Impact of substandard and falsified antimalarials in Zambia: application of the SAFARI model.

BACKGROUND: Many countries are striving to become malaria-free, but global reduction in case estimates has stagnated in recent years. Substandard and falsified medicines may contribute to this lack of progress. Zambia aims to eliminate their annual burden of 1.2 million pediatric malaria cases and 2500 child deaths due to malaria. We examined the health and economic impact of poor-quality antimalarials in Zambia. METHODS: An agent-based model, Substandard and Falsified Antimalarial Research Impact (SAFARI), was modified and applied to Zambia. The model was developed to simulate population characteristics, malaria incidence, patient care-seeking, disease progression, treatment outcomes, and associated costs of malaria for children under age five. Zambia-specific demographic, epidemiological, and cost inputs were extracted from the literature. Simulations were run to estimate the health and economic impact of poor-quality antimalarials, the effect of potential artemisinin resistance, and six additional malaria focused policy interventions. RESULTS: We simulated annual malaria cases among Zambian children under five. At baseline, we found 2610 deaths resulting in $141.5 million in annual economic burden of malaria. We estimated that elimination of substandard and falsified antimalarials would result in an 8.1% (n = 213) reduction in under-five deaths, prevent 937 hospitalizations, and realize $8.5 million in economic savings, annually. Potential artemisinin resistance could further increase deaths by 6.3% (n = 166) and cost an additional $9.7 million every year. CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating substandard and falsified antimalarials is an important step towards a malaria-free Zambia. Beyond the dissemination of insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor residual spraying, and other malaria control measures, attention must also be paid to assure the quality of antimalarial treatments.

Eliciting the child's voice in adverse event reporting in oncology trials: Cognitive interview findings from the Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events initiative.

BACKGROUND: Adverse event (AE) reporting in oncology trials is required, but current practice does not directly integrate the child's voice. The Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is being developed to assess symptomatic AEs via child/adolescent self-report or proxy-report. This qualitative study evaluates the child's/adolescent's understanding and ability to provide valid responses to the PRO-CTCAE to inform questionnaire refinements and confirm content validity. PROCEDURE: From seven pediatric research hospitals, children/adolescents ages 7-15 years who were diagnosed with cancer and receiving treatment were eligible, along with their parent-proxies. The Pediatric PRO-CTCAE includes 130 questions that assess 62 symptomatic AEs capturing symptom frequency, severity, interference, or presence. Cognitive interviews with retrospective probing were completed with children in the age groups of 7-8, 9-12, and 13-15 years. The children/adolescents and proxies were interviewed independently. RESULTS: Two rounds of interviews involved 81 children and adolescents and 74 parent-proxies. Fifteen of the 62 AE terms were revised after Round 1, including refinements to the questions assessing symptom severity. Most participants rated the PRO-CTCAE AE items as "very easy" or "somewhat easy" and were able to read, understand, and provide valid responses to questions. A few AE items assessing rare events were challenging to understand. CONCLUSIONS: The Pediatric and Proxy PRO-CTCAE performed well among children and adolescents and their proxies, supporting its content validity. Data from PRO-CTCAE may improve symptomatic AE reporting in clinical trials and enhance the quality of care that children receive.

Psychometric evaluation and design of patient-centered communication measures for cancer care settings.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of questions that assess patient perceptions of patient-provider communication and design measures of patient-centered communication (PCC). METHODS: Participants (adults with colon or rectal cancer living in North Carolina) completed a survey at 2 to 3 months post-diagnosis. The survey included 87 questions in six PCC Functions: Exchanging Information, Fostering Health Relationships, Making Decisions, Responding to Emotions, Enabling Patient Self-Management, and Managing Uncertainty. For each Function we conducted factor analyses, item response theory modeling, and tests for differential item functioning, and assessed reliability and construct validity. RESULTS: Participants included 501 respondents; 46% had a high school education or less. Reliability within each Function ranged from 0.90 to 0.96. The PCC-Ca-36 (36-question survey; reliability=0.94) and PCC-Ca-6 (6-question survey; reliability=0.92) measures differentiated between individuals with poor and good health (i.e., known-groups validity) and were highly correlated with the HINTS communication scale (i.e., convergent validity). CONCLUSION: This study provides theory-grounded PCC measures found to be reliable and valid in colorectal cancer patients in North Carolina. Future work should evaluate measure validity over time and in other cancer populations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The PCC-Ca-36 and PCC-Ca-6 measures may be used for surveillance, intervention research, and quality improvement initiatives.