Nicholas M. DouglasNicholas M. AnsteyBrian J. AngusFrancois NostenRic N. PriceMenzies School of Health ResearchNuffield Department of Clinical MedicineRoyal Darwin HospitalShoklo Malaria Research UnitMahidol University2018-09-242018-09-242010-06-01The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Vol.10, No.6 (2010), 405-416147330992-s2.0-77952605533https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/29652Early parasitological diagnosis and treatment with artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are key components of worldwide malaria elimination programmes. In general, use of ACTs has been limited to patients with falciparum malaria whereas blood-stage infections with Plasmodium vivax are mostly still treated with chloroquine. We review the evidence for the relative benefits and disadvantages of the existing separate treatment approach versus a unified ACT-based strategy for treating Plasmodium falciparum and P vivax infections in regions where both species are endemic (co-endemic). The separate treatment scenario is justifiable if P vivax remains sensitive to chloroquine and diagnostic tests reliably distinguish P vivax from P falciparum. However, with the high number of misdiagnoses in routine practice and the rise and spread of chloroquine-resistant P vivax, there might be a compelling rationale for a unified ACT-based strategy for vivax and falciparum malaria in all co-endemic regions. Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of ACTs for both Plasmodium species are needed to assess the role of these drugs in the control and elimination of vivax malaria. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Mahidol UniversityMedicineReviewSCOPUS10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70079-7