Clinical Standardization of Pamaquin (Plasmochin) in Mosquito-Induced Vivax Malaria, Chesson Strain

A Preliminary Report

Branch Craige Jr.Malarial Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago

Search for other papers by Branch Craige Jr. in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ralph Jones Jr.Malarial Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago

Search for other papers by Ralph Jones Jr. in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
C. Merrill WhortonMalarial Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago

Search for other papers by C. Merrill Whorton in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Theodore N. PullmanMalarial Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago

Search for other papers by Theodore N. Pullman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Alf S. AlvingMalarial Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago

Search for other papers by Alf S. Alving in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Lillian EichelbergerMalarial Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago

Search for other papers by Lillian Eichelberger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Summary

Several regimes of pamaquin (plasmochin) were given a therapeutic trial in mosquito-induced vivax malaria (Chesson strain).

The administration of daily doses of 63 milligrams of the base or 140 milligrams of the naphthoate salt, or less, concurrently with quinine for 14 days protected only a few of the subjects against relapse. No protection was afforded when the drugs were given serially. The effect was not appreciably enhanced when pamaquin (31 milligrams of the base a day) was administered concurrently with several other experimental drugs.

The average percentage of total hemoglobin converted to methemoglobin was a useful measure for the comparison of the toxicity of various regimes of pamaquin.

Standardized clinical trials diminished the influence of variables, such as acquired and natural immunity, variations in intensity of infection, the effect of suppressive drugs, and strain differences, which confuse the interpretation of results in field studies.

Author Notes

Captain, M.C., A.U.S.

Save