Objective To assess the accuracy of malaria diagnosis and treatment at primary level clinics in Afghanistan.Design Prospective observational study.Setting 22 clinics in two Afghan provinces, one in the north (adjoining Tajikistan) and one in the east (adjoining Pakistan); areas with seasonal transmission of Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum.Participants 2357 patients of all ages enrolled if clinicians suspected malaria.Interventions Established (>5 years) microscopy (12 clinics in east Afghanistan), newly established microscopy (five clinics in north Afghanistan), and no laboratory (five clinics in north Afghanistan). All clinics used the national malaria treatment guidelines.Main outcome measures Proportion of patients positive and negative for malaria who received a malaria drug; sensitivity and specificity of clinic based diagnosis; prescriber’s response to the result of the clinic slide; and proportion of patients positive and negative for malaria who were prescribed antibiotics. Outcomes were measured against a double read reference blood slide.Results In health centres using clinical diagnosis, although 413 of 414 patients were negative by the reference slide, 412 (99%) received a malaria drug and 47 (11%) received an antibiotic. In clinics using new microscopy, 37% (75/202) of patients who were negative by the reference slide received a malaria drug and 60% (103/202) received an antibiotic. In clinics using established microscopy, 50.8% (645/1269) of patients who were negative by the reference slide received a malaria drug and 27.0% (342/1269) received an antibiotic. Among the patients who tested positive for malaria, 94% (443/472) correctly received a malaria drug but only 1 of 6 cases of falciparum malaria was detected and appropriately treated. The specificity of established and new microscopy was 72.9% and 79.9%, respectively. In response to negative clinic slide results, malaria drugs were prescribed to 270/905 (28.8%) and 32/154 (21%) and antibiotics to 347/930 (37.3%) and 99/154 (64%) patients in established and new microscopy arms, respectively. Nurses were less likely to misprescribe than doctors.Conclusions Despite a much lower incidence of malaria in Afghanistan than in Africa, fever was substantially misdiagnosed as malaria in this south Asian setting. Inaccuracy was attributable to false positive laboratory diagnoses of malaria and the clinicians’ disregard of negative slide results. Rare but potentially fatal cases of falciparum malaria were not detected, emphasising the potential role of rapid diagnostic tests. Microscopy increased the proportion of patients treated with antibiotics producing a trade-off between overtreatment with malaria drugs and probable overtreatment with antibiotics.

Objective To assess the impact of rapid diagnostic tests on the diagnostic accuracy and treatment of malaria and non-severe fever in an Asian setting.Design Patient randomised trial in primary level clinics.Setting Two areas of Afghanistan where Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum are endemic; one area with moderate transmission (eastern region) and one with low transmission (northern region).Participants 5794 patients of all ages with suspected malaria enrolled by 80 clinicians in 22 clinics.Interventions Malaria rapid diagnostic tests were compared with clinical diagnosis where no parasite diagnostic test was available, longer established field microscopy, and recently introduced microscopy.Main outcome measures Proportion of patients appropriately treated with an antimalarial, defined as patients with P vivax who received chloroquine, patients with P falciparum who received artemisinin based combination therapy, and patients with no malaria parasites who did not receive an antimalarial. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic test accuracy and the proportion of patients negative for malaria who received antibiotics and antimalarials.Results In the low transmission area, comparing rapid diagnostic tests with clinical diagnosis, 65% (212/325) versus 12% (40/321) of febrile patients were appropriately treated for malaria (adjusted odds ratio 92.7, 95% confidence interval 12.4 to 694.1, P<0.001). The proportion of patients who were negative for malaria and received an antibiotic was 57% (185/325) in the rapid diagnostic test arm compared with 14% (46/321) in the clinical diagnosis arm (16.9, 3.8 to 75.4, P<0.001). In the comparison of rapid diagnostic test with microscopy in the moderate transmission area, 83.6% (1696/2028) versus 76.3% (1512/1983) of patients were appropriately treated for malaria (1.70, 1.30 to 2.23, P<0.001). A higher proportion of P falciparum cases received appropriate treatment with artemisinin based combination therapy when malaria was diagnosed by rapid diagnostic test (82%, 58/71 v 32%, 24/76; 9.2, 3.88 to 21.66, P<0.001).Conclusions In South and central Asian regions of low to moderate malaria transmission where clinics lack capacity for diagnosis with rapid diagnostic tests or microscopy, the introduction of the tests should be considered to improve clinical care, reduce the overuse of antimalarials, and improve disease surveillance.

Background: Improving access to parasitological diagnosis of malaria is a central strategy for control and elimination of the disease. Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are relatively easy to perform and could be used in primary level clinics to increase coverage of diagnostics and improve treatment of malaria. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken of RDT-based diagnosis in public health sector facilities in Afghanistan comparing the societal and health sector costs of RDTs versus microscopy and RDTs versus clinical diagnosis in low and moderate transmission areas. The effect measure was 'appropriate treatment for malaria' defined using a reference diagnosis. Effects were obtained from a recent trial of RDTs in 22 public health centres with cost data collected directly from health centres and from patients enrolled in the trial. Decision models were used to compare the cost of RDT diagnosis versus the current diagnostic method in use at the clinic per appropriately treated case (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER).

BackgroundThe recorded detection of chronic disease by practices is generally lower than the prevalence predicted by population surveys. AimTo determine whether patient-reported access to general practice predicts the recorded detection rates of chronic diseases in that setting. Design and settingA cross-sectional study involving 146 general practices in Leicestershire and Rutland, England. MethodThe numbers of patients recorded as having chronic disease (coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes) were obtained from Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) practice disease registers for [2008][2009]. Characteristics of practice populations (deprivation, age, sex, ethnicity, proportion reporting poor health, practice turnover, list size) and practice performance (achievement of QOF disease indicators, patient experience of being able to consult a doctor within 2 working days and book an appointment >2 days in advance) were included in regression models. ResultsPatient characteristics (deprivation, age, poor health) and practice characteristics (list size, turnover, QOF achievement) were associated with recorded detection of more than one of the chronic diseases. Practices in which patients were more likely to report being able to book appointments had reduced recording rates of chronic disease. Being able to consult a doctor within 2 days was not associated with levels of recorded chronic disease. ConclusionPractices with high levels of deprivation and older patients have increased rates of recorded chronic disease. As the number of patients recorded with chronic disease increased, the capacity of practices to meet patients' requests for appointments in advance declined. The capacity of some practices to detect and manage chronic disease may need improving.Keywords chronic disease; early diagnosis; health services accessibility; primary health care.

ObjectivesClinical laboratory reference intervals used in a specific area should be derived from the local population as they are influenced by many factors. The purpose of this quantitative cross sectional study was to establish hematological reference intervals for healthy adults in Asmara and to determine whether the currently used reference interval do represent the adult population in the city. In addition, the established reference intervals were compared to findings from similar studies conducted in selected countries in Africa.ResultsThere was a significant difference between males and females in the reference intervals for erythrocyte count, hemoglobin, hematocrit, mean cell volume, mean cell hemoglobin, mean cell hemoglobin concentration and differential white blood cell count. All the evaluated hematological analytes were found to be higher in males than in females except for platelet count. The out of range percentage for the parameters extends from 3.5 to 46.7%; with red blood cell count having the lowest while mean cell volume having the highest out of range percentage. The results indicated that the currently used reference interval does not represent the population in Asmara and are different from those obtained elsewhere in Africa.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-018-3142-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.