Cambodia targets malaria elimination by 2025. Rapid elimination will depend on successfully identifying and clearing malaria foci linked to forests. Expanding and maintaining universal access to early diagnosis and effective treatment remains the key to malaria control and ultimately malaria elimination in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) in the foreseeable future. Mass Drug Administration (MDA) holds some promise in the rapid reduction of Plasmodium falciparum infections, but requires considerable investment of resources and time to mobilize the target communities. Furthermore, the most practical drug regimen for MDA in the GMS-three rounds of DHA/piperaquine-has lost some of its efficacy. Mass screening and treatment benefits asymptomatic P. falciparum carriers by clearing chronic infections, but in its current form holds little promise for malaria elimination. Hopes that "highly sensitive" diagnostic tests would provide substantial advances in screen and treat programmes have been shown to be misplaced. To reduce the burden on P. falciparum and Plasmodium vivax infections in people working in forested areas novel approaches to the use of malaria prophylaxis in forest workers should be explored. During an October 2019 workshop in Phnom Penh researchers and policymakers reviewed evidence of acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of interventions to target malaria foci and interrupt P. falciparum transmission and discussed operational requirements and conditions for programmatic implementation.
Background Rapid elimination of Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Cambodia is a goal with both national and international significance. Transmission of malaria in Cambodia is limited to forest environments, and the main population at risk consists of forest-goers who rely on forest products for income or sustenance. The ideal interventions to eliminate malaria from this population are unknown. Methods In two forested regions of Cambodia, forest-goers were trained to become forest malaria workers (FMWs). In one region, FMWs performed mass screening and treatment, focal screening and treatment, and passive case detection inside the forest. In the other region, FMWs played an observational role for the first year, to inform the choice of intervention for the second year. In both forests, FMWs collected blood samples and questionnaire data from all forest-goers they encountered. Mosquito collections were performed in each forest. Results Malaria prevalence by PCR was high in the forest, with 2.3–5.0% positive for P. falciparum and 14.6–25.0% positive for Plasmodium vivax among forest-goers in each study site. In vectors, malaria prevalence ranged from 2.1% to 9.6%, but no P. falciparum was observed. Results showed poor performance of mass screening and treatment, with sensitivity of rapid diagnostic tests equal to 9.1% (95% CI 1.1%, 29.2%) for P. falciparum and 4.4% (95% CI 1.6%, 9.2%) for P. vivax. Malaria infections were observed in all demographics and throughout the studied forests, with no clear risk factors emerging. Conclusions Malaria prevalence remains high among Cambodian forest-goers, but performance of rapid diagnostic tests is poor. More adapted strategies to this population, such as intermittent preventive treatment of forest goers, should be considered.
BackgroundVanuatu, an archipelago country in Western Pacific harbouring low Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax malaria transmission, has been implementing a malaria case management policy, recommending parasitological testing of patients with fever and anti-malarial treatment for test-positive only patients. A health facility survey to evaluate the health systems readiness to implement the policy and the quality of outpatient management for patients with fever was undertaken.MethodsA cross-sectional, cluster sample survey, using a range of quality-of-care methods, included all health centres and hospitals in Vanuatu. The main outcome measures were coverage of health facilities and health workers with commodities and support interventions, adherence to test and treatment recommendations, and factors influencing malaria testing.ResultsThe survey was undertaken in 2014 during the low malaria season and included 41 health facilities, 67 health workers and 226 outpatient consultations for patients with fever. All facilities had capacity for parasitological diagnosis, 95.1 % stocked artemether-lumefantrine and 63.6 % primaquine. The coverage of health workers with support interventions ranged from 50 to 70 %. Health workers’ knowledge was high only regarding treatment policy for uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria (83.4 %). History taking and clinical examination practices were sub-optimal. Some 35.0 % (95 % CI 23.4–48.6) of patients with fever were tested for malaria, of which all results were negative and only one patient received anti-malarial treatment. Testing was significantly higher for patients age 5 years and older (OR = 2.33; 95 % CI 1.48–5.02), seen by less qualified health workers (OR = 2.73; 95 % CI 1.48–5.02), health workers who received malaria case management training (OR = 2.39; 95 % CI 1.28–4.47) and patients with increased temperature (OR = 2.56; 95 % CI 1.17–5.57), main complaint of fever (OR = 5.82; 95 % CI 1.26–26.87) and without runny nose (OR = 3.75; 95 % CI 1.36–10.34). Antibiotic use was very high (77.4 %) with sub-optimal dispensing and counselling practices.ConclusionsHealth facility and health worker readiness to implement policy is higher for falciparum than vivax malaria. Clinical and malaria testing practices are sub-optimal, however adherence to test negative results is nearly universal. Use of antibiotics is irrational. Quantitative and qualitative improvements of ongoing interventions are needed to re-inforce clinical practices in this area characterized by difficult access, human resource shortages but aspiring towards malaria elimination.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.