MalariaPhase 4NCT01403350
Cluster Randomised Trial of Malaria RDTs Used by CHWs in Afghanistan
A Phase 4 study testing Malaria Rapid Diagnostic test in people with Malaria and Fever, run by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine at 3 sites in Afghanistan.
Trial summary
Malaria is a common, but decreasing, cause of fever in endemic areas. The use of rapid diagnostic tests could improve treatment of malaria at the local community level. Deployment of these tests is, however, a considerable cost. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Malaria, Fever, Acute Febrile Illness
- What is being tested?
- Malaria Rapid Diagnostic test
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 2,421 participants
- Where
- 3 sitesAfghanistan
- Study dates
- Feb 2012to Aug 2012
- 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
- Any patient where the CHW* or clinician considers malaria in the diagnosis - either prescribing an antimalarial or would request a malaria test if available or referring for diagnosis of malaria elsewhere.
- *any community health worker who consults with patients and prescribes treatment, and is administratively attached to one of the study clinics.
- Patient, or parent/guardian, gives informed consent to the study.
Who cannot join
- Patients with a diagnostic result from another facility.
- Patients referred on for diagnosis in the private sector.
- Patients who have signs of severe or complicated disease and are referred prior to giving any diagnosis using the interventions.
Trial locations and contacts
3 sites in 1 country.
Afghanistan3 sites
HealthNet TPO
Jalalabad, Nangarhar
Health Protection and Research Organisation
Kabul, 0000
Merlin
Kunduz
About this study
Official title: Effectiveness of Community Level Deployment of Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Malaria in Afghanistan: Cluster Randomised Trial
Malaria is a common, but decreasing, cause of fever in endemic areas. The use of rapid diagnostic tests could improve treatment of malaria at the local community level. Deployment of these tests is, however, a considerable cost. The aim of the study is to evaluate their effect on improving treatment of fever when used by Community Health Workers in Afghanistan. In phase I of the study, the hypothesis is that an RDT diagnosis deployed with standard training and support will improve the accuracy of treatment applied to fever by community health workers when compared to a diagnosis that is based on symptoms alone. In Phase II of the study, the hypothesis is that the accuracy of treatment can be improved by additional training and supportive interventions given to community health workers compared to those who have only had standard training.
Read the detailed description
This is a cluster randomised trial conducted in 22 clinics (clusters) in two provinces of Afghanistan. Clinics in Afghanistan have a number of community health workers (CHWs) who are residents of villages near to the clinic. The clinic provides them with their supplies of drugs and other items (e.g. family planning interventions) and the CHW provides a range of services in the community including treatment of acute episodes of fever. Currently, the CHW has no way of diagnosing malaria, except based on the presenting signs and symptoms of the patient. With this method is it likely that many patients who do not have malaria, but have a fever, are treated with antimalarial drugs and some patients with malaria are likely not to be treated with an antimalarial drug.
The use of Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDT) for malaria could potentially provide the CHW with an easy and safe way of diagnosing malaria based on the presence or absence of parasites in the blood. However, use of tests is not straightforward. They need to be applied correctly, following a strict protocol, to be accurate. There is now much interest in widespread deployment of these tools which are recommended by the World Health Organisation for all fever patients in malaria endemic areas. However, evidence for their effectiveness when used by CHWs is patchy and there are no randomised trials that have been conducted in Asia. Since they represent a considerable cost, examination of their effectiveness is required.
In Asia (unlike most of Africa), malaria is caused by two species - Plasmodium vivax accounts for the majority of cases and P. falciparum for the minority. Treatments differ between the species because of differing drug resistance patterns. Therefore accurate diagnosis is important for providing accurate treatment for the different types of malaria and also for treatment of cases of fever who do not have malaria with alternative treatments. In areas where health services are restricted by short opening hours, insecurity, or inaccessibility due to distance or terrain, the CHW should be able to use RDTs and apply the correct treatment for both a positive and a negative test at the village level.
This study will randomise 22 clinics (and their constituent CHWs) to receive either an RDT for use by the CHW in diagnosing malaria in patients with fever, or no intervention (the current situation) where CHWs base their treatment decisions on symptoms alone (i.e. there is no parasite based diagnosis). The RDT group will be given the standard national training for use of RDTs and management of malaria and the standard supplies. The non-RDT arm will have training on management of malaria and a short introduction to RDTs. The study will measure the accuracy of treatment applied by the CHW in the RDT vs. the non-RDT arms, and examine the accuracy of the RDT itself when it is applied in the field under operational conditions. The accuracy will be measured by collecting filter paper blood spots from the patients which will be tested by PCR for malaria. A variety of comparisons will be made between the two groups, but the main aim is to measure and difference in accurate treatment of the patients according to the reference (PCR) diagnosis.
In phase II of the study the non-RDT arm will be discontinued and the clinics will be re-randomised to different interventions. One group of clinics will have the standard RDT roll out continued, as previously, and the second group will get additional training and a range of supportive interventions to assist in their practice. The second phase will use the same methods of assessing the study outcomes. The aim of the second phase is to see whether additional training (and cost) results in improved practice by CHWs.
- Conditions
- Malaria, Fever, Acute Febrile Illness, Pneumonia
- Being tested
- Malaria Rapid Diagnostic test
- Keywords
- Malaria, Fever, Acute febrile illness, Pneumonia, Community health worker, Rapid diagnostic test
- Medical subject headings
- Malaria, Fever, Pneumonia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Malaria Rapid Diagnostic testDevice
Also called RDT: CareStart Pf/Pan Rapid Diagnostic Test (national standard RDT)
Study Phase I: RDT used under the standard programme of training and support; Study Phase II: RDTs deployed with additional programme components including improved training and supportive interventions
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Current Practice | No intervention | Study Phase I: No RDT or other parasite based diagnosis; Study Phase II: RDT used under the standard programme of training and support |
| Intervention Arm | Active comparator | Study Phase I: RDT used under the standard programme of training and support; Study Phase II: RDTs deployed with additional programme components including improved training and supportive interventions Receives: Device: Malaria Rapid Diagnostic test |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Proportion of cases correctly treated
Correctly treated defined as:
Those with PCR positive blood sample given an appropriate antimalarial; Those with PCR negative blood sample not given any antimalarial
Measured: Outcomes measured during consultation - approximately 30-40 minutes
Secondary outcomes (4)
Proportion of falciparum patients treated with artesunate combination therapy
Measured against the PCR result from the blood sample
Measured: Outcomes measured during consultation - approximately 30-40 minutes
Accuracy of the RDT
Sensitivity and specificity measured against the PCR blood sample
Measured: Outcomes measured during consultation - approximately 30-40 minutes
Accuracy of treatment given by the CHW in response to the RDT result
Proportion of patients with a positive RDT not given and appropriate antimalarial Proportion of patient with a negative RDT who are given any antimalarial
Measured: Outcomes measured during consultation - approximately 30-40 minutes
Cost effectiveness of the intervention(s)
Comparative cost-effectiveness between the arms
Measured: Outcomes measured during consultation - approximately 30-40 minutes
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Jul 2011 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2012
- Primary completionAug 2012
- Study completionAug 2012
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
- 2,421 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Health Protection and Research Organisation, HealthNet TPO, Medical Emergency Relief International
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Toby Leslie, PhD, Principal investigator, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01403350
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 5911
- Status last verified
- Feb 2014
- First submitted
- 25 Jul 2011
- Last updated
- 15 Jul 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Leslie T, Rowland M, Mikhail A, Cundill B, Willey B, Alokozai A, Mayan I, Hasanzai A, Baktash SH, Mohammed N, Wood M, Rahimi HU, Laurent B, Buhler C, Whitty CJM. Use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests by community health workers in Afghanistan: cluster randomised trial. BMC Med. 2017 Jul 7;15(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0891-8.
PubMed 28683750
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Jul 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effectiveness of Community Level Deployment of Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Malaria in Afghanistan: Cluster Randomised Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01403350
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 5911
- Conditions
- Malaria, Fever, Acute Febrile Illness, Pneumonia
- Keywords
- Malaria, Fever, Acute febrile illness, Pneumonia, Community health worker, Rapid diagnostic test
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 2,421 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Health Protection and Research Organisation, HealthNet TPO, Medical Emergency Relief International
- Study start
- Feb 2012
- Primary completion
- Aug 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Jul 2011 (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.
Malaria is a common, but decreasing, cause of fever in endemic areas. The use of rapid diagnostic tests could improve treatment of malaria at the local community level. Deployment of these tests is, however, a considerable cost. The aim of the study is to evaluate their effect on improving treatment of fever when used by Community Health Workers in Afghanistan. In phase I of the study, the hypothesis is that an RDT diagnosis deployed with standard training and support will improve the accuracy of treatment applied to fever by community health workers when compared to a diagnosis that is based on symptoms alone. In Phase II of the study, the hypothesis is that the accuracy of treatment can be improved by additional training and supportive interventions given to community health workers compared to those who have only had standard training.
Detailed description
This is a cluster randomised trial conducted in 22 clinics (clusters) in two provinces of Afghanistan. Clinics in Afghanistan have a number of community health workers (CHWs) who are residents of villages near to the clinic. The clinic provides them with their supplies of drugs and other items (e.g. family planning interventions) and the CHW provides a range of services in the community including treatment of acute episodes of fever. Currently, the CHW has no way of diagnosing malaria, except based on the presenting signs and symptoms of the patient. With this method is it likely that many patients who do not have malaria, but have a fever, are treated with antimalarial drugs and some patients with malaria are likely not to be treated with an antimalarial drug.
The use of Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDT) for malaria could potentially provide the CHW with an easy and safe way of diagnosing malaria based on the presence or absence of parasites in the blood. However, use of tests is not straightforward. They need to be applied correctly, following a strict protocol, to be accurate. There is now much interest in widespread deployment of these tools which are recommended by the World Health Organisation for all fever patients in malaria endemic areas. However, evidence for their effectiveness when used by CHWs is patchy and there are no randomised trials that have been conducted in Asia. Since they represent a considerable cost, examination of their effectiveness is required.
In Asia (unlike most of Africa), malaria is caused by two species - Plasmodium vivax accounts for the majority of cases and P. falciparum for the minority. Treatments differ between the species because of differing drug resistance patterns. Therefore accurate diagnosis is important for providing accurate treatment for the different types of malaria and also for treatment of cases of fever who do not have malaria with alternative treatments. In areas where health services are restricted by short opening hours, insecurity, or inaccessibility due to distance or terrain, the CHW should be able to use RDTs and apply the correct treatment for both a positive and a negative test at the village level.
This study will randomise 22 clinics (and their constituent CHWs) to receive either an RDT for use by the CHW in diagnosing malaria in patients with fever, or no intervention (the current situation) where CHWs base their treatment decisions on symptoms alone (i.e. there is no parasite based diagnosis). The RDT group will be given the standard national training for use of RDTs and management of malaria and the standard supplies. The non-RDT arm will have training on management of malaria and a short introduction to RDTs. The study will measure the accuracy of treatment applied by the CHW in the RDT vs. the non-RDT arms, and examine the accuracy of the RDT itself when it is applied in the field under operational conditions. The accuracy will be measured by collecting filter paper blood spots from the patients which will be tested by PCR for malaria. A variety of comparisons will be made between the two groups, but the main aim is to measure and difference in accurate treatment of the patients according to the reference (PCR) diagnosis.
In phase II of the study the non-RDT arm will be discontinued and the clinics will be re-randomised to different interventions. One group of clinics will have the standard RDT roll out continued, as previously, and the second group will get additional training and a range of supportive interventions to assist in their practice. The second phase will use the same methods of assessing the study outcomes. The aim of the second phase is to see whether additional training (and cost) results in improved practice by CHWs.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Current Practice | No intervention | –Study Phase I: No RDT or other parasite based diagnosis; Study Phase II: RDT used under the standard programme of training and support |
| Intervention Arm | Active comparator | Device: Malaria Rapid Diagnostic testStudy Phase I: RDT used under the standard programme of training and support; Study Phase II: RDTs deployed with additional programme components including improved training and supportive interventions |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Any patient where the CHW* or clinician considers malaria in the diagnosis - either prescribing an antimalarial or would request a malaria test if available or referring for diagnosis of malaria elsewhere.
- Patient, or parent/guardian, gives informed consent to the study.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients with a diagnostic result from another facility.
- Patients referred on for diagnosis in the private sector.
- Patients who have signs of severe or complicated disease and are referred prior to giving any diagnosis using the interventions.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Malaria Rapid Diagnostic testAlso: RDT: CareStart Pf/Pan Rapid Diagnostic Test (national standard RDT)Study Phase I: RDT used under the standard programme of training and support; Study Phase II: RDTs deployed with additional programme components including improved training and supportive interventions | Device | Intervention Arm |
Primary outcome
Proportion of cases correctly treated
Time frame: Outcomes measured during consultation - approximately 30-40 minutes
Correctly treated defined as: Those with PCR positive blood sample given an appropriate antimalarial; Those with PCR negative blood sample not given any antimalarial
4 secondary outcomes
Proportion of falciparum patients treated with artesunate combination therapy
Time frame: Outcomes measured during consultation - approximately 30-40 minutes
Accuracy of the RDT
Time frame: Outcomes measured during consultation - approximately 30-40 minutes
Accuracy of treatment given by the CHW in response to the RDT result
Time frame: Outcomes measured during consultation - approximately 30-40 minutes
Cost effectiveness of the intervention(s)
Time frame: Outcomes measured during consultation - approximately 30-40 minutes
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 15 Jul 2022.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 28683750Leslie T, Rowland M, Mikhail A, Cundill B, Willey B, Alokozai A, Mayan I, Hasanzai A, Baktash SH, Mohammed N, Wood M, Rahimi HU, Laurent B, Buhler C, Whitty CJM. Use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests by community health workers in Afghanistan: cluster randomised trial. BMC Med. 2017 Jul 7;15(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0891-8.
- ACT Consortium Afghanistan Project (Study sponsor)Link 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.
Toby Leslie, PhD principal investigator
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
3 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Malaria Rapid Diagnostic test in people with Malaria and Fever, run by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine at 3 sites in Afghanistan.
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 3 inclusion and 3 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 15 Jul 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 3 sites in Afghanistan. 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?
Proportion of cases correctly treated (time frame: Outcomes measured during consultation - approximately 30-40 minutes). 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 NCT01403350, 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 15 Jul 2022.