Search

In rural areas of South and Southeast Asia malaria is declining but febrile illnesses still account for substantial morbidity and mortality. Village health workers (VHWs) are often the first point of contact with the formal health system, and for patients with febrile illnesses they can provide early diagnosis and treatment of malaria. However, for the majority of febrile patients, VHWs lack the training, support and resources to provide further care. Consequently, treatable bacterial illnesses are missed, antibiotics are overused and poorly targeted, and patient attendance wanes along with declining malaria. This Open Letter announces the start of a new initiative, the Rural Febrile Illness (RFI) project, the first in a series of projects to be implemented as part of the South and Southeast Asian Community-based Trials Network (SEACTN) research programme. This multi-country, multi-site project will begin in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar and will define the epidemiological baseline of febrile illness in five remote and underserved areas of Asia where malaria endemicity is declining and access to health services is limited. The RFI project aims to determine the incidence, causes and outcomes of febrile illness; understand the opportunities, barriers and appetite for adjustment of the role of VHWs to include management of non-malarial febrile illnesses; and establish a network of community healthcare providers and facilities capable of implementing interventions designed to triage, diagnose and treat patients presenting with febrile illnesses within these communities in the future.

In rural areas of South and Southeast Asia malaria is declining but febrile illnesses still account for substantial morbidity and mortality. Village health workers (VHWs) are often the first point of contact with the formal health system, and for patients with febrile illnesses they can provide early diagnosis and treatment of malaria. However, for the majority of febrile patients, VHWs lack the training, support and resources to provide further care. Consequently, treatable bacterial illnesses are missed, antibiotics are overused and poorly targeted, and patient attendance wanes along with declining malaria. This Open Letter announces the start of a new initiative, the Rural Febrile Illness (RFI) project, the first in a series of projects to be implemented as part of the South and Southeast Asian Community-based Trials Network (SEACTN) research programme. This multi-country, multi-site project will run in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, and Myanmar. It will define the epidemiological baseline of febrile illness in nine remote and underserved areas of Asia where malaria endemicity is declining and access to health services is limited. The RFI project aims to determine the incidence, causes and outcomes of febrile illness; understand the opportunities, barriers and appetite for adjustment of the role of VHWs to include management of non-malarial febrile illnesses; and establish a network of community healthcare providers and facilities capable of implementing interventions designed to triage, diagnose and treat patients presenting with febrile illnesses within these communities in the future.

Engagement between health researchers and local schools, or School Engagement, has become incorporated into the engagement strategies of many research institutions worldwide. Innovative initiatives have emerged within Wellcome Trust-funded African and Asian Programmes (APPs) and elsewhere, and continued funding from the Wellcome Trust and other funders is likely to catalyse further innovation. Engagement between scientists and schools is well-described in the scientific literature (1-4), however, engagement between health researchers and schools is much newer, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and rarely documented. In November 2018 the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP) hosted an international workshop in Kilifi, Kenya, drawing on an emerging community of School Engagement practitioners towards exploring the broad range of goals for School Engagement, learning about the breadth of evaluation approaches and exploring the potential usefulness of establishing a practitioner network. The workshop was attended by 29 engagement researchers/practitioners representing 21 institutions from 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia and the UK. Workshop sessions combining small group discussions with plenary presentations, enabled a range of goals, activities and evaluation approaches to be shared. This report summarises these discussions, and shares participant views on the possible functions of a network of School Engagement practitioners. A breadth of ‘deep’ and ‘wide’ engagement activities were described addressing four broad goals: contributing to science education; capacity strengthening for health research; contributing to goals of community engagement; and health promotion. While wide approaches have greater outreach for raising student awareness, deeper approaches are more likely enable informed student views to be incorporated into research. All activities ultimately aimed at improving health, but also at supporting development in low- and middle-income countries through promoting science-career uptake. Participants identified a range of potential benefits which could emerge from a practitioner network: sharing experiences and resources; facilitating capacity strengthening; and fostering collaboration

Background: The COPCOV study (chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine prevention of coronavirus disease), which started recruitment in April 2020, is a multi-country double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial which is being conducted in healthcare facilities involved in COVID-19 case management. Participants are staff employed in facilities managing people with proven or suspected COVID-19. As part of the study, we conducted a series of engagement sessions. The aims were to assess the feasibility of the study, to identify context-specific ethical issues, to understand possible concerns, to fine tune research procedures and to refine the COPCOV information materials. Methods: The COPCOV study was approved by relevant institutional review boards. The sessions described in this paper were part of the study. We conducted a series of engagement sessions, each involving a short presentation of the study, a section where attendees were asked to express their willingness to participate in such a study, which information they would need to change their view and an open Q&A section. Answers were transcribed and coded into themes by two independent investigators. Themes were derived from the data. They complemented other site-specific engagement, communication, and public relation activities such as press releases and websites. Results and conclusions: From 16 th March 2020 to 20 th January 2021, 12 engagement sessions were conducted in Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal and the UK involving 213 attendees in total. Issues raised revolved around the social value and study rationale; safety of trial medications and risk-benefit balance; study design and commitments. These sessions helped us identify concerns people had, which helped us refine information materials as well as complement site feasibility assessments. Our experience strongly supports the use of participatory practices prior to conducting clinical trials.

The World Health Organization (WHO) living guideline on drugs to prevent COVID-19 has recently advised that ongoing trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine in chemoprophylaxis should stop. The WHO guideline cites “high certainty” evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis does not reduce mortality and does not reduce hospital admission, and “moderate certainty” evidence of poor tolerability because of a significantly increased rate of adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. Yet there is no such evidence. In the three pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis RCTs evaluated in the guideline there were no deaths and only two COVID-19-related hospital admissions, and there was a mistake in the analysis of the number of discontinuations (after correction there is no longer a statistically significant difference between those taking the drug and the controls). Guidelines on the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 should be based on sufficient verified evidence, understanding of the disease process, sound statistical analysis and interpretation, and an appreciation of global needs. The WHO living guideline on the prevention of COVID-19 should retract the advice to stop research on hydroxychloroquine chemoprophylaxis, should correct its errors, and should revise its guidance.

The World Health Organization living guideline on drugs to prevent COVID-19 has recently advised that ongoing trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine in chemoprophylaxis should stop. The WHO guideline cites “high certainty” evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis does not reduce mortality and does not reduce hospital admission, and “moderate certainty” evidence of poor tolerability because of a significantly increased rate of adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. Yet there is no such evidence. In the three pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis RCTs evaluated in the guideline there were no deaths and only two COVID-19-related hospital admissions, and there was a mistake in the analysis of the number of discontinuations (after correction there is no longer a statistically significant difference between those taking the drug and the controls). Guidelines on the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 should be based on sufficient verified evidence, understanding of the disease process, sound statistical analysis and interpretation, and an appreciation of global needs.