AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

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
Conditions the study is for
Fever, Malaria
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.

Fred Nuwaha, MD, PhD contact

+256 782 518324

nuwahaf@yahoo.co.uk

Uganda1 site, 1 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

    Recruiting

Other trials in Uganda

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

  1. To assess the feasibility of rapid test and microscopy in diagnosis of malaria at health centre III.
  2. To compare the cost-effectiveness of treating malaria with Artemether- Lumefantrine based on microscopy, rapid test and presumptive diagnosis in different transmission intensities
  3. 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.

Conditions
Fever, Malaria
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 groups in NCT00565071
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Field microscopyOtherField microscopy is the main method of malaria diagnosis
Receives: Device: Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf®
Paracheck Pf® deviceOtherParacheck Pf® device (Rapid Diagnostic Test) is the main method for malaria diagnosis
Receives: Device: Field microscopy and Paracheck Pf®
Presumptive diagnostic methodNo interventionNot described

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. 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)
  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.

  1. First posted29 Nov 2007 (estimated)
  2. Study startOct 2006
  3. Primary completionMar 2012 (estimated)
  4. Study completionDec 2012 (estimated)

Resources

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)
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 24037867
  • Batwala 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 22905781
  • Batwala 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 22183039
  • Batwala 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 22182758
  • Batwala 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 22182735
  • Batwala 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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in