Benznidazole (BNZ) and nifurtimox (NFX) remain the only approved antiparasitic treatments for infection with Trypanosoma cruzi, the causative agent of Chagas disease. Both agents are associated with frequent adverse drug reactions (ADRs), long treatment durations, and limited global availability. These limitations contribute to poor treatment adherence and premature discontinuation. Recent clinical trials have explored shorter or lower-dose regimens, but the minimum efficacy providers would accept in exchange for improved safety or accessibility had not been systematically studied. The EPPIC study aimed to identify prescriber-defined efficacy thresholds and to characterise factors that influence willingness to prescribe hypothetical new antiparasitic regimens for indeterminate Chagas disease.
The study used an international, cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted between June and August 2024. The target population comprised healthcare providers, researchers, and public health practitioners with experience in Chagas disease from both endemic and non-endemic countries. The survey instrument assessed satisfaction with current antiparasitic drugs, perceived disadvantages of existing therapies, and respondents' willingness to prescribe hypothetical new regimens that varied in efficacy and other clinical or implementation attributes.
Of 50 invited participants, 30 completed the survey, yielding a 60% response rate. Most respondents identified as physicians or nurses (57%), and a majority (76%) reported more than six years of experience managing Chagas disease. The study population therefore represented experienced clinicians and practitioners, though specific geographic or institutional breakdowns beyond endemic versus non-endemic origin were not reported in the source.
Respondents' reported willingness to prescribe new regimens changed markedly across efficacy bands. An efficacy threshold of 70% or greater corresponded with substantially higher prescribing willingness:
These findings indicate a clear inflection point around the 70% efficacy level, above which almost half of surveyed prescribers expressed favorable prescribing intent.
Respondents indicated that attributes beyond efficacy would modify their willingness to prescribe regimens with moderate or lower efficacy. Specifically, willingness to prescribe regimens in the 60–69% efficacy range increased when one or more of the following attributes were present:
For regimens in the lowest efficacy ranges, improved accessibility and availability were additional determinants that could support prescriber adoption. Overall, respondents signalled that the broader benefit–risk and implementation profile—safety, prevention of vertical transmission, and access—matter substantially alongside efficacy.
Survey respondents identified the principal disadvantages of current antiparasitic therapies as:
These factors were noted as contributors to nonadherence and premature treatment discontinuation with approved drugs.
The EPPIC survey offers preliminary, provider-level evidence that prescriber acceptance of new antiparasitic regimens for indeterminate Chagas disease is influenced by multiple attributes, not efficacy in isolation. A 70% efficacy threshold emerged as a critical inflection point for increased prescribing willingness among respondents. However, regimens with moderate efficacy (for example, 60–69%) could be acceptable to a larger proportion of providers if accompanied by improved tolerability, explicit prevention of mother-to-child transmission, second-line use options, or enhanced accessibility.
These insights suggest that clinical trial design and product development for new Chagas therapies should consider composite benefit–risk and implementation endpoints that reflect real-world prescribing priorities. Trial endpoints or target product profiles that incorporate safety, prevention of vertical transmission, shorter or more tolerable courses, and feasibility of distribution may increase the real-world adoption potential of regimens whose efficacy is moderate but whose overall profile is improved.
The study followed ethical guidance consistent with the Declaration of Helsinki. The survey and methodology were submitted to the Hospital Clínic Barcelona Ethical Committee (CEim) on 16 August 2022, and a response dated 13 September 2022 indicated that formal review and approval were not necessary given the study characteristics. Access to study data was restricted to the principal investigator and designated collaborators. All participants provided electronic informed consent prior to completing the survey. The authors report that all relevant survey data are included within the manuscript.
The source presents these results as preliminary provider-level evidence from a relatively small convenience sample (30 respondents). The report did not provide detailed subgroup breakdowns by country, clinical setting, or other contextual variables in the abstract. As a medRxiv preprint, this work has not been peer reviewed and should not be used to directly guide clinical practice. Nonetheless, the findings offer actionable signals about prescriber priorities that could inform future trial designs and treatment policy discussions for Chagas disease.