Search

BackgroundMalaria reactive case detection is the testing and, if positive, treatment of close contacts of index cases. It is included in national malaria control programmes of countries in the Greater Mekong Subregion to accelerate malaria elimination. Yet the value of reactive case detection in the control and elimination of malaria remains controversial because of the low yield, limited evidence for impact, and high demands on resources.MethodsData from the epidemiological assessments of large mass drug administration (MDA) studies in Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were analysed to explore malaria infection clustering in households. The proportion of malaria positive cases among contacts screened in a hypothetical reactive case detection programme was then determined. The parasite density thresholds for rapid diagnostic test (RDT) detection was assumed to be > 50/µL (50,000/mL), for dried-blood-spot (DBS) based PCR > 5/µL (5000/mL), and for ultrasensitive PCR (uPCR) with a validated limit of detection at 0.0022/µL (22/mL).ResultsAt baseline, before MDA, 1223 Plasmodium infections were detected by uPCR in 693 households. There was clustering of Plasmodium infections. In 637 households with asymptomatic infections 44% (278/637) had more than one member with Plasmodium infections. In the 132 households with symptomatic infections, 65% (86/132) had more than one member with Plasmodium infections. At baseline 4% of households had more than one Plasmodium falciparum infection, but three months after MDA no household had more than one P. falciparum infected member. Reactive case detection using DBS PCR would have detected ten additional cases in six households, and an RDT screen would have detected five additional cases in three households among the 169 households with at least one RDT positive case. This translates to 19 and 9 additional cases identified per 1000 people screened, respectively. Overall, assuming all febrile RDT positive patients would seek treatment and provoke reactive case detection using RDTs, then 1047 of 1052 (99.5%) Plasmodium infections in these communities would have remained undetected.ConclusionReactive case detection in the Greater Mekong subregion is predicted to have a negligible impact on the malaria burden, but it has substantial costs in terms of human and financial resources.

BackgroundMass administrations of antimalarial drugs (MDA) have reduced the incidence and prevalence of P. falciparum infections in a trial in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Here we assess the impact of the MDA on P. vivax infections.MethodsBetween May 2013 and July 2017, four villages in each Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia and Lao PDR were selected based on high prevalence of P. falciparum infections. Eight of the 16 villages were randomly assigned to receive MDA consisting of three-monthly rounds of three-day courses of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and, except in Cambodia, a single low-dose of primaquine. Cross-sectional surveys were conducted at quarterly intervals to detect Plasmodium infections using ultrasensitive qPCR. The difference in the cumulative incidence between the groups was assessed through a discrete time survival approach, the difference in prevalence through a difference-in-difference analysis, and the difference in the number of participants with a recurrence of P. vivax infection through a mixed-effect logistic regression.Results3,790 (86%) residents in the intervention villages participated in at least one MDA round, of whom 2,520 (57%) participated in three rounds. The prevalence of P. vivax infections fell from 9.31% to 0.89% at month 3 but rebounded by six months to 5.81%. There was no evidence that the intervention reduced the cumulative incidence of P.vivax infections (95% confidence interval [CI] Odds ratio (OR): 0.29 to 1.36). Similarly, there was no evidence of MDA related reduction in the number of participants with at least one recurrent infection (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.42).ConclusionMDA with schizontocidal drugs had a lasting effect on P. falciparum infections but only a transient effect on the prevalence of P. vivax infections. Radical cure with an 8-aminoquinoline will be needed for the rapid elimination of vivax malaria.

BackgroundThe emergence and spread of multidrug-resistant Plasmodium falciparum in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) threatens global malaria elimination efforts. Mass drug administration (MDA), the presumptive antimalarial treatment of an entire population to clear the subclinical parasite reservoir, is a strategy to accelerate malaria elimination. We report a cluster randomised trial to assess the effectiveness of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) MDA in reducing falciparum malaria incidence and prevalence in 16 remote village populations in Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Lao People's Democratic Republic, where artemisinin resistance is prevalent.Methods and findingsAfter establishing vector control and community-based case management and following intensive community engagement, we used restricted randomisation within village pairs to select 8 villages to receive early DP MDA and 8 villages as controls for 12 months, after which the control villages received deferred DP MDA. The MDA comprised 3 monthly rounds of 3 daily doses of DP and, except in Cambodia, a single low dose of primaquine. We conducted exhaustive cross-sectional surveys of the entire population of each village at quarterly intervals using ultrasensitive quantitative PCR to detect Plasmodium infections. The study was conducted between May 2013 and July 2017. The investigators randomised 16 villages that had a total of 8,445 residents at the start of the study. Of these 8,445 residents, 4,135 (49%) residents living in 8 villages, plus an additional 288 newcomers to the villages, were randomised to receive early MDA; 3,790 out of the 4,423 (86%) participated in at least 1 MDA round, and 2,520 out of the 4,423 (57%) participated in all 3 rounds. The primary outcome, P. falciparum prevalence by month 3 (M3), fell by 92% (from 5.1% [171/3,340] to 0.4% [12/2,828]) in early MDA villages and by 29% (from 7.2% [246/3,405] to 5.1% [155/3,057]) in control villages. Over the following 9 months, the P. falciparum prevalence increased to 3.3% (96/2,881) in early MDA villages and to 6.1% (128/2,101) in control villages (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.41 [95% CI 0.20 to 0.84]; p = 0.015). Individual protection was proportional to the number of completed MDA rounds. Of 221 participants with subclinical P. falciparum infections who participated in MDA and could be followed up, 207 (94%) cleared their infections, including 9 of 10 with artemisinin- and piperaquine-resistant infections. The DP MDAs were well tolerated; 6 severe adverse events were detected during the follow-up period, but none was attributable to the intervention.ConclusionsAdded to community-based basic malaria control measures, 3 monthly rounds of DP MDA reduced the incidence and prevalence of falciparum malaria over a 1-year period in areas affected by artemisinin resistance. P. falciparum infections returned during the follow-up period as the remaining infections spread and malaria was reintroduced from surrounding areas. Limitations of this study include a relatively small sample of villages, heterogeneity between villages, and mobility of villagers that may have limited the impact of the intervention. These results suggest that, if used as part of a comprehensive, well-organised, and well-resourced elimination programme, DP MDA can be a useful additional tool to accelerate malaria elimination.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01872702.

Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has proved ineffective in treating patients hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but uncertainty remains over its safety and efficacy in chemoprevention. Previous chemoprevention randomised controlled trials (RCTs) did not individually show benefit of HCQ against COVID-19 and, although meta-analysis did suggest clinical benefit, guidelines recommend against its use. Methods and findings: Healthy adult participants from the healthcare setting, and later from the community, were enrolled in 26 centres in 11 countries to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of COVID-19 chemoprevention. HCQ was evaluated in Europe and Africa, and chloroquine (CQ) was evaluated in Asia, (both base equivalent of 155 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was symptomatic COVID-19, confirmed by PCR or seroconversion during the 3-month follow-up period. The secondary and tertiary endpoints were: asymptomatic laboratory-confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; severity of COVID-19 symptoms; all-cause PCR-confirmed symptomatic acute respiratory illness (including SARS-CoV-2 infection); participant reported number of workdays lost; genetic and baseline biochemical markers associated with symptomatic COVID-19, respiratory illness and disease severity (not reported here); and health economic analyses of HCQ and CQ prophylaxis on costs and quality of life measures (not reported here). The primary and safety analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Recruitment of 40,000 (20,000 HCQ arm, 20,000 CQ arm) participants was planned but was not possible because of protracted delays resulting from controversies over efficacy and adverse events with HCQ use, vaccine rollout in some countries, and other factors. Between 29 April 2020 and 10 March 2022, 4,652 participants (46% females) were enrolled (HCQ/CQ n = 2,320; placebo n = 2,332). The median (IQR) age was 29 (23 to 39) years. SARS-CoV-2 infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic) occurred in 1,071 (23%) participants. For the primary endpoint the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was 240/2,320 in the HCQ/CQ versus 284/2,332 in the placebo arms (risk ratio (RR) 0.85 [95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.00; p = 0.05]). For the secondary and tertiary outcomes asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred in 11.5% of HCQ/CQ recipients and 12.0% of placebo recipients: RR: 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.12; p = 0.6). There were no differences in the severity of symptoms between the groups and no severe illnesses. HCQ/CQ chemoprevention was associated with fewer PCR-confirmed all-cause respiratory infections (predominantly SARS-CoV-2): RR 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.88; p = 0.009) and fewer days lost to work because of illness: 104 days per 1,000 participants over 90 days (95% CI, 12 to 199 days; p < 0.001). The prespecified meta-analysis of all published pre-exposure RCTs indicates that HCQ/CQ prophylaxis provided a moderate protective benefit against symptomatic COVID-19: RR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91). Both drugs were well tolerated with no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Study limitations include the smaller than planned study size, the relatively low number of PCR-confirmed infections, and the lower comparative accuracy of serology endpoints (in particular, the adapted dried blood spot method) compared to the PCR endpoint. The COPCOV trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; number NCT04303507. Interpretation: In this large placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial, HCQ and CQ were safe and well tolerated in COVID-19 chemoprevention, and there was evidence of moderate protective benefit in a meta-analysis including this trial and similar RCTs. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04303507; ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN10207947. In a randomised controlled trial, William Schilling and co-workers investigate potential prevention of COVID-19 by chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Author summary: Why was this study done?: At the beginning of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was an urgent need to find ways to prevent COVID-19. Laboratory studies showed that the related 4-aminoquinolines, chloroquine (CQ), and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which had been used widely for over 50 years, had antiviral activity against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). HCQ proved ineffective in the treatment of hospitalised patients, and individual RCTs testing COVID-19 prophylaxis did not show benefit of HCQ. However, a meta-analysis of trial data did suggest some efficacy in preventing COVID-19. Current evidence-based guidelines using data from the same studies recommend strongly against the use of HCQ for prophylaxis. This study aimed to provide a definitive answer whether or not pre-exposure use of these drugs could prevent COVID-19. What did the researchers do and find?: The COPCOV study was a double-blind placebo-controlled evaluation of CQ and HCQ COVID-19 chemoprevention. It was the largest pre-exposure prophylaxis study in COVID-19. We found that CQ and HCQ were well tolerated and safe in prophylaxis. There was some evidence for protection against symptomatic COVID-19, and a reduction in workdays lost to illness. Our updated meta-analysis of all chemoprevention studies in COVID-19 confirms that chemoprophylaxis with CQ or HCQ is well tolerated, safe, and provides a moderate beneficial effect in preventing COVID-19. What do these findings mean?: Although CQ or HCQ are unlikely to be used in COVID-19 prevention at this stage, they could have been deployed with benefit earlier, and they might have value in future pandemics. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is essential in evaluating therapeutics in the context of a pandemic. Trials should be facilitated and protected so that evidence is generated rapidly and evidence-based policies can be implemented without delay to allow timely interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Care seeking was assessed in preparation for a study of the health impact of novel design houses in rural Mtwara, Tanzania. Methods A total of 578 residents of 60 villages participated in this mixed-methods study from April to August 2020. Among them, 550 participated in a healthcare-seeking survey, 17 in in-depth interviews and 28 in key informant interviews. Results The decision to seek care was based on symptom severity (95.4% [370]). Caregivers first visited non-allopathic healthcare providers or were treated at home, which led to delays in seeking care at healthcare facilities. More than one-third (36.0% [140]) of respondents took >12 h seeking care at healthcare facilities. The majority (73.0% [282]) visited healthcare facilities, whereas around one-fifth (21.0% [80]) sought care at drug stores. Treatment costs deterred respondents from visiting healthcare facilities (61.4% [338]). Only 10 (3.6%) of the households surveyed reported that they were covered by health insurance. Conclusions Quality of care, related to institutional factors, impacts timely care seeking for childhood illnesses in Mtwara, Tanzania. Ensuring accessibility of facilities is therefore not sufficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Effective antiviral drugs accelerate viral clearance in acute COVID-19 infections; the relationship between accelerating viral clearance and reducing severe clinical outcomes is unclear. Methods A systematic review was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiviral therapies in early symptomatic COVID-19, where viral clearance data were available. Treatment benefit was defined clinically as the relative risk of hospitalization/death during follow-up (≥14 days), and virologically as the SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance rate ratio (VCRR). The VCRR is the ratio of viral clearance rates between the intervention and control arms. The relationship between the clinical and virological treatment effects was assessed by mixed-effects meta-regression. Results From 57 potentially eligible RCTs, VCRRs were derived for 44 (52 384 participants); 32 had ≥1 clinical endpoint in each arm. Overall, 9.7% (R2) of the variation in clinical benefit was explained by variation in VCRRs with an estimated linear coefficient of −0.92 (95% CI: −1.99 to 0.13; P  = 0.08). However, this estimate was highly sensitive to the inclusion of the recent very large PANORAMIC trial. Omitting this outlier, half the variation in clinical benefit (R2 = 50.4%) was explained by variation in VCRRs [slope −1.47 (95% CI −2.43 to −0.51); P  = 0.003], i.e. higher VCRRs were associated with an increased clinical benefit. Conclusion Methods of determining viral clearance in COVID-19 studies and the relationship to clinical outcomes vary greatly. As prohibitively large sample sizes are now required to show clinical treatment benefit in antiviral therapeutic assessments, viral clearance is a reasonable surrogate endpoint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Scrub typhus is an understudied vector-borne bacterial infection. Methods We tested archived fever samples for scrub typhus seropositivity to begin charting its geographic distribution in Indonesia. We analysed 1033 serum samples from three sites. IgM and IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) against Orientia tsutsugamushi was performed using Karp, Kato, Gilliam, TA 716 antigens. To determine the cutoff in the absence of a presumed unexposed population and gold standard tests, we identified the visual inflection point, performed change point analysis, and used finite mixture models. Results The optical density cutoff values used for IgM and IgG were 0.49 and 0.13, respectively. Across all sites, IgM seropositivity was 4.6% (95% CI: 3.4 to 6.0%) while IgG seropositivity was 4.4% (95% CI: 3.3 to 5.8%). The overall seropositivity across sites was 8.8% (95% CI: 8.1 to 11.7%). The overall seropositivity for Jambi, Denpasar, Tabanan were 9.7% (95% CI: 7.0 to 13.3%), 8.0% (95% CI: 5.7 to 11.0%), 9.0% (95% CI: 6.1 to 13.0%), respectively. Conclusions We conclude that O. tsutsugamushi exposure in humans occurred at all sites analysed and could be the cause of illness in some cases. Though it was not the main cause of acute fever in these locations, it is still important to consider scrub typhus in cases not responding to beta-lactam antibiotics. Future seroprevalence surveys and testing for scrub typhus in acute febrile illness studies will be essential to understand its distribution and burden in Indonesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]