 5–15 and non-pregnant women and >13g/dl for adult male respectively classified as non anemic) [15].

Study endpoint

The study end-point is assigned to a patient based on the WHO definition of treatment outcome; valid study end-points include treatment failure during the study period early treatment failure (ETF) danger sign or severe malaria on day 1, 2, or 3 in the presence of parasitemia; parasitemia on day 2 higher than on day 0, irrespective of axillary temperature; parasitemia on day 3 with axillary temperature ≥37.5 °C and parasitemia on day 3 ≥ 25% of count on day 0. patients having danger signs or symptoms, severe malaria in the presence of parasitemia on any day between days 4 and 28 in patients who did not previously meet any of the criteria of early treatment failure; the presence of parasitemia on any day between days 4 and 28 with axillary temperature ≥37.5 °C in patients who did not meet any of the criteria of early treatment failure were classified under late clinical failure (LCF). Presence of parasitemia on any day between day 7 and 28 and axillary temperature ≤ 37.5 °C in patients who did not previously meet any of the criteria of early treatment failure or let clinical failure were categorized under late parasitological failure (LPF). Those patients who completed the follow-up period without treatment failure were classified under adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) and patients who failed to return to the study visit were assigned to lost to follow-up (LFU) [15].

Safety and quality

Safety and adverse events were assessed by recording the nature and incidence of any events following treatment. Adverse events are defined as unfavorable intended sign symptoms not presented at baseline but occurring during follow-up or manifested at baseline and increased in intensity during follow-up or worsen with the use of CQ. A severe adverse effect is defined by WHO as, any untoward medical occurrence that any dose results in death, life-threatening, and requires hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization [15]. Based on the stated criteria adverse events were classified and reported to Ethiopian Public Health Institute as required. The data was collected accordingly to the protocol. Standard operating procedures are implemented in each laboratory activity. Quality of the reagent and equipment was maintained as per the standard operating procedures.

Statistical analysis

All data were double entered into the WHO Excel sheet which is designed for analysis of therapeutic efficacy study data. Data was also entered into Statistical Package for Social Science version 21 (SPSS 21.0) software. One-Way ANOVA and independent sample t-tests were used to compare baseline temperature and parasitemia between age groups, and paired sample t-test was used to compare mean Hgb levels between D0 and D14, D0 and D28, D14 and D28. The risk of therapeutic failure and cure rates were estimated using per-protocol and K-M survival (censored) analysis methods. All comparisons were performed at 95% CI and a significance level of 0.05.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethical Clearance Committee of Bahir Dar University Institutional Review Board, Ethiopia (P162/2021), and Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI) (P294/2020). Permission letter was obtained from Amhara Public Health Institute (APHI) before the study commenced. Additional permission was obtained from Shewa Robit Health Centre. Written informed consent was obtained from adult patients while for children assent was obtained from their parents or guardians.

Results

Characteristics of study participants

A total of 2090 malaria suspected patients were screened, females accounted for 54.1%. About 8% (167/2090) of the participants were found to be slide positive for malaria, of which 147 (88%) of the cases were attributed to P. vivax. Ninety (61%) of the P. vivax mono-infection cases that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were recruited. The majority of the study participants 83 (92.2%) were urban residents.

Among the 90 enrolled participants, males took the highest number yielding a male-to-female ratio of about 2 (58/32). The median age of the study participants was 18 years, ranging from 1.4–60 years, and under-five children accounted for 11.1%. About 50 (55.6%) of the participants had access to a bed net, with a proper bed net utilization rate of 56%. Among 78 (86.8%) of the participants who had a previous history of malaria attack, three-quarters took chloroquine and the remaining 11 (12.2%) were treated with Arthemeter Lumefantrine. Of the enrolled participants, four participants couldn’t complete the 28-day follow-up and were therefore excluded (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Flow chart of study participants’ recruitment and follow-up at Shewa Robit Health Centre, Northeast Ethiopia from November 2020 to March 2021.

Fig 1

About 91.1% were febrile at the time of enrolment and the remaining had a history of fever in the previous 48 hrs. The mean baseline body temperature (±) SD was 38.8±1°C (males 38.8±0.9 °C, females 39±1.2 °C) with no significant difference (P = 0.427). The highest mean body temperature was recorded for under-five children (39.3±0.1 °C). Headache, vomiting, and nausea were the major clinical signs/symptoms reported on the first day (D0). Headache was the most common symptom 69 (80.2%). The average weight and height were 41.1kg and 145.7cm, respectively.

The baseline mean parasitemia was 5368 (geometric mean) with significant variation among age groups (p = 0.001). Overall gametocyte carriage at baseline was 87/90 (96.7%). The baseline means hemoglobin level of the study participants was 13 g/dl, with 11.5, 11.9, and 13.8 g/dl for <5, 5–15, and >15 age groups, respectively. The prevalence of anemia was 26.7% (18.9% mild and 7.8% moderately anemic) (Table 1).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study participant with chloroquine treatment in Shewa Robit Health Centre, Northeast Ethiopia from November 2020 to March 2021.

Variables Sex Residence Total
Male Female Urban Rural
No (%) 58 (64.4) 32 (35.6) 83 (92.2) 7 (7.8) 90 (100)
Mean Temp (°C) 38.8 39 38.8 39.4 38.8
Mean Hgb(g/dl) 13.4 12.4 13 14 13
Anemia status Mild n(%) 8 (13.8) 9 (28.1) 15 (18.1) 2(28.6) 17(18.9)
Moderate n(%) 4 (6.9) 3 (9.4) 7 (8.4) 0 (0) 7 (7.8)
Total n(%) 12 (20.7) 12 (37.5) 22 (26.5) 2 (28.6) 24 (26.7)
Mean (Geo) Para/μl 5097 5895 5261 6810 5368
Gametocyte carriage n (%) 56 (96.6) 31(96.9) 80 (96.4) 7 (100) 87 (96.7)
<10000 parasitemia n (%) 45 (77.6) 22 (68.8) 62 (74.7) 5 (71.4) 67 (74.4)
>10000 parasitemia n (%) 13 (22.4) 10 (31.2) 21 (25.3) 2 (28.6) 23 (25.6)

Geo = Geometric, Hgb = Haemoglobin, Para = Parasitaemia, Temp = Temperature.

Parasite density showed relatively decreasing numbers with age. Baseline parasite load was higher in children compared to adults (day of admission) (r = -0.340, r2 = 0.115, significant at P = 0.001) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Relation between age and parasite counted at baseline of study participants in Shewa Robit Health Centre, northeast Ethiopia from November 2020 to March 2021.

Fig 2

The cure rate of chloroquine

The overall cure rate of chloroquine was 98.8% (95% CI: 95.3–100%). On the 28th day of follow-up, one patient was identified to be infected by P.vivax and classified as late clinical failure (LCF) 1.2% (95%CI: 0.0–4.7%) (PCR not corrected) (Table 2).

Table 2. Per protocol treatment outcome chloroquine at day 28, Shewa Robit Health Center, northeast Ethiopia from November 2020 to March 2021.

Outcome <5 5–15 >15 Sex Total 95%CI
Male Female
ETF n (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
LCF n (%) 1 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3.2) 1(1.2) 0.00–4.7%
LPF n (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
ACPR n (%) 9 (90) 25 (100) 51 (100) 55 (100) 30 (96.8) 85 (98.8) 95.3–100%
Total analyzed n (%) 10 (100) 25 (100) 51(100) 55 (100) 31(100) 86 (100)

The K-M survival analysis over the 28-day follow-up period showed a cumulative success rate of 98.8% (95% CI: 95.3–100%) (Table 3, Fig 3).

Table 3. Chloroquine treatment outcome of study participants based on K-M analysis in Shewa Robit Health Center, northeast Ethiopia from November 2020 to March 2021.

Follow up days At-Risk Censored Failure Survived K-M survival rate K-M Failure rate
0 90 1 0 90 1 0
1 89 1 0 89 1 0
2 88 1 0 88 1 0
3 87 0 0 87 1 0
7 87 0 0 87 1 0
14 87 1 0 87 1 0
21 86 0 0 86 1 0
28 86 0 1 85 0.988372 0.011628

Fig 3. Kaplan-Meier survival curve of the study outcome in Shewa Robit Health Center, northeast Ethiopia from November 2020 to March 2021.

Fig 3

Parasite clearance

All asexual stages and gametocytes were cleared within 48 hrs (day 2 of the follow-up period). A 1.5 years old age female child had a late clinical failure with a parasitemia of 1760/μl of blood on day 28. However, the parasitemia level of the patient with treatment failure on the 28th day of infection (1760/μl) was lower than the day of admission (4560/μl), giving a parasite reduction ratio (PRR) of 2.6/μl (Fig 4).

Fig 4. A pattern of parasite and gametocyte clearance following chloroquine treatment in Shewa Robit Health Centre, northeast Ethiopia from November 2020 to March 2021.

Fig 4

Fever clearance

Of the 86 participants that completed the study 79 (91.9%) patients had a body temperature of 37°C or above and the rest had a history of fever in the last 48hrs. However, 57 (66.3%) participants cleared fever on days 1, 74 (86%), and 78 (90.7%) on days 2 and 3 respectively. Nearly all participants cleared their fever on day 7 (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Mean axillary temperature on days zero to 28 among chloroquine treated P. vivax infected participants in Shewa Robit Health Center, northeast Ethiopia from November 2020 to March 2021.

Fig 5

Hemoglobin determination

Significant recovery of hemoglobin occurred on follow-up days. On the day of recruitment (day 0), about 19.8% and 8.1% of the participants were mildly and moderately anemic, respectively. Of 24 mild and moderate anemic patients, only 12.5% had no previous history of malaria and fully recovered on day 28. The remaining 87.5% of anemic patients had a history of repeated malaria infection and 81% of them recovered; the rest 19% of patients couldn’t show improvement in hemoglobin level even on day 28. The number of anemic patients decreased from day zero before CQ treatment 24 (27.9%) to 14 (16.3%) and 4 (4.7%) on days 14 and 28 respectively following CQ therapy (Table 4).

Table 4. Anemia status among study participants following chloroquine treatment in Shewa Robit Health Center, northeast Ethiopia from November 2020 to March 2021.

Variables Follow up days
Age group Day 0 Day14 Day 28
<5 (n = 10) Mean Hgb level 11.5 11.8 12.4
Mild n (%) 2 (20) 2 (20) 0 (0)
Moderate n (%) 1 (10) 1 (10) 2 (20)
5–15 (n = 25) Mean Hgb level 11.9 12.6 13.1
Mild n (%) 6 (24) 1 (4) 0 (0)
Moderate n (%) 3 (12) 2(8) 0 (0)
>15 (n = 51) Mean Hgb level 13.8 13.9 14.3
Mild n (%) 9 (17.6) 7 (13.7) 1 (2)
Moderate n (%) 3 (5.9) 1 (2) 1 (2)
Sex Male (n = 55) Mean Hgb level 13.3 13.6 14
Mild n (%) 8 (14.5) 7 (12.7) 1 (1.8)
Moderate n (%) 4 (7.3) 1 (1.8) 1 (1.8)
Female (n = 31) Mean Hgb level 12.3 12.8 13
Mild n (%) 9 (29) 3 (10) 0 (0)
Moderate n (%) 3 (10) 3 (10) 2 (6.5)
Total Mean Hgb (g/dl) 13 13.3 13.7
Mild n (%) 17 (19.8) 10 (11.6) 1 (1.2)
Moderate n (%) 7 (8.1) 4 (4.7) 3 (3.5)
All anemic n (%) 24 (27.9) 14 (16.3) 4 (4.7)
Mean difference Day 0 and 14 Day 0 and 28 Day14 and 28
P = 0.032 P<0.001 P = 0.005

Adverse events following treatment

One 19-year-old male patient developed hypersensitive to the drug and exhibited recurrent vomiting, fatigue, and weakness 4 hrs after taking CQ, and was therefore excluded from the study and treated with the second-line drug accordingly to the national malaria diagnosis and treatment protocol. At baseline fever, headache, and vomiting were the most encountered signs/symptoms, accounting for 80.2%, and 36%, respectively. Adverse events observed following chloroquine treatment were mouth ulcers (11.6%) and blurred vision (2.3%). The number of patients with abdominal pain and cough also showed an increment from the baseline (1.2% vs 9.3% & 2.3% vs 11.6%, respectively). However, all clinical symptoms and adverse events declined on day 7 and thereafter (Table 5).

Table 5. Common malaria clinical signs and symptoms and adverse events following Chloroquine treatment in Shewa Robit Health Centre, northeast Ethiopia from November 2020 to March 2021.

Adverse events/clinical symptoms Follow up days
Day 0 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28
Headache n (%) 69 (80.2) 41 (47.7) 20 (23.3) 9 (10.5) 4 (4.7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Anorexia n (%) 8 (9.3) 6 (7) 6 (7) 3 (3.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Nausea n (%) 19 (22.1) 5 (5.8) 4 (4.7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Vomiting n (%) 31 (36) 15 (17.4) 3 (3.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Abdominal pain n (%) 1 (1.2) 2 (2.3) 5 (5.8) 1 (1.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Diarrhoea n (%) 3 (3.5) 0 (0) 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Cough n (%) 2 (2.3) 3 (3.5) 4 (4.7) 3 (3.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Behavioral change n (%) 6 (7) 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Dizziness n (%) 2 (2.3) 1 (1.2) 2 (2.3) 3 (3.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Mouth ulcer n (%) 0 (0) 2 (2.3) 3 (3.5) 4 (4.5) 1(10.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Blurred vision n (%) 0(0) 0 (0) 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Discussion

Antimalarial drug resistance has been a major concern in malaria prevention, control, and management. In Ethiopia, CQ has been extensively used as a first-line drug for the treatment of uncomplicated P.vivax. However, some recent data showed that CQ resistance has been reported in different parts of the country [10,16], and elsewhere [17].

The current study showed high therapeutic efficacy of chloroquine at 28 days of follow-up 98.8% (95% CI: 95.3%-100%). It is consistent with findings from different parts of Ethiopia; Hossana, 96.7% [11], Metekel, 97.3% [18], Jimma, 97.3% [12], Wolkite, 97.5% [19] and elsewhere 99.5% [20].

Contrary to the current finding, higher treatment failure of CQ was reported on different follow-up days in different parts of Ethiopia including from the current study site 6.6% (7 years ago) [21], Halaba district, 13%, [16] Debrezeit and Nazareth towns, 7.5% [22], Southern Ethiopia, 9.4% [8], and elsewhere Madagascar 5.1% [23]. Relapse, malabsorption of drug, reinfection and other patient/drug-related factors could be contributing factors to treatment failure of P.vivax [24]. Complementary laboratory tests such as the measurement of CQ and Desethylchloroquine (DCQ) concentration levels in the blood and genotyping would be helpful to distinguish between reinfection and recrudescence.

Treatment failure was observed at day 28, 1.2% (95% CI: 0.0%-4.7%) in a 1.5-year-old female child. This is in agreement with earlier studies in the country [18,21,25] and Madagascar [23], in which the majority of treatment failures were observed in children, However, previous studies in Ethiopia couldn’t demonstrate a significant association of age with treatment failure [12,19]. The parasitemia load on the day of failure was lower (1760/μl) than on the day of admission (4560/μl). The parasite reduction ratio (PRR) of the treatment failure cases was 2.6/μl, which is similar to the study carried out in different areas of Ethiopia [16,19,21].

There was a rapid clearance of parasite density in the study participants over two days of CQ administration. This could be the effectiveness of CQ in curing P.vivax [26] and could be a rapid and complete absorption of CQ in the gastrointestinal tract following oral administration [27].

Fever clearance time is crucial for evaluating the therapeutic effectiveness of chloroquine in the treatment of P.vivax, as fever is one of the criteria for monitoring and classifying responses to CQ treatment [14]. In the present study, 91.9% of patients had fever at baseline, as malaria fever is elevated due to the cyclical release of merozoite and malaria toxins during schizont rupture of red blood cells, which induce endogenous pyrogens [28]. After CQ treatment, more than 90% of the participants cleared fever within three days follow-up period, which is in line with studies conducted in the country [29]. Rapid clearance of fever could be due to the anti-pyrogenic effect of CQ [30] and/or inhibition of malaria hemozoin crystal formations [31].

Age and parasitemia were negatively correlated in our study; parasite load was higher in children than in adults. These findings are similar to the previous study in Serbo [16], and Shewa Robit [21]. This might be due to acquired immunity developed through previous exposure to P.vivax infection [26]. The mean hemoglobin level of the study participants was improved significantly, similar to the study conducted in Wolkite [19] and elsewhere12.5g/dl to 13.2g/dl [20].

Destruction of infected red blood cells (RBCs) and removal of a high number of uninfected RBCs leads to malaria-related anemia [32]. In the present study, there was no severe anemia recorded, which is comparable to the finding in Wolkite [19]. The possible mechanism involved in severe malaria anemia is a cumulative loss of RBCs due to mixed infection, lysis of uninfected RBCs in the circulation, and impaired RBC production [33,34]. The majority of mild and moderate anemic patients recovered on day 28; the rest few anemic patients who had a history of repeated malaria infection couldn’t show improvement in hemoglobin level even on day 28. Anemia can be linked to other factors in addition to malaria infections such as nutritional deficiencies and worm infections [3537]. Repeated malaria infection and relapse can cause impairment of hemoglobin levels [38].

Chloroquine can cause side effects or intensify malaria symptoms already present such as fever, headache, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, cough, behavioral change, and dizziness [39]. In this study, most of the observed adverse events were similar to the common symptoms of malaria mentioned above and disappeared following treatment within seven days. But the frequency of abdominal pain and cough increase following CQ treatment. A similar result was reported in Brazil [40]. Mouth ulcers and blurred visions were also observed after CQ treatment in this study. However, the proportion of blurred vision observed in this finding is much lower, 2/86 (2.3%) as compared to 27/50 (54%) patients from Brazil [40].

Although this study showed a good treatment response, other supplementary techniques that we did not include in our study; such as determining blood CQ level and molecular techniques in classifying the treatment failures would further strengthen the study outcomes. A wide-ranging geographic coverage can also improve the reliability of QC status in the treatment of uncomplicated P.vivax.

Conclusion

The present study revealed the cure rate of CQ remains high for the treatment of uncomplicated P.vivax infection with rapid clearance of parasitemia and fever; hemoglobin improvement and good clinical resolution. Severe adverse event was not recorded during the follow-up period. Our study result complements the current use of CQ for the treatment of uncomplicated P. vivax by the national malaria elimination program. Given the contradictory reports, continuous, and strong surveillance of therapeutic efficacy studies on CQ is needed for early detection and effective control of measures on the possible emergence and spread of drug resistance in the study area and the country at large.

Supporting information

S1 Raw data

(SAV)

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI), Amhara regional health bureau and Shewa Robit health center and Bahir Dar University for their unlimited support and expertise input for this project. We would also like to acknowledge the ministry of health through EPHI for financial and technical support. The study drugs were obtained through the WHO Ethiopia office. We also acknowledge the study team members and study participants.

Abbreviations

ACPR

Adequate Clinical and Parasitological Response

AE

Adverse Events

CQ

Chloroquine

CQR

Chloroquine Resistance

DCQ

Desethylchloroquine

ETF

Early Treatment Failure

FMoH

Federal Ministry of Health

Hgb

Hemoglobin

LCF

Late Clinical Failure

LPF

Late Parasitological Failure

PRR

Parasite Reduction Ratio

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. World malaria report: World Health Organization. 2021, https://www.who.int/teams/global-malaria-programme/reports/world-malaria-report-2021.
  • 2.World Health Organization. World Malaria Report 2015: Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015. p. 280. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Oboh MA, Oyebola KM, Idowu ET, Badiane AS, Otubanjo OA, Ndiaye D. Rising report of Plasmodium vivax in sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for malaria elimination agenda. Scientific African. 2020. Nov 1;10: doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00596 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ethiopia malaria elimination strategic plan: 2021–2025 August 2020 Addis Ababa Ethiopia http://repository.iifphc.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/1526.
  • 5.File T, Dinka H, and Golassa L. A retrospective analysis on the transmission of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax: the case of Adama City, East Shoa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. Malar J, 2019. 18(1): p. 1–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Federal Ministry of Health, National Malaria Guidelines. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2017, https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/eth_national_malaria_guidline_4th_edition.pdf.
  • 7.Price RN, Von Seidlein L, Valecha N, Nosten F, Baird JK, and White NJ. Global extent of chloroquine-resistant Plasmodium vivax: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis, 2014. 14(10): p. 982–991. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70855-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Getachew S, Thriemer K, Auburn S, Abera A, Gadisa E, Aseffa A, et al., Chloroquine efficacy for Plasmodium vivax malaria treatment in southern Ethiopia. Malar J, 2015. 14(1): p. 1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-1041-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rieckmann K, Davis D, and Hutton D. Plasmodium vivax resistance to chloroquine? The Lancet, 1989. 334(8673): p. 1183–1184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Teka H, Petros B, Yamuah L, Tesfaye G. Elhassan I, Muchohi S, et al., Chloroquine-resistant plasmodium vivax malaria in Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. Malar J, 2008. 7(1): p. 1–8. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-7-220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Abreha T, Hwang J, Thriemer K, Tadesse Y, Girma S, Melaku Z, et al., Comparison of artemether-lumefantrine and chloroquine with and without primaquine for the treatment of Plasmodium vivax infection in Ethiopia: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med, 2017, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Assefa M, Eshetu T, and Biruksew A. Therapeutic efficacy of chloroquine for the treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria among outpatients at Hossana Health Care Centre, southern Ethiopia. Malar J, 2015. 14(1): p. 1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-0983-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kanche ZZ, Sulaiman S, Woldie M, and Yesuf EA. Therapeutic Efficacy of Chloroquine in Plasmodium Vivax at Health Centers in Jimma Town, South-West Ethiopia. 2016, https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JHMN/article/view/29032. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shiferawu TT and Desta AT. Five-year trend analysis of malaria prevalence in Shewarobit, Amhara Regional State, North-central Ethiopia. Pan Afr Med J, 2021. 40: p. 237. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2021.40.237.30614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.World Health Organization. Methods for surveillance of antimalarial drug efficacy. 2009, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/publications/gmp/methods-for-surveillance-of-antimalarial-drug-efficacy.pdf?sfvrsn=29076702_2.
  • 16.Ketema T, Getahun K, and Bacha K. Therapeutic efficacy of chloroquine for treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria cases in Halaba district, South Ethiopia. Parasit Vectors, 2011. 4(1): p. 1–7. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-4-46 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Awab GR, Imwong M, Bancone G, Jeeyapant A, Day NP, White NJ, et al., Chloroquine–primaquine versus chloroquine alone to treat vivax malaria in Afghanistan: an open randomized superiority trial. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 2017. 97(6): p. 1782. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.17-0290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Beyene HB, Beyene MB, Ebstie YA, and Desalegn Z. Efficacy of chloroquine for the treatment of vivax malaria in Northwest Ethiopia. PLoS One, 2016. 11(8): p. e0161483. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Shumbej T, Jemal A, Worku A, Bekele F, and Weldesenbet H. Therapeutic efficacy of chloroquine for treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria cases in Guragae zone southern Central Ethiopia. BMC Infect Dis, 2019. 19(1): p. 1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Shafaq Shafiqullah. First-line anti-malarial drug (chloroquine) efficacy study for the treatment of plasmodium vivax. Int J Adv Res, 2017. 5(6): p. 1294–1303. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Seifu S, Zeynudin A, Zemene E, Suleman S, and Biruksew A. Therapeutic efficacy of chloroquine for the treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria among outpatients at Shawa Robit Health Care Centre, North-East Ethiopia. Acta Trop, 2017. 171: p. 44–51. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.02.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yohannes AM, Teklehaimanot A, Bergqvist Y, and Ringwald P. Confirmed vivax resistance to chloroquine and effectiveness of artemether-lumefantrine for the treatment of vivax malaria in Ethiopia. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 2011. 84(1): p. 137. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.09-0723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Barnadas C, Ratsimbasoa A, Tichit M, Bouchier C, Jahevitra M, Picot S, et al., Plasmodium vivax resistance to chloroquine in Madagascar: clinical efficacy and polymorphisms in pvmdr1 and pvcrt-o genes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2008. 52(12): p. 4233–4240. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00578-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bloland PB and World Health Organization. Drug resistance in malaria. 2001, World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/66847.
  • 25.Ketema T, Bacha K, Birhanu T, and Petros B. Chloroquine-resistant Plasmodium vivax malaria in Serbo town, Jimma zone, south-west Ethiopia. Malar J, 2009. 8(1): p. 1–8. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-8-177 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.White NJ. Malaria parasite clearance. Malar J, 2017. 16(1): p. 1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ducharme J and Farinotti R. Clinical pharmacokinetics and metabolism of chloroquine. Clin Pharmacokinet, 1996. 31(4): p. 257–274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Romanovsky AA, Almeida MC, Aronoff DM, Ivanov AI, Konsman JP, Steiner AA, et al., Fever and hypothermia in systemic inflammation: recent discoveries and revisions. Front Biosci, 2005. 10(1–3): p. 2193–2216. doi: 10.2741/1690 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yeshanew S, Dagne A, and Taye B. Efficacy Study of Chloroquine to Plasmodium vivax Malaria in Darimu and Bure Districts, Southwest Ethiopia. Infect Drug Resist, 2021. 14: p. 795. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S300692 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Jang C-H, Choi J-H, Byun M-S, and Jue D-M. Chloroquine inhibits production of TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-6 from lipopolysaccharide-stimulated human monocytes/macrophages by different modes. Rheumatol, 2006. 45(6): p. 703–710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Slater AF. Chloroquine: mechanism of drug action and resistance in Plasmodium falciparum. Pharmacol Ther, 1993. 57(2–3): p. 203–235. doi: 10.1016/0163-7258(93)90056-j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Collins WE, Jeffery GM, and Roberts JM. A retrospective examination of anemia during infection of humans with Plasmodium vivax. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 2003. 68(4): p. 410–412. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Anstey NM, Russell B, Yeo TW, and Price RN. The pathophysiology of vivax malaria. Trends Parasitol, 2009. 25(5): p. 220–227. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2009.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Fendel R, Brandts C, Rudat A, Kreidenweiss A, Steur C, Appelmann I, et al., Hemolysis is associated with low reticulocyte production index and predicts blood transfusion in severe malarial anemia. PloS one, 2010. 5(4): p. e10038. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Tatala S, Svanberg U, and Mduma B. Low dietary iron availability is a major cause of anemia: a nutrition survey in the Lindi District of Tanzania. Am J Clin Nutr, 1998. 68(1): p. 171–178. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/68.1.171 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Friedman JF, Kanzaria HK, and Mcgarvey ST. Human schistosomiasis and anemia: the relationship and potential mechanisms. Trends Parasitol, 2005. 21(8): p. 386–392. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2005.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shaw JG and Friedman JF. Iron deficiency anemia: focus on infectious diseases in lesser developed countries. Anemia, 2011, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21738863/. doi: 10.1155/2011/260380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Selvam R and Baskaran G. Hematological impairments in recurrent Plasmodium vivax infected patients. Jpn J Med Sci Biol, 1996. 49(4): p. 151–165. doi: 10.7883/yoken1952.49.151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.World Health Organization, Guidelines for the treatment of malaria, 3rd ed. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/1624412015: World Health Organization.
  • 40.Martins AC, Cayotopa ADE, Klein WW, Schlosser AR, Silva AFd, Souza MNd, et al., Side effects of chloroquine and primaquine and symptom reduction in malaria endemic area (Mâncio Lima, Acre, Brazil). Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis, 2015, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26357512/. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

José Luiz Fernandes Vieira

26 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-18161Therapeutic efficacy of Chloroquine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium vivax infection in Shewa Robit, Northeast EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Temesgne

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

ACADEMIC EDITOR: The maniscript is interesting, but several issue related to the methodology section, inclusion and exclusion creiteria and sample effort should be adressed in the manuscript. Please follow the reccomendations of the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by August 28. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

José Luiz Fernandes Vieira

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"no the funders has no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear,

Congratulations on the study, it has great scientific relevance. Therefore, some

questions need to be answered:

When analyzing your study, both the abstract and the introduction are contemplating

the necessary information; The methodology needs to be further explored. It is still not

entirely clear what the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the recruited patients were.

In addition, the sample number seems small to me. Wouldn't it have a chance to

increase? Another important factor is that no analysis of the biochemical parameters of

the patients was performed, these data would give you significant answers to your

findings. Why wasn't it done? The results are well described, but at the same time I

noticed that the patients did not present itching. Typically, patients who use CQ have

these reactions. Was it not identified or did these patients have and/or abandoned the

segment? Furthermore, I suggest that in figures 3 and 4 you put the corresponding

values in each highlight point for a better understanding for the reader; The discussion

presented includes the necessary information. However, by addressing minor

limitations you could emphasize that the process of genetic polymorphism could

account for drug resistance. This is constantly being discussed in several scientific

articles in different locations worldwide. It is also necessary for you to present more

accurate information to justify your hypotheses and/or findings; The conclusion is ok.

Also, what makes your work different?

I hope that this information has been essential for a better understanding of the study.

Thank you very much in advance.

Reviewer #2: Background

1. Put epidemiology data latest

2. When did the first case of resistance appear in Ethiopia? Insert this information

3. How was resistance studies carried out previously carried out?

Methods

4. describe what were the inclusion criteria

5. describe what were the exclusion criteria?

6 describe what were the severe malaria exclusion criteria?

7. Where did this frequency of therapeutic failure come from?

8. What is the expected minimum and maximum percentage for sample calculation?

9. what number of malaria in the studied place for sample calculation? need your population number.

10. what definition of recurrence and clearance of parasitemia?

11. Drug quality analysis was performed? Enter chloroquine information?

12. Did all patients take the same batch of chloroquine?

13. Was it quality control carried out on this batch?

14. Why were these follow-up visits selected? if the patient had a return of malaria on other days or after D28 was it lost?

15. How was treatment on different days describe dosage on each day?

16. Were recorded Baseline data on socio-demographic and clinical characteristics?

17. Has quality assurance been performed for microscopy?

18. What were the criteria for establishing adverse effects?

19. How was security assessed? what criteria?

20. Primary Outcomes and secondary? Define each item of this study.

21. Was it not evaluated clearance and presence of gametocytes?

Results

22. Make a flowchart describing how the selection was made and the number of participants included.

23. Were participants who did not take CQ as treatment included?

24. This phrase "couldn't complete the 28-day follow-up and were therefore excluded", needs to be included in the flowchart.

25. In figure 2, insert the correlation confidence interval? p value?

26. what purpose of making correlation?

27. Why was the dosage of chloroquine not performed for classification of recurrence?

28. Why were these data (K-M analysis) not presented through the survival curve?

29. what was the parasitemia of the recurrent case? Put in the figure 3.

30. This study cannot speak about resistance to CQ, as resistance was not confirmed in these participants.

31. What was done to confirm resistance?

Discussion

32. Relapse, malabsorption of drug, poor drug quality and re-infection could be contributing factors to treatment failure of P. vivax? Insert into the discussion on this aspect.

33. drug quality control was not performed?

34. Better describe all limitations: sample size, not having performed chloroquine dosage, not performing drug quality control

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_058a5.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 12;18(1):e0277362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277362.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Sep 2022

Response to reviewers

1. Point by point response to reviewer #1

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

5.Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Dear, Congratulations on the study, it has great scientific relevance. Therefore, some questions need to be answered: When analyzing your study, both the abstract and the introduction are contemplating the necessary information; The methodology needs to be further explored. It is still not entirely clear what the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the recruited patients were. In addition, the sample number seems small to me. Wouldn't it have a chance to

increase? Another important factor is that no analysis of the biochemical parameters of

the patients was performed, these data would give you significant answers to your

findings. Why wasn't it done? The results are well described, but at the same time I

noticed that the patients did not present itching. Typically, patients who use CQ have

these reactions. Was it not identified or did these patients have and/or abandoned the

segment? Furthermore, I suggest that in figures 3 and 4 you put the corresponding

values in each highlight point for a better understanding for the reader; The discussion

presented includes the necessary information. However, by addressing minor

limitations you could emphasize that the process of genetic polymorphism could

account for drug resistance. This is constantly being discussed in several scientific

articles in different locations worldwide. It is also necessary for you to present more

accurate information to justify your hypotheses and/or findings; The conclusion is ok.

Also, what makes your work different? I hope that this information has been essential for a better understanding of the study. Thank you very much in advance.

Response: Thank you for your constructive comments, we accepted all your suggestions and tried to correct them accordingly.

1. We have followed strictly the WHO guideline “Methods for the surveillance of antimalarial drug efficacy (2009)” accordingly we have followed strict inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as sample size calculation and corrected accordingly in the revised manuscript. The 73-size is the minimum required for such a study.

2. We strongly agree that additional biomedical analysis may strengthen the study however due to strictly following the guideline and limited resources, we were not able to do the biomedical analysis.

3. Itching can be manifested in patients taking CQ. Unfortunately, we observed participants physically and didn’t see any itchy behavior. The participants may not have noticed and didn’t explain it to us.

4. Thank you, comments on figure 3 & 4 corrected accordingly on the revised manuscript.

5. We agree that genetic polymorphism may contribute to drug resistance however, it was beyond the scope of this study, and we have indicated it as a limitation thank you for raising it.

6. Our study may not be totally unique but we produce evidence from a common location and the information is relevant for local and global malaria control efforts.

Point by point response to reviewer#2

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer#2: Background

1. Put epidemiology data latest

Response: thank you for your suggestion. We have updated the epidemiology data.

2. When did the first case of resistance appear in Ethiopia? Insert this informatioitn

Response: thank you, we have corrected accordingly.

3. How was resistance studies carried out previously carried out?

Response: Thank you, WHO recommends routine monitoring of drug resistance using its guideline every other year for two to six sites based on country size. There have been continuous but inconsistent studies of malaria drug resistance for the past three decades in Ethiopia.

Methods

4. describe what were the inclusion criteria

Response: Thank you, corrected accordingly.

5. describe what were the exclusion criteria?

Response: Thank you and accepted.

6 describe what were the severe malaria exclusion criteria?

Response: Thank you. The severe malaria exclusion criteria are described in the WHO study protocol that we followed. We want to minimize the size of the MS and keep it as a reference.

7. Where did this frequency of therapeutic failure come from?

Response: thank you for your question, the frequency of failure was obtained from a previously published study.

8. What is the expected minimum and maximum percentage for sample calculation?

Response: Thank you. According to WHO guidelines, in the TES study, the sample size is characterized and calculated to be the minimum number of individuals required for an expected 5% failure is 73, and a maximum of >88 patients.

9. what number of malaria in the studied place for sample calculation? need your population number.

Response: Thank you. The population may be important but all self-presenting patients suspected of malaria were diagnosed and if P.vivax infection is confirmed with the parasitemia load, were enrolled in the study team. The study population is the catchment area for Shewa Robit HC, it is estimated to be 60,234.

10. what definition of recurrence and clearance of parasitemia?

Response: we have appreciated your question, but the terms clearance and recurrence are well stated in the study protocol that clearance is parasitemia disappearing from the patient sample when examined by microscopy. Recurrence is the reappearance of the parasite in the patient’s blood during the follow-up period.

11. Drug quality analysis was performed? Enter chloroquine information?

Response: Thank you. The quality of the study drug was checked and provided by WHO. Information (drugs’ name, manufacturer, lot number, and expired date) are described in the manuscript. No additional quality assessment has been made.

12. Did all patients take the same batch of chloroquine?

Response: Thank you. All drugs were in one batch.

13.Was it quality control carried out on this batch?

Response: Thank you. The quality concern was done by WHO, as drug provided by.

14. Why were these follow-up visits selected? if the patient had a return of malaria on other days or after D28 was it lost?

Response: Thank you, follow-up visits were scheduled based on WHO therapeutic efficacy study protocol and all participants were encouraged to come to the health center if they fill any symptoms in non-scheduled day, therefore, they were not lost.

15. How was treatment on different days describing dosage on each day?

Response: Thank you and corrected accordingly.

16. Were recorded Baseline data on socio-demographic and clinical characteristics?

Response: Thank you and corrected. The baseline data were recorded on the case screening form and a summary is presented in the manuscript.

17. Has quality assurance been performed for microscopy?

Response: Thank you, yes. Experienced microscopists with refresher training participated in the study, the microscopy results were re-read by WHO certified microscopy experts and discrepancies were judged by a third reader.

18. What were the criteria for establishing adverse effects?

Response: Thank you, your comment is well appreciated. Adverse effects are established by WHO and clearly stated in the study protocol, and we defined the adverse events in the revised manuscript. Your comment is well appreciated.

19. How was security assessed? What criteria?

Response: Thank you. If I got you mean by security assessed? The study site was selected as the sentinel site by the selection criteria of therapeutic study sites previously. This is a regular follow-up study for monitoring the frontline drugs in the country.

20. Primary Outcomes and secondary? Define each item of this study.

Response: Thank you, your suggestion is well appreciated, primary outcome can be described in different studies as the cure rate of the drug, and secondary outcomes can be defined as the clearance of fever and parasitemia. But we followed the WHO standard therapeutic study protocol and mentioned the response of the study drug one by one as cure rate, parasite, and fever clearance.

21. Was it not evaluated clearance and presence of gametocytes?

Response: Thank you, The parasite clearance and presence of gametocytes were evaluated and presented in Figure 3.

Results

22. Make a flowchart describing how the selection was made and the number of participants included.

Response: thank you for your suggestion. We thought the total screened, enrolled, and excluded participants are well described on the flowchart (Figure 1).

23. Were participants who did not take CQ as treatment included?

Response: Thank you. No, we enrolled participants who were diagnosed as P.vivax infected and treated by only CQ for follow-up.

24. This phrase "couldn't complete the 28-day follow-up and were therefore excluded", needs to be included in the flowchart.

Response: The reason to exclude from the study is developing hypersensitivity to the drug. this comment is rephrased and appreciated on the revised manuscript and, on the flow chart stated as “hypersensitive with drug”.

25. In figure 2, insert the correlation confidence interval? p value?

Response: thank you and accepted.

26. What purpose of making correlation?

Response: Thank you for your question. Making correlations to know the relation between the age of participant and parasitemia, and measure the strength of the linear relationship.

27. Why was the dosage of chloroquine not performed for classification of recurrence?

Response: Thank you, dosage of treatment was according to national treatment guidelines. Doing the drug blood level is one of the important things to classify the true treatment failure, but even though only had one treatment failure we didn’t perform the test due to lack of resources and we make it a limitation.

28. Why were these data (K-M analysis) not presented through the survival curve?

Response: Thank you, we have made the survival curve but, the curve do not show considerable information due to only one treatment failure on day 28, as explained in table form.

29. what was the parasitemia of the recurrent case? Put in the figure 3.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, the parasitemia of the recurrent case is 1760/µ and included in figure 3 as suggestion.

30. This study cannot speak about resistance to CQ, as resistance was not confirmed in these participants.

Response: Thank you, yes this study reported the resistance monitoring activity results in the study area.

31. What was done to confirm resistance?

Response: Thank you, we have reported clinical failure resistance was not confirmed due to unable to measure the drug’s blood level stated as a limitation.

Discussion

32. Relapse, malabsorption of drug, poor drug quality and re-infection could be contributing factors to treatment failure of P. vivax? Insert into the discussion on this aspect.

Response: thank you, we have appreciated your suggestion, and corrected it accordingly.

33. drug quality control was not performed?

Response: Thank you, The study drug was provided by the world health organization (WHO) as quality checked with responsibility and we have not been mandated to do drug quality.

34. Better describe all limitations: sample size, not having performed chloroquine dosage, not performing drug quality control

Response: Thank you. Thank you, comments are accommodated where appropriate.

Decision Letter 1

José Luiz Fernandes Vieira

14 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-18161R1Therapeutic efficacy of Chloroquine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium vivax infection in Shewa Robit, Northeast EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr Temesgen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the few points raised during the review process. Some few points of the reviewer 2 are necessary, including the exclusion and inclusion criteria; the method used to calculate the previous recurrence, the dose administered to patients was the same or was adjusted by body weight? 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

José Luiz Fernandes Vieira

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear

This study made the appropriate corrections recommended during the correction process. Therefore, I suggest accepting the study.

Reviewer #2: 1. Inclusion criteria not clear: needs to be made clearer, especially like other WHO criteria

2. Exclusion criteria: needs to be made clearer, especially like other WHO criter

3. Make it clear that previous recurrence calculation

4. State that all participants take the same treatment dose

5. How safe was the treatment? What assessment for this security?

6. Primary and secondary definition.

7. Why were these data (K-M analysis) not presented through the survival curve? The survival curve serves exactly to see the recurrence time because in the table it is not clear. Table 3 is not adequate.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 12;18(1):e0277362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277362.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 Oct 2022

Response to reviewers

Point-by-point response to reviewer #2

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

________________________________________

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

________________________________________

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear

This study made the appropriate corrections recommended during the correction process. Therefore, I suggest accepting the study.

Response: Thank you

Reviewer #2: 1. Inclusion criteria not clear: needs to be made clearer, especially like other WHO criteria

Response: thank you, we have corrected it accordingly.

2. Exclusion criteria: needs to be made clearer, especially like other WHO criter

Response: thank you, corrected accordingly.

3. Make it clear that previous recurrence calculation

Response: thank you for your suggestion, we didn’t do a recurrence determination (recrudescence vs reinfection) that we tried to describe as a limitation of the study.

4. State that all participants take the same treatment dose

Response: thank you, the dose administered to the study patients was adjusted by body weight, which we made clear on the MS.

5. How safe was the treatment? What assessment for this security?

Response: thank you, CQ is a drug used on the national P.vivax treatment guideline and the drug was provided by WHO for the study, no need of doing additional analysis. On the follow-up visit, we assessed the adverse events by direct questioning and using adverse event recording formats.

6. Primary and secondary definition.

Response: thank you, primary and secondary treatment outcomes are defined based on WHO treatment outcome definition and we defined the outcomes in the MS on the study endpoint by considering your suggestion.

7. Why were these data (K-M analysis) not presented through the survival curve? The survival curve serves exactly to see the recurrence time because in the table it is not clear. Table 3 is not adequate.

Response: thank you, corrected accordingly.

Decision Letter 2

José Luiz Fernandes Vieira

26 Oct 2022

Therapeutic efficacy of Chloroquine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium vivax infection in Shewa Robit, Northeast Ethiopia

PONE-D-22-18161R2

Dear Dr. HABTAMU Belay Temesgen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

José Luiz Fernandes Vieira

Academic Editor

PLOS 

Reviewers' comments:

All the suggestions were done by authors.

Acceptance letter

José Luiz Fernandes Vieira

22 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-18161R2

Therapeutic efficacy of Chloroquine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium vivax infection in Shewa Robit, Northeast Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Temesgen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. José Luiz Fernandes Vieira

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Raw data

    (SAV)

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_058a5.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES