Adding rapid diagnostic tests to community-based programmes for treating malaria.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends parasitological testing of all suspected malaria cases using malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) or microscopy prior to treatment. Some governments have extended this responsibility to community health workers (CHWs) to reduce malaria morbidity and mortality through prompt and appropriate treatment. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate community-based management strategies for treating malaria or fever that incorporate both a definitive diagnosis with an mRDT and appropriate antimalarial treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and three trials registers up to 14 September 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individually randomized trials and cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), controlled before-after studies, and controlled interrupted time series studies in people living in malaria-endemic areas, comparing programmes that train CHWs and drug shop vendors to perform mRDTs and provide appropriate treatment versus similar programmes that do not use mRDTs, and versus routine health facility care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. For each dichotomous outcome, we extracted the number of participants with the event and the total number of participants in each group, unless studies presented results at a population level only. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, and number of people receiving an antimalarial within 24 hours. Secondary outcomes were malaria-specific mortality, severe malaria, outcomes related to antimalarial treatments, antibiotic prescribing to people with a negative microscopy or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result, parasitaemia, anaemia, and all adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies from several African countries, Afghanistan, and Myanmar. Staff included CHWs and drug shop vendors.  Community use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests compared to clinical diagnosis Compared to clinical diagnosis, mRDT diagnosis results in reduced prescribing of antimalarials to people who are found to be malaria parasite-negative by microscopy or PCR testing (71 fewer per 100 people, 95% confidence interval (CI) 79 to 51 fewer; risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.40; 3 cRCTs, 7877 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This reduction may be greater among CHWs compared to drug shop vendors. People diagnosed by mRDT are more likely to receive appropriate treatment; that is, an antimalarial if they are microscopy- or PCR-positive and no antimalarial if they are microscopy- or PCR-negative (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.46 to 3.74, 3 cRCTs, 9332 participants; high-certainty evidence). Three studies found that a small percentage of people with a negative mRDT result (as read by the CHW or drug shop vendors at the time of treatment) were nevertheless given an antimalarial: 38/1368 (2.8%), 44/724 (6.1%) and 124/950 (13.1%). Conversely, in two studies, a few mRDT-positive people did not receive an antimalarial (0.5% and 0.3%), and one small cross-over study found that 6/57 (10.5%) people classified as non-malaria in the clinical diagnosis arm received an antimalarial. Use of mRDTs probably increases antibiotic use compared to clinical diagnosis (13 more per 100 people, 95% CI 3 to 29 more; RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.37; 2 cRCTs, 5179 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We were unable to demonstrate any effect on mortality. Community use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests compared to health facility care Results were insufficient to reach any conclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Use of mRDTs by CHWs and drug shop vendors compared to clinical diagnosis reduces prescribing of antimalarials to people without malaria. Deaths were uncommon in both groups. Antibiotic prescribing was higher in those with a negative mRDT than in those with a negative clinical diagnosis.

The burden of meningococcal meningitis in the African Meningitis Belt, from 2009 to 2014: a trend analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Neisseria meningitides is the leading cause of meningitis in the African Meningitis Belt. The objective of this study was to conduct a trend analysis of the burden of meningococcal meningitis in the African Meningitis Belt countries from 2009 to 2014. METHODS: secondary data on incidence and death cases were collected from the World Health Organization (WHO) and analyzed to determine the trends of meningitis in the African Meningitis Belt countries using Microsoft excel and Stata 14. RESULTS: these data show unstable meningococcal meningitis outbreaks in the Meningitis Belt before and after the introduction of meningococcal A vaccine (MenAfriVac). The vaccine was introduced at different times in the different countries. E.g. it was introduced in 2010 across Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger while it was introduced from 2011 to 2016 in other countries through mass campaigns. Ever since the vaccine was introduced, there has been a decrease in the number of cases in the countries hence a reduction in the burden of the disease. CONCLUSION: after the introduction of the MenAfriVac, there has been a decline in the meningitis cases in Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Ghana, Niger and Nigeria while Sudan shows a decrease only in 2014.

Effects of vaccines in patients with sickle cell disease: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited haematological disorder caused by a single point mutation (Glub6Val) that promotes polymerisation of haemoglobin S and sickling of erythrocytes. Inflammation, haemolysis, microvascular obstruction and organ damage characterise the highly variable clinical expression of SCD. People with SCD are at increased risk of severe infections, hence the need for vaccination against common disease-causing organisms in this population. We aim to review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of vaccines in people with SCD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The present systematic review will examine the current data as indexed in PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE and EBSCOHost. We will consult Strategic Advisory Group of Experts practice statements, conference abstracts, reference lists of relevant articles, WHO ICTRP trial registry and experts in the field. Two authors will independently screen search outputs, select studies, extract data and assess risk of bias; resolving discrepancies by discussion and consensus between the two authors or arbitration by a third author when necessary. We will perform a meta-analysis for clinically homogenous studies. Evidence from clinically diverse studies will be aggregated using narrative synthesis of the findings. In either case, we will use the GRADE approach to assess the strength of the available evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study draws on data that are readily available in the public domain, hence no formal ethical review and approval is required. The findings of this review will be disseminated through conference presentations and a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018084051.