MalariaPhase 4RDTNCT00493922
Trial of Rapid Diagnostic Tests in Rural Ghana
A Phase 4 study testing Rapid diagnostic test, Microscopy and Clinical diagnosis for malaria in people with Malaria and Bacterial Infections, run by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine at 1 site in Ghana.
Trial summary
1) To compare in a setting where microscopy for malaria is available whether introducing rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) improves targetting of antimalarial drugs and antibiotics (RDT v microscopy). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Malaria, Bacterial Infections
- What is being tested?
- Rapid diagnostic test, Microscopy and Clinical diagnosis for malaria
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 7,263 participants
- Where
- 1 siteGhana
- Study dates
- Jul 2007to Jun 2009
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Clinician decision to test for malaria
Who cannot join
- Pregnant women
- Severe malaria requiring referral
- Patient refuses consent
- Clinician specifically requests for microscopy
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: An Individually Randomised Trial of Rapid Diagnostic Tests in Rural Ghana
- To compare in a setting where microscopy for malaria is available whether introducing rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) improves targetting of antimalarial drugs and antibiotics (RDT v microscopy). 2) To compare whether, in a setting where microscopy for malaria is not available, introducing rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) improves targetting of antimalarial drugs and antibiotics (RDT v clinical diagnosis).
Read the detailed description
BACKGROUND There is good evidence from multiple sites, including in Ghana, that malaria is massively over-diagnosed. It could be argued that where microscopy is not available it can be introduced, and elsewhere it can be improved, but high-quality microscopy is not easy to sustain. If substantial over-diagnosis continues in Ghana in an era where an ACT is now the first-line treatment, it will lead to the intervention being substantially more expensive due to over-prescription than it should be, potentially rendering it unsustainable.
The introduction of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) has the potential to provide a way of more accurately directing ACTs to those that need them and may also encourage clinicians to consider alternative diagnoses in test-negative cases, reducing the risk of missing treatable, and potentially fatal, alternative causes of febrile illness. RDTs to direct ACT use also have the possibility to be cost-effective, but only if clinicians prescribe logically on the basis of test results.
Initial data from Tanzania suggests that providing RDTs in the context of formal healthcare settings may have little impact on clinician behaviour, but the health system in Ghana is very different, and both clinician and patient beliefs about malaria are likely to be different.
Additionally, this has not been properly tested in areas with little or no access to microscopy, nor where ACTs are currently available, which may influence clinician behaviour. Many believe this is the most useful setting for RDTs, and may limit over-prescription of anti-malarials but there are no data to support this belief, nor are there data on the cost-effectiveness of this approach. This trial aims to test the impact of RDT use on clinician behaviour directly by means of a randomised trial.
OBJECTIVES Principal Objective To determine by means of a randomized trial the impact of the introduction of Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) on the appropriate prescription of anti-malarials in the two public healthcare settings found in Ghana.
Specifically,
- To determine by means of a randomized trial the impact of introducing RDTs on the appropriate prescription of anti-malarials in a setting where diagnosis is currently purely clinical.
- To determine by means of a randomized trial the impact of introducing RDTs on the appropriate prescription of anti-malarials in a setting where microscopy is available.
- To determine the sensitivity and specificity of RDTs in the diagnosis of malaria.
- To explore clinician and patient perceptions on the use of RDTs versus clinical diagnosis in the management of malaria.
- To explore clinician and patient perceptions on the use of RDTs versus microscopy in the management of malaria.
- To determine the cost-effectiveness of RDTs for diagnosis of malaria in both settings.
In both cases RDT is being compared to the standard of care in the health centre.
METHODS The study will be carried out in the Dangme West District in the southern part of Ghana. It will be an individually randomized controlled trial
- Baseline data will initially be collected for a period of one month to document the normal pattern of diagnosing malaria by clinicians in each health facility. At the health centre, all patients for whom microscopy is requested will have a research slide taken at the same time and the laboratory results of the clinic slide documented.
- Exit interviews with patients and record reviews will be conducted to find out whether patients had been prescribed an anti-malarial and confirm whether this was done on clinical grounds or on the basis of microscopy. Their prescriptions will be documented. At the community clinics as well, a research slide will be taken for all patients with diagnosis of malaria or who are prescribed an anti-malarial. Record review of the outpatient department (OPD) cards of all patients with a diagnosis of malaria or who receive an anti-malarial be carried out to also document presenting symptoms.
- For the main trial, all patients visiting the health facility and who meet the inclusion criteria will be eligible for enrolment into the study. Allocations to either microscopy or RDT at the health centre and to either clinical diagnosis or RDT at the community clinics will be computer generated. The allocations will be placed in sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes which will be prior-labelled with unique study ID numbers. Patients will be identified and consent sought on exit from the consulting room. If the clinician requests a laboratory test, the patient will be sent to the laboratory where a research assistant will open the sealed envelope in the presence of the patient to find out their allocation. The allocated test will be carried out and a research slide taken at the same time. The lab results will be written out as usual in the case of microscopy and the dipstick results will be recorded and sent to the clinician for reading as well.
- At the community clinics where there is no laboratory, the process of identification of eligible patients, seeking of consent and allocation of study arm will be similar to that of the health centre. However, in this setting, depending on the allocation in the sealed envelope, a rapid diagnostic test will either be carried out by a research assistant or a printed card with "clinical diagnosis" written on it will be given to the patient. In the case of the RDT, the results will be recorded before the dipstick is sent to the clinician for clinician-read diagnosis and subsequent treatment. Whether the patient is assigned to clinical diagnosis or RDT, a research assistant will prepare a research slide per patient and air dry them for later batch reading.
- The presenting symptoms, temperature at presentation, laboratory results, clinician's diagnoses and treatment of all patients recruited into the study will be documented. Prescriptions given to them will be documented on exit. In addition, their contact addresses will be collected on exit and consent sought to facilitate their easy location and recruitment for focus group discussions later.
- The gold standard for whether a child or adult has malaria will be slide-proven malaria parasitaemia measured by a double-read research slide. Research slides will be Giemsa stained and read by two independent microscopists who would be blind to the study allocations and test results. They will not be used by clinicians in their treatment decisions.
- At the end of the trial, individual in-depth interviews will be conducted with the main clinicians and focus group discussions held with all the other clinicians of the participating health facilities. The aim will be to explore their perceptions with regard to the use of clinical diagnosis, microscopy and RDT in the diagnosis of malaria and their practices with regards to this.
- A random selection of patients from the three health facilities will be contacted to participate in focus group discussions at the end of the trial. There will be at least two focus group discussions comprising 8-12 discussants each from each health facility. These discussions will be carried out by means of interview guides. The discussions will be conducted in the local language and recorded on a tape recorder.
In both settings data will be collected for the cost-effectiveness studies.
- Conditions
- Malaria, Bacterial Infections
- Being tested
- Rapid diagnostic test, Microscopy, Clinical diagnosis for malaria
- Keywords
- Malaria, Diagnosis, Rapid diagnostic tests, Microscopy, Clinical diagnosis, Africa
- Medical subject headings
- Malaria, Bacterial Infections, Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Rapid diagnostic testProcedure or surgery
Introduction of rapid diagnostic test for malaria
MicroscopyProcedure or surgery
Microscopy for diagnosis of malaria
Clinical diagnosis for malariaProcedure or surgery
The use of Clinical diagnosis for the diagnosis of malaria
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Active comparator | Microscopy for diagnosis of malaria Receives: Procedure: Microscopy |
| 3 | Active comparator | Clinical diagnosis for malaria Receives: Procedure: Clinical diagnosis for malaria |
| 1 | Experimental | Rapid Diagnostic Test for Malaria Receives: Procedure: Rapid diagnostic test |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The proportion of RDT test-negative patients who are prescribed an antimalarial in two settings: where there is microscopy and where diagnosis is on clinical basis
Measured: Two years
Secondary outcomes (3)
Proportion of RDT test-positive patients who were not prescribed an antimalarial in both settings
Measured: Two years
Proportion of clinic microscopy slide-negative patients who were prescribed an anti-malarial in the setting with microscopy available
Measured: Two years
Proportion of patients receiving additional or alternative treatments to antimalarials following a negative RDT result and which treatments these are.
Measured: Two years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Jun 2007 (estimated)
- Study startJul 2007
- Primary completionDec 2008
- Study completionJun 2009
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for MalariaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 7,263 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Ghana Health Services
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Brian Greenwood, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
- Investigators
- Evelyn K Ansah, MD MPH PhD, Principal investigator, Ghana Health Services
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00493922
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- REG-8
- Acronym
- RDT
- Status last verified
- Jan 2017
- First submitted
- 28 Jun 2007
- Last updated
- 12 Jan 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Ansah EK, Narh-Bana S, Epokor M, Akanpigbiam S, Quartey AA, Gyapong J, Whitty CJ. Rapid testing for malaria in settings where microscopy is available and peripheral clinics where only presumptive treatment is available: a randomised controlled trial in Ghana. BMJ. 2010 Mar 5;340:c930. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c930.
PubMed 20207689
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Jan 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- An Individually Randomised Trial of Rapid Diagnostic Tests in Rural Ghana
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00493922
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- RDT / REG-8
- Conditions
- Malaria, Bacterial Infections
- Keywords
- Malaria, Diagnosis, Rapid diagnostic tests, Microscopy, Clinical diagnosis, Africa
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 7,263 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Ghana Health Services
- Study start
- Jul 2007
- Primary completion
- Dec 2008 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2009 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 Jun 2007 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
- To compare in a setting where microscopy for malaria is available whether introducing rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) improves targetting of antimalarial drugs and antibiotics (RDT v microscopy). 2) To compare whether, in a setting where microscopy for malaria is not available, introducing rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) improves targetting of antimalarial drugs and antibiotics (RDT v clinical diagnosis).
Detailed description
BACKGROUND There is good evidence from multiple sites, including in Ghana, that malaria is massively over-diagnosed. It could be argued that where microscopy is not available it can be introduced, and elsewhere it can be improved, but high-quality microscopy is not easy to sustain. If substantial over-diagnosis continues in Ghana in an era where an ACT is now the first-line treatment, it will lead to the intervention being substantially more expensive due to over-prescription than it should be, potentially rendering it unsustainable.
The introduction of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) has the potential to provide a way of more accurately directing ACTs to those that need them and may also encourage clinicians to consider alternative diagnoses in test-negative cases, reducing the risk of missing treatable, and potentially fatal, alternative causes of febrile illness. RDTs to direct ACT use also have the possibility to be cost-effective, but only if clinicians prescribe logically on the basis of test results.
Initial data from Tanzania suggests that providing RDTs in the context of formal healthcare settings may have little impact on clinician behaviour, but the health system in Ghana is very different, and both clinician and patient beliefs about malaria are likely to be different.
Additionally, this has not been properly tested in areas with little or no access to microscopy, nor where ACTs are currently available, which may influence clinician behaviour. Many believe this is the most useful setting for RDTs, and may limit over-prescription of anti-malarials but there are no data to support this belief, nor are there data on the cost-effectiveness of this approach. This trial aims to test the impact of RDT use on clinician behaviour directly by means of a randomised trial.
OBJECTIVES Principal Objective To determine by means of a randomized trial the impact of the introduction of Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) on the appropriate prescription of anti-malarials in the two public healthcare settings found in Ghana.
Specifically,
- To determine by means of a randomized trial the impact of introducing RDTs on the appropriate prescription of anti-malarials in a setting where diagnosis is currently purely clinical.
- To determine by means of a randomized trial the impact of introducing RDTs on the appropriate prescription of anti-malarials in a setting where microscopy is available.
- To determine the sensitivity and specificity of RDTs in the diagnosis of malaria.
- To explore clinician and patient perceptions on the use of RDTs versus clinical diagnosis in the management of malaria.
- To explore clinician and patient perceptions on the use of RDTs versus microscopy in the management of malaria.
- To determine the cost-effectiveness of RDTs for diagnosis of malaria in both settings.
In both cases RDT is being compared to the standard of care in the health centre.
METHODS The study will be carried out in the Dangme West District in the southern part of Ghana. It will be an individually randomized controlled trial
- Baseline data will initially be collected for a period of one month to document the normal pattern of diagnosing malaria by clinicians in each health facility. At the health centre, all patients for whom microscopy is requested will have a research slide taken at the same time and the laboratory results of the clinic slide documented.
- Exit interviews with patients and record reviews will be conducted to find out whether patients had been prescribed an anti-malarial and confirm whether this was done on clinical grounds or on the basis of microscopy. Their prescriptions will be documented. At the community clinics as well, a research slide will be taken for all patients with diagnosis of malaria or who are prescribed an anti-malarial. Record review of the outpatient department (OPD) cards of all patients with a diagnosis of malaria or who receive an anti-malarial be carried out to also document presenting symptoms.
- For the main trial, all patients visiting the health facility and who meet the inclusion criteria will be eligible for enrolment into the study. Allocations to either microscopy or RDT at the health centre and to either clinical diagnosis or RDT at the community clinics will be computer generated. The allocations will be placed in sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes which will be prior-labelled with unique study ID numbers. Patients will be identified and consent sought on exit from the consulting room. If the clinician requests a laboratory test, the patient will be sent to the laboratory where a research assistant will open the sealed envelope in the presence of the patient to find out their allocation. The allocated test will be carried out and a research slide taken at the same time. The lab results will be written out as usual in the case of microscopy and the dipstick results will be recorded and sent to the clinician for reading as well.
- At the community clinics where there is no laboratory, the process of identification of eligible patients, seeking of consent and allocation of study arm will be similar to that of the health centre. However, in this setting, depending on the allocation in the sealed envelope, a rapid diagnostic test will either be carried out by a research assistant or a printed card with "clinical diagnosis" written on it will be given to the patient. In the case of the RDT, the results will be recorded before the dipstick is sent to the clinician for clinician-read diagnosis and subsequent treatment. Whether the patient is assigned to clinical diagnosis or RDT, a research assistant will prepare a research slide per patient and air dry them for later batch reading.
- The presenting symptoms, temperature at presentation, laboratory results, clinician's diagnoses and treatment of all patients recruited into the study will be documented. Prescriptions given to them will be documented on exit. In addition, their contact addresses will be collected on exit and consent sought to facilitate their easy location and recruitment for focus group discussions later.
- The gold standard for whether a child or adult has malaria will be slide-proven malaria parasitaemia measured by a double-read research slide. Research slides will be Giemsa stained and read by two independent microscopists who would be blind to the study allocations and test results. They will not be used by clinicians in their treatment decisions.
- At the end of the trial, individual in-depth interviews will be conducted with the main clinicians and focus group discussions held with all the other clinicians of the participating health facilities. The aim will be to explore their perceptions with regard to the use of clinical diagnosis, microscopy and RDT in the diagnosis of malaria and their practices with regards to this.
- A random selection of patients from the three health facilities will be contacted to participate in focus group discussions at the end of the trial. There will be at least two focus group discussions comprising 8-12 discussants each from each health facility. These discussions will be carried out by means of interview guides. The discussions will be conducted in the local language and recorded on a tape recorder.
In both settings data will be collected for the cost-effectiveness studies.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Active comparator | Procedure: MicroscopyMicroscopy for diagnosis of malaria |
| 3 | Active comparator | Procedure: Clinical diagnosis for malariaClinical diagnosis for malaria |
| 1 | Experimental | Procedure: Rapid diagnostic testRapid Diagnostic Test for Malaria |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Clinician decision to test for malaria
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Pregnant women
- Severe malaria requiring referral
- Patient refuses consent
- Clinician specifically requests for microscopy
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Rapid diagnostic testIntroduction of rapid diagnostic test for malaria | Procedure or surgery | 1 |
| MicroscopyMicroscopy for diagnosis of malaria | Procedure or surgery | 2 |
| Clinical diagnosis for malariaThe use of Clinical diagnosis for the diagnosis of malaria | Procedure or surgery | 3 |
Primary outcome
The proportion of RDT test-negative patients who are prescribed an antimalarial in two settings: where there is microscopy and where diagnosis is on clinical basis
Time frame: Two years
3 secondary outcomes
Proportion of RDT test-positive patients who were not prescribed an antimalarial in both settings
Time frame: Two years
Proportion of clinic microscopy slide-negative patients who were prescribed an anti-malarial in the setting with microscopy available
Time frame: Two years
Proportion of patients receiving additional or alternative treatments to antimalarials following a negative RDT result and which treatments these are.
Time frame: Two years
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Jan 2017.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 20207689Ansah EK, Narh-Bana S, Epokor M, Akanpigbiam S, Quartey AA, Gyapong J, Whitty CJ. Rapid testing for malaria in settings where microscopy is available and peripheral clinics where only presumptive treatment is available: a randomised controlled trial in Ghana. BMJ. 2010 Mar 5;340:c930. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c930.
- Related InfoLink provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Malaria
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Trajectories and Mechanisms of Recovery From Malaria: An Observational Study
Malaria
Not yet recruiting
Positron Emission Tomography and Organ-Specific Changes in Participants Co-Enrolled in NIH Studies of Plasmodium Vivax Controlled Human Malaria Infection
Healthy Volunteer, Malaria
Recruiting
The Effects of Iron Treatment on Vaccine Immunogenicity in Kenyan Infants With Iron Deficiency
Iron Deficiencies
RecruitingObservational study
Host and Parasite Factors That Influence Susceptibility to Malaria Infection and Disease During Pregnancy and Early Childhood in Ouelessebougou and Bamako, Mali
Malaria
RecruitingPhase 1
Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of PfSPZ-LARC2 Vaccine Against CHMI in Malaria-Naïve Adults
Malaria Falciparum
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Evelyn K Ansah, MD MPH PhD principal investigator
Ghana Health Services
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Rapid diagnostic test, Microscopy and Clinical diagnosis for malaria in people with Malaria and Bacterial Infections, run by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine at 1 site in Ghana.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Jan 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Ghana. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The proportion of RDT test-negative patients who are prescribed an antimalarial in two settings: where there is microscopy and where diagnosis is on clinical basis (time frame: Two years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00493922, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Jan 2017.