1their low availability and high cost have greatly delayed large-scale use. In the meantime, a logical alternative was to experiment with existing agents, and there was added pressure to do so because of the increasing frequency of resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (Fansidar, Roche, Basel, Switzerland), which was the main alternative to chloroquine. Therefore, in the late 1990s, a combination of chlorproguanil (Lapudrine) and dapsone—both lowcost drugs—known as Lapdap (GlaxoSmithKline, London, UK) was introduced. 2 Chlorproguanil, which is similar to proguanil, is a very eff ective antimalarial, and dapsone, which is chemically related to the sulphonamides, is very eff ective for treatment of leprosy. Chlorproguanil and dapsone both interfere with folate metabolism but at diff erent biosynthetic stages, thus their combined use was in line with the classic tenet of antimicrobial therapy, which aims to prevent development of resistant organisms. At least one potential side-eff ect was to be expected with Lapdap, because dapsone causes haemolytic anaemia in about 20% of patients. 3