Healthcare provider and drug dispenser knowledge and adherence to guidelines for the case management of malaria in pregnancy in the context of multiple first-line artemisinin-based combination therapy in western Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about emerging resistance to artemether-lumefantrine (AL) in Africa prompted the pilot introduction of multiple first-line therapies (MFT) in Western Kenya, potentially exposing women-of-childbearing-age (WOCBA) to anti-malarials with unknown safety profiles in the first trimester. The study assessed healthcare provider knowledge and adherence to national guidelines for managing malaria in pregnancy in the context of the MFT pilot. METHODS: From March to April 2022, a cross-sectional study was conducted in 50 health facilities (HF) and 40 drug outlets (DO) using structured questionnaires to assess pregnancy detection, malaria diagnosis, and treatment choices by trimester. Differences between HF and DO providers and between MFT and non-MFT HFs were assessed using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: Of 174 providers (77% HF, 23% DO), 56% were from MFT pilot facilities. Most providers had tertiary education; 5% HF and 20% DO had only primary or secondary education. More HF than DO providers had knowledge of malaria treatment guidelines (62% vs. 40%, p = 0.023), received training in malaria in pregnancy (49% vs. 20%, p = 0.002), and reported assessing for pregnancy in WOCBA (98% vs. 78%, p < 0.001). Most providers insisted on parasitological diagnosis, with 59% HF using microscopy and 85% DO using rapid diagnostic tests. More HF than DO providers could correctly name the drugs for treating uncomplicated malaria in the first trimester (oral quinine, or AL if quinine is unavailable) (90% vs. 58%, p < 0.001), second and third trimesters (artemisinin-based combination therapy) (84% vs. 70%, p = 0.07), and for severe malaria (parenteral artesunate/artemether) (94% vs. 60%, p < 0.001). Among HF providers, those in the MFT pilot had more knowledge of malaria treatment guidelines (67% vs. 49%, p = 0.08) and had received training on treatment of malaria in pregnancy (56% vs. 32%, p = 0.03). Few providers (10% HF and 12% DO) had adequate knowledge of malaria treatment in pregnancy, defined as the correct drug and dose for uncomplicated and severe malaria in all trimesters. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of national malaria in pregnancy treatment guidelines among providers in Western Kenya is suboptimal. Robust training on appropriate anti-malarial and dosage is needed, particularly given the recent change in recommendation for artemether-lumefantrine use in the first trimester. Supervision of DO and HF practices is essential for correct treatment of malaria in pregnancy in the context of MFT programmes.

Perceptions and drivers of healthcare provider and drug dispenser practices for the treatment of malaria in pregnancy in the context of multiple first-line therapies in western Kenya: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Emergence of Plasmodium falciparum resistance to artemether-lumefantrine in Africa prompted the pilot introduction of multiple first-line therapies (MFT) against malaria in Kenya, potentially exposing women-of-childbearing-age (WOCBAs) to anti-malarials with unknown safety profiles in the first trimester. This qualitative study explored knowledge and perceptions among healthcare providers providing malaria treatment to WOCBAs and pregnant women. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with purposively selected public and private health facility (HF) and drug outlet (DO) providers within and outside the pilot-MFT area. County health managers were interviewed about their knowledge of the national treatment guidelines. Transcripts were coded by content analysis using the World Health Organization health system building blocks (leadership/governance, financing, health workforce, health information systems, access to medicines, and service delivery). RESULTS: Thirty providers (HF:21, DO:9) and three health managers were interviewed. Eighteen providers were from HFs in the pilot-MFT area; the remaining three and all nine DOs were outside the pilot-MFT area. The analysis revealed that providers had not been trained in malaria case management in the previous twelve months. DO providers were unfamiliar with national treatment guidelines in pregnancy and reported having no pregnancy tests. Health managers were unable to supervise DOs due to resource limitations. Providers from HFs and DOs noted poor sensitivity of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and hesitancy among patients who associated malaria-RDTs with HIV testing. Almost all providers reported anti-malarial stock-outs, with quinine most affected. Patient preference was a major factor in prescribing anti-malarials. Providers in HFs and DOs reported preferentially using artemether-lumefantrine in the first trimester due to the side effects and unavailability of quinine. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of malaria case management in drug outlets and health facilities remains poor. Improved regulation of DO providers is warranted. Optimizing treatment of malaria in pregnancy requires training, availability of malaria commodities, and pregnancy tests.

Comparative benefit and cost-effectiveness of mailed-out faecal immunochemical tests vs collection at the general practitioner.

BACKGROUND: Participation in the colorectal cancer screening programme in France has been well below the 45% considered acceptable by European guidelines, potentially attributable to the need to collect the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) at the general practitioner. AIM: To estimate the potential benefits and costs of including the FIT in the invitation letter. METHODS: A well-established microsimulation model was used to simulate the French population 35 years and older in 2018. We estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, costs and cost-effectiveness of the current screening programme, and compared it to a variation of the programme where the FIT was mailed to participants and adherence was assumed to increase to 45%. We also estimated the threshold increase in participation needed to make this intervention cost-effective. RESULTS: Under the current programme, 53.8 colorectal cancer (CRC) cases and 25.2 CRC deaths per 1000 individuals are expected to occur over a lifetime. If sending out the FIT increases screening participation to 45%, this intervention would result in 6% fewer CRC deaths and 3% fewer CRC cases, resulting in an estimated cost-effectiveness ratio of €2149 per QALY gained. Sending out the FIT would only need to increase participation by 0.7% point for this intervention to be considered cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Including the FIT in the invitation letter is likely a very cost-effective intervention to increase participation in CRC screening. These results for France are also informative for many other countries around the world where FIT needs to be collected at pharmacies or general practitioners.