The benefits or otherwise of managing malaria cases with or without laboratory diagnosis: the experience in a district hospital in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted at the Kintampo Municipal Hospital in Ghana to determine whether there was any benefit (or otherwise) in basing the management of cases of suspected malaria solely on laboratory confirmation (microscopy or by RDT) as compared with presumptive diagnosis. METHOD: Children under five years who reported at the Out-Patient Department of the Hospital with axillary temperature ≥37.5°C or with a 48 hr history of fever were enrolled and had malaria microscopy and RDT performed. The attending clinician was blinded from laboratory results unless a request for these tests had been made earlier. Diagnosis of malaria was based on three main methods: presumptive or microscopy and/or RDT. Cost implication for adopting laboratory diagnosis or not was determined to inform malaria control programmes. RESULTS: In total, 936 children were enrolled in the study. Proportions of malaria diagnosed presumptively, by RDT and microscopy were 73.6% (689/936), 66.0% (618/936) and 43.2% (404/936) respectively. Over 50% (170/318) of the children who were RDT negative and 60% (321/532) who were microscopy negative were treated for malaria when presumptive diagnoses were used. Comparing the methods of diagnoses, the cost of malaria treatment could have been reduced by 24% and 46% in the RDT and microscopy groups respectively; the reduction was greater in the dry season (43% vs. 50%) compared with the wet season (20% vs. 45%) for the RDT and microscopy confirmed cases respectively. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Over-diagnosis of malaria was prevalent in Kintampo during the period of the study. Though the use of RDT for diagnosis of malaria might have improved the quality of care for children, it appeared not to have a cost saving effect on the management of children with suspected malaria. Further research may be needed to confirm this.

Haematological and biochemical reference values for healthy adults in the middle belt of Ghana.

BACKGROUND: Reference values are very important in clinical management of patients, screening participants for enrollment into clinical trials and for monitoring the onset of adverse events during these trials. The aim of this was to establish gender-specific haematological and biochemical reference values for healthy adults in the central part of Ghana. METHODS: A total of 691 adults between 18 and 59 years resident in the Kintampo North Municipality and South District in the central part of Ghana were randomly selected using the Kintampo Health and Demographic Surveillance System and enrolled in this cross-sectional survey. Out of these, 625 adults made up of 316 males and 309 females were assessed by a clinician to be healthy. Median values and nonparametric 95% reference values for 16 haematology and 22 biochemistry parameters were determined for this population based on the Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute guidelines. Values established in this study were compared with the Caucasian values being used currently by our laboratory as reference values and also with data from other African and western countries. RESULTS: REFERENCE VALUES ESTABLISHED INCLUDE: haemoglobin 113-164 g/L for males and 88-144 g/L for females; total white blood cell count 3.4-9.2 × 10(9)/L; platelet count 88-352 × 10(9)/L for males and 89-403 × 10(9)/L for females; alanine aminotransferase 8-54 U/L for males and 6-51 U/L for females; creatinine 56-119 µmol/L for males and 53-106 µmol/L for females. Using the haematological reference values based on the package inserts would have screened out up to 53% of potential trial participants and up to 25% of the population using the biochemical parameters. CONCLUSION: We have established a panel of locally relevant reference parameters for commonly used haematological and biochemical tests. This is important as it will help in the interpretation of laboratory results both for clinical management of patients and safety monitoring during a trial.

Safety and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine given with expanded-programme-on-immunisation vaccines: 19 month follow-up of a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The RTS,S/AS01(E) candidate malaria vaccine is being developed for immunisation of infants in Africa through the expanded programme on immunisation (EPI). 8 month follow-up data have been reported for safety and immunogenicity of RTS,S/AS01(E) when integrated into the EPI. We report extended follow-up to 19 months, including efficacy results. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial of safety and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01(E) candidate malaria vaccine given with EPI vaccines between April 30, 2007, and Oct 7, 2009, in Ghana, Tanzania, and Gabon. Eligible children were 6-10 weeks of age at first vaccination, without serious acute or chronic illness. All children received the EPI diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (inactivated whole-cell), and hepatitis-B vaccines, Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine, and oral polio vaccine at study months 0, 1, and 2, and measles vaccine and yellow fever vaccines at study month 7. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive three doses of RTS,S/AS01(E) at 6, 10, and 14 weeks (0, 1, 2 month schedule) or at 6 weeks, 10 weeks, and 9 months (0, 2, 7 month schedule) or placebo. Randomisation was according to a predefined block list with a computer-generated randomisation code. Detection of serious adverse events and malaria was by passive case detection. Antibodies against Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein and HBsAg were monitored for 19 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00436007. FINDINGS: 511 children were enrolled. Serious adverse events occurred in 57 participants in the RTS,S/AS01(E) 0, 1, 2 month group (34%, 95% CI 27-41), 47 in the 0, 1, 7 month group (28%, 21-35), and 49 (29%, 22-36) in the control group; none were judged to be related to study vaccination. At month 19, anticircumsporozoite immune responses were significantly higher in the RTS,S/AS01(E) groups than in the control group. Vaccine efficacy for the 0, 1, 2 month schedule (2 weeks after dose three to month 19, site-adjusted according-to-protocol analysis) was 53% (95% CI 26-70; p=0·0012) against first malaria episodes and 59% (36-74; p=0·0001) against all malaria episodes. For the entire study period, (total vaccinated cohort) vaccine efficacy against all malaria episodes was higher with the 0, 1, 2 month schedule (57%, 95% CI 33-73; p=0·0002) than with the 0, 1, 7 month schedule (32% CI 16-45; p=0·0003). 1 year after dose three, vaccine efficacy against first malaria episodes was similar for both schedules (0, 1, 2 month group, 61·6% [95% CI 35·6-77·1], p<0·001; 0, 1, 7 month group, 63·8% [40·4-78·0], p<0·001, according-to-protocol cohort). INTERPRETATION: Vaccine efficacy was consistent with the target put forward by the WHO-sponsored malaria vaccine technology roadmap for a first-generation malaria vaccine. The 0, 1, 2 month vaccine schedule has been selected for phase 3 candidate vaccine assessment. FUNDING: Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Malaria Vaccine Initiative; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Evaluation of the safety and immunogenicity of the RTS,S/AS01E malaria candidate vaccine when integrated in the expanded program of immunization.

BACKGROUND: The RTS,S/AS01(E) malaria candidate vaccine is being developed for immunization of African infants through the Expanded Program of Immunization (EPI). METHODS: This phase 2, randomized, open, controlled trial conducted in Ghana, Tanzania, and Gabon evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of RTS,S/AS01(E) when coadministered with EPI vaccines. Five hundred eleven infants were randomized to receive RTS,S/AS01(E) at 0, 1, and 2 months (in 3 doses with diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis conjugate [DTPw]; hepatitis B [HepB]; Haemophilus influenzae type b [Hib]; and oral polio vaccine [OPV]), RTS,S/AS01(E) at 0, 1, and 7 months (2 doses with DTPwHepB/Hib+OPV and 1 dose with measles and yellow fever), or EPI vaccines only. RESULTS: The occurrences of serious adverse events were balanced across groups; none were vaccine-related. One child from the control group died. Mild to moderate fever and diaper dermatitis occurred more frequently in the RTS,S/AS01(E) coadministration groups. RTS,S/AS01(E) generated high anti-circumsporozoite protein and anti-hepatitis B surface antigen antibody levels. Regarding EPI vaccine responses upon coadministration when considering both immunization schedules, despite a tendency toward lower geometric mean titers to some EPI antigens, predefined noninferiority criteria were met for all EPI antigens except for polio 3 when EPI vaccines were given with RTS,S/AS01(E) at 0, 1, and 2 months. However, when antibody levels at screening were taken into account, the rates of response to polio 3 antigens were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: RTS,S/AS01(E) integrated in the EPI showed a favorable safety and immunogenicity evaluation. Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00436007 . GlaxoSmithKline study ID number: 106369 (Malaria-050).