BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends Artemisinin-based Combination Therapy (ACT) for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. This review aims to assist the decision-making of malaria control programmes by providing an overview of the relative effects of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHA-P) versus other recommended ACTs.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of DHA-P compared to other ACTs for treating uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria in adults and children.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) published in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) up to July 2013.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials comparing a three-day course of DHA-P to a three-day course of an alternative WHO recommended ACT in uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We analysed primary outcomes in line with the WHO 'Protocol for assessing and monitoring antimalarial drug efficacy’ and compared drugs using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Secondary outcomes were effects on gametocytes, haemoglobin, and adverse events. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included 27 trials, enrolling 16,382 adults and children, and conducted between 2002 and 2010. Most trials excluded infants aged less than six months and pregnant women.DHA-P versus artemether-lumefantrineIn Africa, over 28 days follow-up, DHA-P is superior to artemether-lumefantrine at preventing further parasitaemia (PCR-unadjusted treatment failure: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.39, nine trials, 6200 participants, high quality evidence), and although PCR-adjusted treatment failure was below 5% for both ACTs, it was consistently lower with DHA-P (PCR-adjusted treatment failure: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62, nine trials, 5417 participants, high quality evidence). DHA-P has a longer prophylactic effect on new infections which may last for up to 63 days (PCR-unadjusted treatment failure: RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.78, two trials, 3200 participants, high quality evidence).In Asia and Oceania, no differences have been shown at day 28 (four trials, 1143 participants, moderate quality evidence), or day 63 (one trial, 323 participants, low quality evidence).Compared to artemether-lumefantrine, no difference was seen in prolonged QTc (low quality evidence), and no cardiac arrhythmias were reported. The frequency of other adverse events is probably similar with both combinations (moderate quality evidence).DHA-P versus artesunate plus mefloquineIn Asia, over 28 days follow-up, DHA-P is as effective as artesunate plus mefloquine at preventing further parasitaemia (PCR-unadjusted treatment failure: eight trials, 3487 participants, high quality evidence). Once adjusted by PCR to exclude new infections, treatment ...

BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) for treating people with Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Five combinations are currently recommended, all administered over three days. Artemisinin-naphthoquine is a new combination developed in China, which is being marketed as a one-day treatment. Although shorter treatment courses may improve adherence, the WHO recommends at least three days of the short-acting artemisinin component to eliminate 90% P. falciparum parasites in the bloodstream, before leaving the longer-acting partner drug to clear the remaining parasites.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of the artemisinin-naphthoquine combination for treating adults and children with uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) published in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; and LILACS up to January 2015. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) using 'malaria' and 'arte* OR dihydroarte*' as search terms.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials comparing artemisinin-naphthoquine combinations with established WHO-recommended ACTs for the treatment of adults and children with uncomplicated malaria due to P. falciparum.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We analysed primary outcomes in line with the WHO 'Protocol for assessing and monitoring antimalarial drug efficacy' and compared drugs using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Secondary outcomes were effects on gametocytes, haemoglobin, and adverse events. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsFour trials, enrolling 740 adults and children, met the inclusion criteria. Artemisinin-naphthoquine was administered as a single dose (two trials), as two doses given eight hours apart (one trial), and once daily for three days (one trial), and compared to three-day regimens of established ACTs. Three additional small pharmaceutical company trials have been carried out. We have requested the data but have not received a response from the company.Artemisinin-naphthoquine versus artemether-lumefantrineIn three small trials from Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, and Papua New Guinea, both combinations had a very low incidence of treatment failure at Day 28, and there were no differences demonstrated in PCR-unadjusted, or PCR-adjusted treatment failure (three trials, 487 participants, low quality evidence). Only the single study from Papua New Guinea followed participants up to Day 42, and the number of treatment failures remained very low with both combinations (one trial, 186 participants, very low quality evidence).Artemisinin-naphthoquine versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquineIn a single small trial from Indonesia, treatment failure at Day 28 and Day 42 was very low in both groups with no differences demonstrated (one...

Clinical decision making is often not based on the best available evidence. Reasons for this vary, and may be related to factors within the healthcare setting, patients, or health practitioners. Interventions have been designed to encourage the use of systematic reviews in making clinical decisions as one way of improving clinical decision making.

Practice facilitation is a multifaceted approach whereby skilled individuals, either internal or external to a setting, are used to promote adoption and use of evidence-based guidelines within the setting (practice).