FeverNCT00565071
Parasite-based Diagnosis for Malaria in Uganda: Feasibility and Cost-Effectiveness
A study testing Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf® in people with Fever and Malaria, run by Makerere University at 1 site in Uganda.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of treating malaria based on three methods of diagnosis (rapid test, microscopy and presumptive diagnosis) among patients attending level three government health centres located in areas of low and high transmission intensities in Uganda. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 3 months and older
- What is being tested?
- Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf®
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 102,087 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUganda
- Study dates
- Oct 2006to Dec 2012
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 3 months and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Suspected uncomplicated malaria infection
- Consent to participate
Who cannot join
- Pregnancy (policy recommends quinine for treatment of malaria in pregnancy)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Uganda1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Bushenyi and Iganga districts - Government Health Cetres level III
Bushenyi and Iganga
Vincent K. Batwala, MPH, +256 712 074706, vbatwala@yahoo.com
Fred Nuwaha, MD, PhD, +256 782 518324, nuwahaf@yahoo.co.uk
About this study
The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of treating malaria based on three methods of diagnosis (rapid test, microscopy and presumptive diagnosis) among patients attending level three government health centres located in areas of low and high transmission intensities in Uganda. The study hypotheses are: in both low and high transmission areas, cost-effectiveness of malaria treatment with Artemether-Lumefantrine will be improved by the adoption of rapid diagnostic tests when compared with presumptive diagnosis or microscopy; and the difference between the cost-effectiveness of Artemether-Lumefantrine treatment following rapid diagnostic test or microscopy versus presumptive diagnosis will be greatest in low transmission areas.
Read the detailed description
The development of drug resistance in malaria parasites lead the Uganda Ministry of Health (MoH) to change the first-line anti-malarial treatment from the cheap Chloroquine/Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine combination to a more expensive Artemether-Lumefantrine. The MoH recommends treatment of all fever cases as malaria within 24 hours of illness with first-line drug. Under this policy, patients who do not have malaria but present with febrile illness will receive Coartem® resulting in significant drug wastage. With the increased cost of first-line drugs, this wastage places a substantial and potentially remediable burden on the health budget. As such, there is a need to gauge whether more accurate malaria diagnosis through microscopy and/or rapid diagnostic tests, might improve the cost-effectiveness of the new treatment regimes.
Specific objectives
- To assess the feasibility of rapid test and microscopy in diagnosis of malaria at health centre III.
- To compare the cost-effectiveness of treating malaria with Artemether- Lumefantrine based on microscopy, rapid test and presumptive diagnosis in different transmission intensities
- To assess whether introduction of malaria parasite-based diagnosis (rapid test or microscopy) at government Health Centre III improves the overall cost-effectiveness of outpatient management of febrile illness
Sample size determination The sample size was determined using standard formula. Estimating the sensitivity of either test to be 90%, Zα =1.96 and after stratifying for age (<5 years and ≥5 years), the calculated sample is 272 per health centre. Therefore, the total number of patients for 6 health centres in two districts = 6 x 272 = 1632.
Baseline: Baseline data was collected on the current malaria treatment practices; clinicians' view of malaria diagnosis; concerns towards the new treatment; and health centre staffing. Geographical locations of all visited government health centres was recorded using Germin etrex global positioning system (Germin International Inc., Olathe, USA). At six selected health centres, social and demographic data was collected from 613 patients.
Implementation of intervention: The main intervention is comprised of three malaria diagnostic approaches: presumptive diagnosis, field microscopy and rapid test (Paracheck Pf® device - Orchid Biomedical Systems, Goa, India). Each of these approaches was randomly allocated to a health centre. The first-line drug used is Artemether/Lumefantrine (20mg/120mg) (Novartis, Switzerland).
Consenting subjects are consecutively enrolled at the point when the attending clinician suspects that they have uncomplicated malaria. Where microscopy is the main diagnostic method, thick and thin blood smears are prepared per patient enrolled. Where rapid test is the main method, all patients are tested. One hundred patients per health centre are randomly selected to provide blood specimens for validation using expert microscopy and PCR as "gold standard." After enrolment, patients are systematically tracked until departure from the health centre. Patients are followed up on the seventh day of treatment to assess their clinical improvement. Those who fail to return on the scheduled date are traced from their homes on the eighth day.
Follow-up activities include: documentation of drugs prescribed and or dispensed; clinically assess the patient's status in comparison to Day 0; perform further tests including PCR if the patient does not show improvement; pill counting of drugs remaining - if the patient has not completed the dose; documentation of reasons for not completing dose; and documentation if the patient bought the prescribed drugs that were out of stock on Day 0.
Effectiveness is measured as the number of patients commencing treatment with Artemether/Lumefantrine. However, patients are followed up and effectiveness also measured on the 7th day of treatment indicated by their clinical improvement. The feasibility of the diagnostic methods is ongoing from the March 2010 to date.
- Being tested
- Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf®
- Keywords
- Cost-effectiveness, Diagnosis, Treatment, Malaria
- Medical subject headings
- Fever, Malaria, Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf®Device
Malaria diagnosis based on microscopy and or Paracheck Pf®. Artemether/Lumefantrine (20mg/120mg) is first-line drug in all arms
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Field microscopy | Other | Field microscopy is the main method of malaria diagnosis Receives: Device: Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf® |
| Paracheck Pf® device | Other | Paracheck Pf® device (Rapid Diagnostic Test) is the main method for malaria diagnosis Receives: Device: Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf® |
| Presumptive diagnostic method | No intervention | Not described |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
diagnostic test validity; unit cost per malaria case diagnosed and treated with Artemether-Lumefantrine; total savings associated with treatment of confirmed malaria cases; compliance with directives for use of rapid test or microscopy
Measured: 18 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
unit cost of non-malaria febrile treatment; therapeutic behaviour in light of pressure to prescribe antimalarials
Measured: 18 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Nov 2007 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2006
- Primary completionMar 2012 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2012 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for FeverStudies 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 N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 102,087 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Makerere University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Department for International Development, United Kingdom
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Institute of Public Health, Makerere University
- Investigators
- Fred Nuwaha, MD, PhD, Study chair, Department of Disease Control and Environmental Health, Makerere Universtiy School of Public Health
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00565071
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2006/HD20/4758U
- Status last verified
- Mar 2012
- First submitted
- 28 Nov 2007
- Last updated
- 28 Mar 2012
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Batwala V, Magnussen P, Nuwaha F. Challenges to implementation of artemisinin combination therapy policy in Uganda. Int Health. 2010 Dec;2(4):262-8. doi: 10.1016/j.inhe.2010.07.002.
PubMed 24037867Batwala V, Magnussen P, Mirembe J, Mulogo E, Nuwaha F. Timing of malaria messages for target audience on radio airwaves. Malar J. 2012 Aug 20;11:283. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-283.
PubMed 22905781Batwala V, Magnussen P, Nuwaha F. Antibiotic use among patients with febrile illness in a low malaria endemicity setting in Uganda. Malar J. 2011 Dec 20;10:377. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-377.
PubMed 22183039Batwala V, Magnussen P, Nuwaha F. Comparative feasibility of implementing rapid diagnostic test and microscopy for parasitological diagnosis of malaria in Uganda. Malar J. 2011 Dec 19;10:373. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-373.
PubMed 22182758Batwala V, Magnussen P, Hansen KS, Nuwaha F. Cost-effectiveness of malaria microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests versus presumptive diagnosis: implications for malaria control in Uganda. Malar J. 2011 Dec 19;10:372. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-372.
PubMed 22182735Batwala V, Magnussen P, Nuwaha F. Are rapid diagnostic tests more accurate in diagnosis of plasmodium falciparum malaria compared to microscopy at rural health centres? Malar J. 2010 Dec 2;9:349. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-349.
PubMed 21126328
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Mar 2012. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Parasite-based Diagnosis for Malaria in Uganda: Feasibility and Cost-Effectiveness
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00565071
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2006/HD20/4758U
- Keywords
- Cost-effectiveness, Diagnosis, Treatment, Malaria
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 102,087 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Makerere UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Department for International Development, United Kingdom
- Study start
- Oct 2006
- Primary completion
- Mar 2012 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2012 (estimated)
- First posted
- 29 Nov 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.
The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of treating malaria based on three methods of diagnosis (rapid test, microscopy and presumptive diagnosis) among patients attending level three government health centres located in areas of low and high transmission intensities in Uganda. The study hypotheses are: in both low and high transmission areas, cost-effectiveness of malaria treatment with Artemether-Lumefantrine will be improved by the adoption of rapid diagnostic tests when compared with presumptive diagnosis or microscopy; and the difference between the cost-effectiveness of Artemether-Lumefantrine treatment following rapid diagnostic test or microscopy versus presumptive diagnosis will be greatest in low transmission areas.
Detailed description
The development of drug resistance in malaria parasites lead the Uganda Ministry of Health (MoH) to change the first-line anti-malarial treatment from the cheap Chloroquine/Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine combination to a more expensive Artemether-Lumefantrine. The MoH recommends treatment of all fever cases as malaria within 24 hours of illness with first-line drug. Under this policy, patients who do not have malaria but present with febrile illness will receive Coartem® resulting in significant drug wastage. With the increased cost of first-line drugs, this wastage places a substantial and potentially remediable burden on the health budget. As such, there is a need to gauge whether more accurate malaria diagnosis through microscopy and/or rapid diagnostic tests, might improve the cost-effectiveness of the new treatment regimes.
Specific objectives
- To assess the feasibility of rapid test and microscopy in diagnosis of malaria at health centre III.
- To compare the cost-effectiveness of treating malaria with Artemether- Lumefantrine based on microscopy, rapid test and presumptive diagnosis in different transmission intensities
- To assess whether introduction of malaria parasite-based diagnosis (rapid test or microscopy) at government Health Centre III improves the overall cost-effectiveness of outpatient management of febrile illness
Sample size determination The sample size was determined using standard formula. Estimating the sensitivity of either test to be 90%, Zα =1.96 and after stratifying for age (<5 years and ≥5 years), the calculated sample is 272 per health centre. Therefore, the total number of patients for 6 health centres in two districts = 6 x 272 = 1632.
Baseline: Baseline data was collected on the current malaria treatment practices; clinicians' view of malaria diagnosis; concerns towards the new treatment; and health centre staffing. Geographical locations of all visited government health centres was recorded using Germin etrex global positioning system (Germin International Inc., Olathe, USA). At six selected health centres, social and demographic data was collected from 613 patients.
Implementation of intervention: The main intervention is comprised of three malaria diagnostic approaches: presumptive diagnosis, field microscopy and rapid test (Paracheck Pf® device - Orchid Biomedical Systems, Goa, India). Each of these approaches was randomly allocated to a health centre. The first-line drug used is Artemether/Lumefantrine (20mg/120mg) (Novartis, Switzerland).
Consenting subjects are consecutively enrolled at the point when the attending clinician suspects that they have uncomplicated malaria. Where microscopy is the main diagnostic method, thick and thin blood smears are prepared per patient enrolled. Where rapid test is the main method, all patients are tested. One hundred patients per health centre are randomly selected to provide blood specimens for validation using expert microscopy and PCR as "gold standard." After enrolment, patients are systematically tracked until departure from the health centre. Patients are followed up on the seventh day of treatment to assess their clinical improvement. Those who fail to return on the scheduled date are traced from their homes on the eighth day.
Follow-up activities include: documentation of drugs prescribed and or dispensed; clinically assess the patient's status in comparison to Day 0; perform further tests including PCR if the patient does not show improvement; pill counting of drugs remaining - if the patient has not completed the dose; documentation of reasons for not completing dose; and documentation if the patient bought the prescribed drugs that were out of stock on Day 0.
Effectiveness is measured as the number of patients commencing treatment with Artemether/Lumefantrine. However, patients are followed up and effectiveness also measured on the 7th day of treatment indicated by their clinical improvement. The feasibility of the diagnostic methods is ongoing from the March 2010 to date.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Field microscopy | Other | Device: Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf®Field microscopy is the main method of malaria diagnosis |
| Paracheck Pf® device | Other | Device: Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf®Paracheck Pf® device (Rapid Diagnostic Test) is the main method for malaria diagnosis |
| Presumptive diagnostic method | No intervention | – |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 3 months and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Suspected uncomplicated malaria infection
- Consent to participate
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Pregnancy (policy recommends quinine for treatment of malaria in pregnancy)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf®Malaria diagnosis based on microscopy and or Paracheck Pf®. Artemether/Lumefantrine (20mg/120mg) is first-line drug in all arms | Device | Field microscopy, Paracheck Pf® device |
Primary outcome
diagnostic test validity; unit cost per malaria case diagnosed and treated with Artemether-Lumefantrine; total savings associated with treatment of confirmed malaria cases; compliance with directives for use of rapid test or microscopy
Time frame: 18 months
1 secondary outcome
unit cost of non-malaria febrile treatment; therapeutic behaviour in light of pressure to prescribe antimalarials
Time frame: 18 months
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Mar 2012.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 24037867Batwala V, Magnussen P, Nuwaha F. Challenges to implementation of artemisinin combination therapy policy in Uganda. Int Health. 2010 Dec;2(4):262-8. doi: 10.1016/j.inhe.2010.07.002.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 22905781Batwala V, Magnussen P, Mirembe J, Mulogo E, Nuwaha F. Timing of malaria messages for target audience on radio airwaves. Malar J. 2012 Aug 20;11:283. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-283.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 22183039Batwala V, Magnussen P, Nuwaha F. Antibiotic use among patients with febrile illness in a low malaria endemicity setting in Uganda. Malar J. 2011 Dec 20;10:377. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-377.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 22182758Batwala V, Magnussen P, Nuwaha F. Comparative feasibility of implementing rapid diagnostic test and microscopy for parasitological diagnosis of malaria in Uganda. Malar J. 2011 Dec 19;10:373. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-373.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 22182735Batwala V, Magnussen P, Hansen KS, Nuwaha F. Cost-effectiveness of malaria microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests versus presumptive diagnosis: implications for malaria control in Uganda. Malar J. 2011 Dec 19;10:372. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-372.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 21126328Batwala V, Magnussen P, Nuwaha F. Are rapid diagnostic tests more accurate in diagnosis of plasmodium falciparum malaria compared to microscopy at rural health centres? Malar J. 2010 Dec 2;9:349. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-349.
Related trials for Fever
Recruiting
Assessment of Communication Interventions on Vaccination Knowledge and Acceptance
Vaccination Knowledge and Acceptance, Informed Vaccine-decision Making
RecruitingObservational study
Natural History of Trisomy 8-Associated Autoinflammatory Disease (TRIAD) and Related Disorders
Trisomy 8 Mosaicism, Trisomy 8 Associated Autoinflammatory Disease
RecruitingObservational study
Familial Mediterranean Fever and Related Disorders: Genetics and Disease Characteristics
Familial Mediterranean Fever (FMF), Autoinflammation
RecruitingPhase 1
Individual Response to Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) Treatment of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis From Peritoneal Mesothelioma or Atypical Mesothelial Proliferation or From Ovarian, Colorectal, or Appendiceal Histologies
Peritoneal Mesothelioma, Peritoneal Carcinomatosis
Recruiting
Recovery After Fatigue in Young Athletes: Comparison Between TECAR Therapy and Cycle Ergometer"
Muscle Fatigue, Healthy Adult
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.
Fred Nuwaha, MD, PhD study chair
Department of Disease Control and Environmental Health, Makerere Universtiy School of Public Health
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf® in people with Fever and Malaria, run by Makerere University at 1 site in Uganda.
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 2 inclusion and 1 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Mar 2012. 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 Uganda. 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.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Vincent K. Batwala, MPH (+256 712 074706, vbatwala@yahoo.com, vkbatwala@gmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
diagnostic test validity; unit cost per malaria case diagnosed and treated with Artemether-Lumefantrine; total savings associated with treatment of confirmed malaria cases; compliance with directives for use of rapid test or microscopy (time frame: 18 months). 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 NCT00565071, which also lists 6 linked publications.
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 28 Mar 2012.