Increased microerythrocyte count in homozygous alpha(+)- thalassaemia contributes to protection against severe malarial anaemia

BACKGROUND: The heritable haemoglobinopathy alpha(+)-thalassaemia is caused by the reduced synthesis of alpha-globin chains that form part of normal adult haemoglobin (Hb). Individuals homozygous for alpha(+)-thalassaemia have microcytosis and an increased erythrocyte count. Alpha(+)-thalassaemia homozygosity confers considerable protection against severe malaria, including severe malarial anaemia (SMA) (Hb concentration < 50 g/l), but does not influence parasite count. We tested the hypothesis that the erythrocyte indices associated with alpha(+)-thalassaemia homozygosity provide a haematological benefit during acute malaria. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data from children living on the north coast of Papua New Guinea who had participated in a case-control study of the protection afforded by alpha(+)-thalassaemia against severe malaria were reanalysed to assess the genotype-specific reduction in erythrocyte count and Hb levels associated with acute malarial disease. We observed a reduction in median erythrocyte count of approximately 1.5 x 10(12)/l in all children with acute falciparum malaria relative to values in community children (p < 0.001). We developed a simple mathematical model of the linear relationship between Hb concentration and erythrocyte count. This model predicted that children homozygous for alpha(+)-thalassaemia lose less Hb than children of normal genotype for a reduction in erythrocyte count of >1.1 x 10(12)/l as a result of the reduced mean cell Hb in homozygous alpha(+)-thalassaemia. In addition, children homozygous for alpha(+)-thalassaemia require a 10% greater reduction in erythrocyte count than children of normal genotype (p = 0.02) for Hb concentration to fall to 50 g/l, the cutoff for SMA. We estimated that the haematological profile in children homozygous for alpha(+)-thalassaemia reduces the risk of SMA during acute malaria compared to children of normal genotype (relative risk 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-1.12, p = 0.09). CONCLUS