Malaria trends and challenges in the Greater Mekong Subregion.

This report provides an overview of the epidemiological patterns of malaria in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) from 1998 to 2007, and highlights critical challenges facing national malaria control programs and partners in effort to build on their successes as they move towards malaria pre-elimination and elimination as a programmatic goal. Epidemiological data provided by malaria programs show a drastic decline in malaria deaths and confirmed malaria positive cases over the last 10 years in the GMS. More than half of confirmed malaria cases and deaths recorded in the GMS occur in Myanmar, however, reporting methods and data management are not comparable between countries despite effort made by WHO to harmonize data collection, analysis and reporting among WHO Member States. Malaria is concentrated in forested/forest-fringe areas of the region mainly along international borders providing strong rationale to develop harmonized cross-border pre-elimination programs in conjunction with national efforts. Across the Mekong Region, the declining efficacy of recommended first-line antimalarials, eg artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) against falciparum malaria on the Cambodia-Thailand border, the prevalence of counterfeit and substandard antimalarial drugs, the lack of health services in general and malaria services in particular in remote settings, and the lack of information and services targeting migrants and mobile population present important barriers to reach or maintain malaria pre-elimination programmatic goals. Strengthening networking between research institutions and non-government organizations will increase knowledge-based decision and action.

Strengthening public health laboratory capacity in Thailand for International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005).

INTRODUCTION: Thailand conducted a national laboratory assessment of core capacities related to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005), and thereby established a baseline to measure future progress. The assessment was limited to public laboratories found within the Thai Bureau of Quality and Safety of Food, National Institute of Health and regional medical science centres. METHODS: The World Health Organization (WHO) laboratory assessment tool was adapted to Thailand through a participatory approach. This adapted version employed a specific scoring matrix and comprised 16 modules with a quantitative output. Two teams jointly performed the on-site assessments in December 2010 over a two-week period, in 17 public health laboratories in Thailand. The assessment focused on the capacity to identify and accurately detect pathogens mentioned in Annex 2 of the IHR (2005) in a timely manner, as well as other public health priority pathogens for Thailand. RESULTS: Performance of quality management, budget and finance, data management and communications was considered strong (>90%); premises quality, specimen collection, biosafety, public health functions, supplies management and equipment availability were judged as very good (>70% but ≤90%); while microbiological capacity, staffing, training and supervision, and information technology needed improvement (>60% but ≤70%). CONCLUSIONS: This assessment is a major step in Thailand towards development of an optimized and standardized national laboratory network for the detection and reporting of infectious disease that would be compliant with IHR (2005). The participatory strategy employed to adapt an international tool to the Thai context can also serve as a model for use by other countries in the Region. The participatory approach probably ensured better quality and ownership of the results, while providing critical information to help decision-makers determine where best to invest finite resources.