Rima Shretta

Reviewing the literature on access to prompt and effective malaria treatment in Kenya: implications for meeting the Abuja targets

BackgroundEffective case management is central to reducing malaria mortality and morbidity worldwide, but only a minority of those affected by malaria, have access to prompt effective treatment.In Kenya, the Division of Malaria Control is committed to ensuring that 80 percent of childhood fevers are treated with effective anti-malarial medicines within 24 hours of fever onset, but this target is largely unmet. This review aimed to document evidence on access to effective malaria treatment in Kenya, identify factors that influence access, and make recommendations on how to improve prompt access to effective malaria treatment. Since treatment-seeking patterns for malaria are similar in many settings in sub-Saharan Africa, the findings presented in this review have important lessons for other malaria endemic countries.MethodsInternet searches were conducted in PUBMED (MEDLINE) and HINARI databases using specific search terms and strategies. Grey literature was obtained by soliciting reports from individual researchers working in the treatment-seeking field, from websites of major organizations involved in malaria control and from international reports.ResultsThe review indicated that malaria treatment-seeking occurs mostly in the informal sector; that most fevers are treated, but treatment is often ineffective. Irrational drug use was identified as a problem in most studies, but determinants of this behaviour were not documented. Availability of non-recommended medicines over-the-counter and the presence of substandard anti-malarials in the market are well documented. Demand side determinants of access include perception of illness causes, severity and timing of treatment, perceptions of treatment efficacy, simplicity of regimens and ability to pay. Supply side determinants include distance to health facilities, availability of medicines, prescribing and dispensing practices and quality of medicines. Policy level factors are around the complexity and unclear messages regarding drug policy changes.ConclusionKenya, like many other African countries, is still far from achieving the Abuja targets. The government, with support from donors, should invest adequately in mechanisms that promote access to effective treatment. Such approaches should focus on factors influencing multiple dimensions of access and will require the cooperation of all stakeholders working in malaria control.

Tools and Strategies for Malaria Control and Elimination: What Do We Need to Achieve a Grand Convergence in Malaria?

Progress made in malaria control during the past decade has prompted increasing global dialogue on malaria elimination and eradication. The product development pipeline for malaria has never been stronger, with promising new tools to detect, treat, and prevent malaria, including innovative diagnostics, medicines, vaccines, vector control products, and improved mechanisms for surveillance and response. There are at least 25 projects in the global malaria vaccine pipeline, as well as 47 medicines and 13 vector control products. In addition, there are several next-generation diagnostic tools and reference methods currently in development, with many expected to be introduced in the next decade. The development and adoption of these tools, bolstered by strategies that ensure rapid uptake in target populations, intensified mechanisms for information management, surveillance, and response, and continued financial and political commitment are all essential to achieving global eradication.

The path to eradication: a progress report on the malaria-eliminating countries

In the past several years, as worldwide morbidity and mortality due to malaria have continued to decrease, the global malaria community has grown increasingly supportive of the idea of malaria eradication. In 2015, three noteworthy global documents were released-the WHOs Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016-2030, the Roll Back Malaria Partnerships Action and Investment to defeat Malaria 2016-2030, and From Aspiration to Action: What Will It Take to End Malaria?-that collectively advocate for malaria elimination and eradication and outline key operational, technical, and financial strategies to achieve progress toward malaria eradication. In light of this remarkable change in global attitudes toward malaria elimination and eradication, and as the malaria community debates how and when to embark on this ambitious goal, it is important to assess current progress along the path to eradication. Although low-income, high-burden countries are often the focus when discussing the substantial challenges of eradication, the progress toward elimination in middle-income, low-burden countries is a major driver of global progress and deserves better recognition. Additionally, although global support and guidance is essential for success, malaria elimination and eradication efforts will ultimately be driven at the country level and achieved in a collaborative manner, region by region. In this Review, we examine the present status of the 35 malaria-eliminating countries, summarise existing national and regional elimination goals and the regional frameworks that support them, and identify the most crucial enabling factors and potential barriers to achieving eradication by a theoretical end date of 2040.

Stabilizing supply of artemisinin and artemisinin-based combination therapy in an era of wide-spread scale-up

The global demand for artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) has grown sharply since its recommendation by the World Health Organization in 2002. However, a combination of financing and programmatic uncertainties, limited suppliers of finished products, information opacity across the different tiers in the supply chain, and widespread fluctuations in raw material prices have together contributed to a market fraught with demand and supply uncertainties and price volatility. Various short-term solutions have been deployed to alleviate supply shortages caused by these challenges; however, new mechanisms are required to build resilience into the supply chain. This review concludes that a mix of strategies is required to stabilize the artemisinin and ACT market. First, better and more effective pooling of demand and supply risks and better contracting to allow risk sharing among the stakeholders are needed. Physical and financial buffer stocks will enable better matching of demand and supply in the short and medium term. Secondly, physical buffers will allow stable supplies when there are procurement and supply management challenges while financial buffer funds will address issues around funding disruptions. Finally, in the medium to long term, significant investments in country level system strengthening will be required to minimize national level demand uncertainties. In addition a voluntary standard for extractors to ensure appropriate purchasing and sales practices as well as minimum quality and ethical standards could help stabilize the artemisinin market in the long term.

Taking stock: provider prescribing practices in the presence and absence of ACT stock

BackgroundGlobally, the monitoring of prompt and effective treatment for malaria with artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) is conducted largely through household surveys. This measure; however, provides no information on case management processes at the health facility level. The aim of this review was to assess evidence from health facility surveys on malaria prescribing practices using ACT, in the presence and absence of ACT stock, at time and place where treatment was sought.MethodsA systematic search of published literature was conducted. Findings were collated and data extracted on proportion of patients prescribed ACT and alternative anti-malarials in the presence and absence of ACT stock.ResultsOf the 14 studies identified in which ACT prescription for uncomplicated malaria in the public sector was evaluated, just six, from three countries (Kenya, Uganda and Zambia), reported this in the context of ACT stock. Comparing facilities with ACT stock to facilities without stock (i) ACT prescribing was significantly higher in all six studies, increasing by a range of 21.3% in children < 5 yrs weighing ≥ 5 kg (p < 0.001; Kenya 2006) to 51.7% in children ≥ 10 kg (p < 0.001; Zambia 2006); (ii) SP prescribing decreased significantly in five studies, by a range of 14.4% (p < 0.001; Kenya 2006), to 46.3% (p < 0.001; Zambia 2006); (iii) Where quinine was a reported alternative, prescriptions decreased in five of the six studies by 0.1% (p = 1.0, Kenya 2010) to 10.2% (p < 0.001; Zambia 2006). At facilities with no ACT stock on the survey day, the proportion of febrile patients prescribed ACT was < 10% in five of the nine target groups included in the six studies, with the proportion prescribed ACT ranging from 0 to 28.4% (Uganda 2007).ConclusionsPrescriber practices vary based on ACT availability. Although ACT prescriptions increased and alternative anti-malarials prescriptions decreased in the presence of ACT stock, ACT was prescribed in the absence, and alternative anti-malarials were prescribed in the presence of, ACT. Presence of stock alone does not ensure that treatment guidelines are followed. More health facility surveys, together with qualitative research, are needed to understand the role of ACT stock-outs on provider prescribing behaviours and preferences.

The 2030 sustainable development goal for health

Must balance bold aspiration with technical feasibility

The economics of malaria control and elimination: a systematic review

BackgroundDeclining donor funding and competing health priorities threaten the sustainability of malaria programmes. Elucidating the cost and benefits of continued investments in malaria could encourage sustained political and financial commitments. The evidence, although available, remains disparate. This paper reviews the existing literature on the economic and financial cost and return of malaria control, elimination and eradication.MethodsA review of articles that were published on or before September 2014 on the cost and benefits of malaria control and elimination was performed. Studies were classified based on their scope and were analysed according to two major categories: cost of malaria control and elimination to a health system, and cost-benefit studies. Only studies involving more than two control or elimination interventions were included. Outcomes of interest were total programmatic cost, cost per capita, and benefit-cost ratios (BCRs). All costs were converted to 2013 US

Costing the supply chain for delivery of ACT and RDTs in the public sector in Benin and Kenya

for standardization.ResultsOf the 6425 articles identified, 54 studies were included in this review. Twenty-two were focused on elimination or eradication while 32 focused on intensive control. Forty-eight per cent of studies included in this review were published on or after 2000. Overall, the annual per capita cost of malaria control to a health system ranged from

Tracking development assistance and government health expenditures for 35 malaria-eliminating countries: 1990–2017

0.11 to

Regional initiatives for malaria elimination: Building and maintaining partnerships

39.06 (median: