Bipin Adhikari1,2, Ghulam Rhahim Awab3,4,5, Lorenz von Seidlein3,6. 1. Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Bipin@tropmedres.ac. 2. Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Bipin@tropmedres.ac. 3. Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Nangarhar Medical Faculty, Nangarhar University, Jalalabad, Afghanistan. 5. Ministry of Higher Education, Kabul, Afghanistan. 6. Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wide-spread implementation of treatment regimens for the radical cure of vivax malaria is hindered by a range of factors. This has resulted in an increase in the relative proportion of vivax malaria and is an important obstacle in the achievement of global malaria elimination by 2030. The main objective of this study was to explore the current policies guiding the treatment plans on vivax malaria, and the factors affecting the implementation of radical cure in South/South East Asian and Asian Pacific countries. METHODS: This was a qualitative study among respondents who represented national malaria control programmes (NMCPs) or had a role and influence in the national malaria policies. 33 respondents from 17 countries in South/South East Asia and Asia Pacific participated in interviews between October 15 and December 15, 2020. Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually except for two face to face interviews and audio-recorded. Transcribed audio-records underwent thematic analysis using QSR NVivo. RESULTS: Policies against vivax malaria were underprioritized, compared with the focus on falciparum malaria and, in particular, drug resistant Plasmodium falciparum strains. Despite the familiarity with primaquine (PQ) as the essential treatment to achieve the radical cure, the respondents contested the need for G6PD testing. Optional G6PD testing was reported to have poor adherence. The fear of adverse events led health workers to hesitate prescribing PQ. In countries where G6PD was mandatory, respondents experienced frequent stockouts of G6PD rapid diagnostic kits in peripheral health facilities, which was compounded by a short shelf life of these tests. These challenges were echoed across participating countries to various degrees. Most respondents agreed that a shorter treatment regimen, such as single dose tafenoquine could resolve these problems but mandatory G6PD testing will be needed. The recommendation of shorter regimens including tafenoquine or high dose PQ requires operational evidence demonstrating the robust performance of point of care G6PD tests (biosensors). CONCLUSION: There was sparse implementation and low adherence to the radical cure in South/South East Asian and Asian pacific countries. Shorter treatment regimens with appropriate point of care quantitative G6PD tests may resolve the current challenges. Operational evidence on point of care quantitative G6PD tests that includes the feasibility of integrating such tests into the radical cure regimen are critical to ensure its implementation.
BACKGROUND: Wide-spread implementation of treatment regimens for the radical cure of vivax malaria is hindered by a range of factors. This has resulted in an increase in the relative proportion of vivax malaria and is an important obstacle in the achievement of global malaria elimination by 2030. The main objective of this study was to explore the current policies guiding the treatment plans on vivax malaria, and the factors affecting the implementation of radical cure in South/South East Asian and Asian Pacific countries. METHODS: This was a qualitative study among respondents who represented national malaria control programmes (NMCPs) or had a role and influence in the national malaria policies. 33 respondents from 17 countries in South/South East Asia and Asia Pacific participated in interviews between October 15 and December 15, 2020. Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually except for two face to face interviews and audio-recorded. Transcribed audio-records underwent thematic analysis using QSR NVivo. RESULTS: Policies against vivax malaria were underprioritized, compared with the focus on falciparum malaria and, in particular, drug resistant Plasmodium falciparum strains. Despite the familiarity with primaquine (PQ) as the essential treatment to achieve the radical cure, the respondents contested the need for G6PD testing. Optional G6PD testing was reported to have poor adherence. The fear of adverse events led health workers to hesitate prescribing PQ. In countries where G6PD was mandatory, respondents experienced frequent stockouts of G6PD rapid diagnostic kits in peripheral health facilities, which was compounded by a short shelf life of these tests. These challenges were echoed across participating countries to various degrees. Most respondents agreed that a shorter treatment regimen, such as single dose tafenoquine could resolve these problems but mandatory G6PD testing will be needed. The recommendation of shorter regimens including tafenoquine or high dose PQ requires operational evidence demonstrating the robust performance of point of care G6PD tests (biosensors). CONCLUSION: There was sparse implementation and low adherence to the radical cure in South/South East Asian and Asian pacific countries. Shorter treatment regimens with appropriate point of care quantitative G6PD tests may resolve the current challenges. Operational evidence on point of care quantitative G6PD tests that includes the feasibility of integrating such tests into the radical cure regimen are critical to ensure its implementation.
Entities:
Keywords:
G6PD; Implementation; Point of care; Radical cure regimen; Vivax malaria
Authors: Christopher L Pell; Bipin Adhikari; May Myo Thwin; Ladda Kajeechiwa; Suphak Nosten; Francois H Nosten; Kate M Sahan; Frank M Smithuis; Thuy-Nhien Nguyen; Tran Tinh Hien; Rupam Tripura; Thomas J Peto; Nou Sanann; Chea Nguon; Tiengkham Pongvongsa; Koukeo Phommasone; Mayfong Mayxay; Mavuto Mukaka; Pimnara Peerawaranun; Nils Kaehler; Phaik Yeong Cheah; Nicholas P J Day; Nicholas J White; Arjen M Dondorp; Lorenz von Seidlein Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Enny Kenangalem; Jeanne Rini Poespoprodjo; Nicholas M Douglas; Faustina Helena Burdam; Ketut Gdeumana; Ferry Chalfein; Franciscus Thio; Angela Devine; Jutta Marfurt; Govert Waramori; Shunmay Yeung; Rintis Noviyanti; Pasi Penttinen; Michael J Bangs; Paulus Sugiarto; Julie A Simpson; Yati Soenarto; Nicholas M Anstey; Ric N Price Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Stephanie D Nofal; Thomas J Peto; Bipin Adhikari; Rupam Tripura; James Callery; Thanh Mai Bui; Lorenz von Seidlein; Christopher Pell Journal: Malar J Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Nils Kaehler; Bipin Adhikari; Phaik Yeong Cheah; Lorenz von Seidlein; Nicholas P J Day; Arjen M Dondorp; Christopher Pell Journal: Malar J Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 2.979