The outcome of a test-treat package versus routine outpatient care for Ghanaian children with fever: a pragmatic randomized control trial

Current Status of Malaria Control and Elimination in Africa: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Treatment, Progress and Challenges

The African continent carries the greatest malaria burden in the world. Falciparum malaria especially has long been the leading cause of death in Africa. Climate, economic factors, geographical location, human intervention and unstable security are factors influencing malaria transmission. Due to repeated infections and early interventions, the proportion of clinically atypical malaria or asymptomatic plasmodium carriers has increased significantly, which easily lead to misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis. African countries have made certain progress in malaria control and elimination, including rapid diagnosis of malaria, promotion of mosquito nets and insecticides, intermittent prophylactic treatment in high-risk groups, artemisinin based combination therapies, and the development of vaccines. Between 2000 and 2022, there has been a 40% decrease in malaria incidence and a 60% reduction in mortality rate in the WHO African Region. However, many challenges are emerging in the fight against malaria in Africa, such as climate change, poverty, substandard health services and coverage, increased outdoor transmission and the emergence of new vectors, and the growing threat of resistance to antimalarial drugs and insecticides. Joint prevention and treatment, identifying molecular determinants of resistance, new drug development, expanding seasonal malaria chemo-prevention intervention population, and promoting the vaccination of RTS, S/AS01 and R21/Matrix-M may help to solve the dilemma. China's experience in eliminating malaria is conducive to Africa's malaria prevention and control, and China-Africa cooperation needs to be constantly deepened and advanced. Our review aims to help the global public develop a comprehensive understanding of malaria in Africa, thereby contributing to malaria control and elimination.

Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in people with acute respiratory infections in primary care

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are by far the most common reason for prescribing an antibiotic in primary care, even though the majority of ARIs are of viral or non-severe bacterial aetiology. It follows that in many cases antibiotic use will not be beneficial to a patient's recovery but may expose them to potential side effects. Furthermore, limiting unnecessary antibiotic use is a key factor in controlling antibiotic resistance. One strategy to reduce antibiotic use in primary care is point-of-care biomarkers. A point-of-care biomarker (test) of inflammation identifies part of the acute phase response to tissue injury regardless of the aetiology (infection, trauma, or inflammation) and may be used as a surrogate marker of infection, potentially assisting the physician in the clinical decision whether to use an antibiotic to treat ARIs. Biomarkers may guide antibiotic prescription by ruling out a serious bacterial infection and help identify patients in whom no benefit from antibiotic treatment can be anticipated. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of point-of-care biomarker tests of inflammation to guide antibiotic treatment in people presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory infections in primary care settings regardless of patient age.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2022), Embase (1974 to 14 June 2022), CINAHL (1981 to 14 June 2022), Web of Science (1955 to 14 June 2022), and LILACS (1982 to 14 June 2022). We also searched three trial registries (10 December 2021) for completed and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care patients with ARIs that compared the use of point-of-care biomarkers with standard care. We included trials that randomised individual participants, as well as trials that randomised clusters of patients (cluster-RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data on the following primary outcomes: number of participants given an antibiotic prescription at index consultation and within 28 days follow-up; participant recovery within seven days follow-up; and total mortality within 28 days follow-up. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used random-effects meta-analyses when feasible. We further analysed results with considerable heterogeneity in prespecified subgroups of individual and cluster-RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven new trials in this update, for a total of 13 included trials. Twelve trials (10,218 participants in total, 2335 of which were children) evaluated a C-reactive protein point-of-care test, and one trial (317 adult participants) evaluated a procalcitonin point-of-care test. The studies were conducted in Europe, Russia, and Asia. Overall, the included trials had a low or unclear risk of bias. However all studies were open-labelled, thereby introducing high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests to guide antibiotic prescription likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, from 516 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group to 397 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.86; 12 trials, 10,218 participants; I² = 79%; moderate-certainty evidence).  Overall, use of C-reactive protein tests also reduce the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription within 28 days follow-up (664 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group versus 538 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86; 7 trials, 5091 participants; I² = 29; high-certainty evidence). The prescription of antibiotics as guided by C-reactive protein tests likely does not reduce the number of participants recovered, within seven or 28 days follow-up (567 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the control group versus 584 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (recovery within seven days follow-up: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) (recovery within 28 days follow-up: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of C-reactive protein tests may not increase total mortality within 28 days follow-up, from 1 death per 1000 participants in the control group to 0 deaths per 1000 participants in the intervention group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.92; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain as to whether procalcitonin affects any of the primary or secondary outcomes because there were few participants, thereby limiting the certainty of evidence. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate to high according to GRADE for the primary outcomes for C-reactive protein test, except for mortality, as there were very few deaths, thereby limiting the certainty of the evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests as an adjunct to standard care likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription in primary care patients who present with symptoms of acute respiratory infection. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests likely does not affect recovery rates. It is unlikely that further research will substantially change our conclusion regarding the reduction in number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, although the size of the estimated effect may change.  The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests may not increase mortality within 28 days follow-up, but there were very few events. Studies that recorded deaths and hospital admissions were performed in children from low- and middle-income countries and older adults with comorbidities.  Future studies should focus on children, immunocompromised individuals, and people aged 80 years and above with comorbidities. More studies evaluating procalcitonin and potential new biomarkers as point-of-care tests used in primary care to guide antibiotic prescription are needed.  Furthermore, studies are needed to validate C-reactive protein decision algorithms, with a specific focus on potential age group differences.

Practice of antimalarial prescription to patients with negative rapid test results and associated factors among health workers in Oyo State, Nigeria

Introduction

Contrary to World Health Organizations recommendations, health workers (HWs) still prescribe antimalarials to malaria rapid diagnostic test (mRDT)-negative patients, thus increasing overuse and the risk of parasite resistance to the antimalarials. The reasons for this are not clear. We identified factors associated with antimalarial prescription to mRDT-negative patients.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study among 423 HWs. Data on socio-demographic characteristics, training, supervision experience and fever management practices were collected. We tested associations between independent variables and prescription of antimalarials to mRDT-negative patients using Chi square and logistic regression at p < 0.05.

Results

The HWs were mostly community health workers (58.6%), with mean age of 41.0 (±8.8) years and 13.6 (± 9.0) years of professional practice. Females were 322 (76.1%) and 368 (87%) were married. Of the 423 HWs interviewed, 329 (77.8%) received training on mRDT use, 329 (80.6%) received supervision and 129 (30.5%) had good knowledge of causes of fever. Overall, 110 (26.0%) of the HWs prescribed antimalarials to mRDT-negative patients. A higher proportion of non-trained vs trained HWs [Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) = 4.9; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) (2.5-8.3)], and HWs having poor knowledge vs HWs having good knowledge of causes of fever [aOR = 1.9; 95% CI (1.0-3.5)], prescribed antimalarials to mRDT-negative patients.

Conclusion

HWs' lack of training on mRDT use and poor knowledge of causes of fever were associated with prescription of antimalarials to mRDT-negative patients. We recommend training on management of fever and mRDT use to reduce such inappropriate antimalarial prescriptions.

Improving rational use of ACTs through diagnosis-dependent subsidies: Evidence from a cluster-randomized controlled trial in western Kenya

BACKGROUND

More than half of artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs) consumed globally are dispensed in the retail sector, where diagnostic testing is uncommon, leading to overconsumption and poor targeting. In many malaria-endemic countries, ACTs sold over the counter are available at heavily subsidized prices, further contributing to their misuse. Inappropriate use of ACTs can have serious implications for the spread of drug resistance and leads to poor outcomes for nonmalaria patients treated with incorrect drugs. We evaluated the public health impact of an innovative strategy that targets ACT subsidies to confirmed malaria cases by coupling free diagnostic testing with a diagnosis-dependent ACT subsidy.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial in 32 community clusters in western Kenya (population approximately 160,000). Eligible clusters had retail outlets selling ACTs and existing community health worker (CHW) programs and were randomly assigned 1:1 to control and intervention arms. In intervention areas, CHWs were available in their villages to perform malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) on demand for any individual >1 year of age experiencing a malaria-like illness. Malaria RDT-positive individuals received a voucher for a discount on a quality-assured ACT, redeemable at a participating retail medicine outlet. In control areas, CHWs offered a standard package of health education, prevention, and referral services. We conducted 4 population-based surveys-at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months-of a random sample of households with fever in the last 4 weeks to evaluate predefined, individual-level outcomes. The primary outcome was uptake of malaria diagnostic testing at 12 months. The main secondary outcome was rational ACT use, defined as the proportion of ACTs used by test-positive individuals. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle using generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to account for clustering with prespecified adjustment for gender, age, education, and wealth. All descriptive statistics and regressions were weighted to account for sampling design. Between July 2015 and May 2017, 32,404 participants were tested for malaria, and 10,870 vouchers were issued. A total of 7,416 randomly selected participants with recent fever from all 32 clusters were surveyed. The majority of recent fevers were in children under 18 years (62.9%, n = 4,653). The gender of enrolled participants was balanced in children (49.8%, n = 2,318 boys versus 50.2%, n = 2,335 girls), but more adult women were enrolled than men (78.0%, n = 2,139 versus 22.0%, n = 604). At baseline, 67.6% (n = 1,362) of participants took an ACT for their illness, and 40.3% (n = 810) of all participants took an ACT purchased from a retail outlet. At 12 months, 50.5% (n = 454) in the intervention arm and 43.4% (n = 389) in the control arm had a malaria diagnostic test for their recent fever (adjusted risk difference [RD] = 9 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI 2-15 pp; p = 0.015; adjusted risk ratio [RR] = 1.20; 95% CI 1.05-1.38; p = 0.015). By 18 months, the ARR had increased to 1.25 (95% CI 1.09-1.44; p = 0.005). Rational use of ACTs in the intervention area increased from 41.7% (n = 279) at baseline to 59.6% (n = 403) and was 40% higher in the intervention arm at 18 months (ARR 1.40; 95% CI 1.19-1.64; p < 0.001). While intervention effects increased between 12 and 18 months, we were not able to estimate longer-term impact of the intervention and could not independently evaluate the effects of the free testing and the voucher on uptake of testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnosis-dependent ACT subsidies and community-based interventions that include the private sector can have an important impact on diagnostic testing and population-wide rational use of ACTs. Targeting of the ACT subsidy itself to those with a positive malaria diagnostic test may also improve sustainability and reduce the cost of retail-sector ACT subsidies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02461628.