4.6 Article

Therapeutic efficacy of chloroquine for treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria cases in Halaba district, South Ethiopia

期刊

PARASITES & VECTORS
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1756-3305-4-46

关键词

-

资金

  1. Postgraduate, Research and Community Based Education Office of Jimma University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Chloroquine is an anti-malarial drug being used to treat Plasmodium vivax malaria cases in Ethiopia. However, emergence of chloroquine resistant strains of the parasite has challenged the current efficacy of the drug. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of chloroquine against P. vivax strains in one of the malaria endemic areas of Ethiopia, namely Halaba district, located in South Nations and Nationalities Peoples Region (SNNPR) of South Ethiopia Results: Among 87 malaria patients enrolled in the study, only 80 of them completed the 28-days follow-up. Seven of them dropped from the study for different reasons. Among those study participants that completed their follow-up, 69 were classified under the category of adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR). However, the remaining 11 cases were considered as under treatment failure mainly due to recurrence of parasitemia on day 7 (four patients), day 14 (six patients), and day 21 (one patient). The age of all cases of treatment failures was found to be less than 20 years. The load of parasitemia of patients with treatment failure on day of admission (4709.4/mu l) was higher than day of recurrence (372.37/mu l). Parasite reduction ratio (PRR) of treatment failure cases was 12.6/mu l. Conclusion: This report revealed the rise in treatment failure (13% [95% CI = 0.074 -0.217]) as compared to earlier reports from Ethiopia. It signals the spreading of chloroquine resistant P. vivax (CRPv) strains to malaria endemic areas of Ethiopia. It is recommended that all concerned bodies should act aggressively before further expansion of the current drug resistant malaria.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据