Establishing a malaria diagnostics centre of excellence in Kisumu, Kenya

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Malaria microscopy, while the gold standard for malaria diagnosis, has limitations. Efficacy estimates in drug and vaccine malaria trials are very sensitive to small errors in microscopy endpoints. This fact led to the establishment of a Malaria Diagnostics Centre of Excellence in Kisumu, Kenya. The primary objective was to ensure valid clinical trial and diagnostic test evaluations. Key secondary objectives were technology transfer to host countries, establishment of partnerships, and training of clinical microscopists.</p> <p>Case description</p> <p>A twelve-day "long" and a four-day "short" training course consisting of supervised laboratory practicals, lectures, group discussions, demonstrations, and take home assignments were developed. Well characterized slides were developed and training materials iteratively improved. Objective pre- and post-course evaluations consisted of 30 slides (19 negative, 11 positive) with a density range of 50–660 parasites/μl, a written examination (65 questions), a photographic image examination (30 images of artifacts and species specific characteristics), and a parasite counting examination.</p> <p>Discussion and Evaluation</p> <p>To date, 209 microscopists have participated from 11 countries. Seventy-seven experienced microscopists participated in the "long" courses, including 47 research microscopists. Sensitivity improved by a mean of 14% (CI 9–19%) from 77% baseline (CI 73–81 %), while specificity improved by a mean of 17% (CI 11–23%) from 76% (CI 70–82%) baseline. Twenty-three microscopists who had been selected for a four-day refresher course showed continued improvement with a mean final sensitivity of 95% (CI 91–98%) and specificity of 97% (CI 95–100%). Only 9% of those taking the pre-test in the "long" course achieved a 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity, which increased to 61% of those completing the "short" course. All measures of performance improved substantially across each of the five organization types and in each course offered.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The data clearly illustrated that false positive and negative malaria smears are a serious problem, even with research microscopists. Training dramatically improved performance. Quality microscopy can be provided by the Centre of Excellence concept. This concept can be extended to other diagnostics of public health importance, and comprehensive disease control strategies.</p

Pilot assessment of the sensitivity of the malaria thin film

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Evaluation of RTS,S/AS02A and RTS,S/AS01B in Adults in a High Malaria Transmission Area

This study advances the clinical development of the RTS,S/AS01B candidate malaria vaccine to malaria endemic populations. As a primary objective it compares the safety and reactogenicity of RTS,S/AS01B to the more extensively evaluated RTS,S/AS02A vaccine.A Phase IIb, single centre, double-blind, controlled trial of 6 months duration with a subsequent 6 month single-blind follow-up conducted in Kisumu West District, Kenya between August 2005 and August 2006. 255 healthy adults aged 18 to 35 years were randomized (1ratio1ratio1) to receive 3 doses of RTS,S/AS02A, RTS,S/AS01B or rabies vaccine (Rabipur; Chiron Behring GmbH) at months 0, 1, 2. The primary objective was the occurrence of severe (grade 3) solicited or unsolicited general (i.e. systemic) adverse events (AEs) during 7 days follow up after each vaccination.Both candidate vaccines had a good safety profile and were well tolerated. One grade 3 systemic AE occurred within 7 days of vaccination (RTS,S/AS01B group). No unsolicited AEs or SAEs were related to vaccine. A marked increase in anti-CS antibody GMTs was observed post Dose 2 of both RTS,S/AS01B (31.6 EU/mL [95% CI: 23.9 to 41.6]) and RTS,S/AS02A (16.7 EU/mL [95% CI: 12.9 to 21.7]). A further increase was observed post Dose 3 in both the RTS,S/AS01B (41.4 EU/mL [95% CI: 31.7 to 54.2]) and RTS,S/AS02A (21.4 EU/mL [95% CI: 16.0 to 28.7]) groups. Anti-CS antibody GMTs were significantly greater with RTS,S/AS01B compared to RTS,S/AS02A at all time points post Dose 2 and Dose 3. Both candidate vaccines produced strong anti-HBs responses. Vaccine efficacy in the RTS,S/AS01B group was 29.5% (95% CI: -15.4 to 56.9, p = 0.164) and in the RTS,S/AS02A group 31.7% (95% CI: -11.6 to 58.2, p = 0.128).Both candidate malaria vaccines were well tolerated over a 12 month surveillance period. A more favorable immunogenicity profile was observed with RTS,S/AS01B than with RTS,S/AS02A.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00197054

Safety and Reactogenicity of an MSP-1 Malaria Vaccine Candidate: A Randomized Phase Ib Dose-Escalation Trial in Kenyan Children

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of an investigational malaria vaccine. DESIGN: This was an age-stratified phase Ib, double-blind, randomized, controlled, dose-escalation trial. Children were recruited into one of three cohorts (dosage groups) and randomized in 2:1 fashion to receive either the test product or a comparator. SETTING: The study was conducted in a rural population in Kombewa Division, western Kenya. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were 135 children, aged 12–47 mo. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects received 10, 25, or 50 μg of falciparum malaria protein 1 (FMP1) formulated in 100, 250, and 500 μL, respectively, of AS02A, or they received a comparator (Imovax® rabies vaccine). OUTCOME MEASURES: We performed safety and reactogenicity parameters and assessment of adverse events during solicited (7 d) and unsolicited (30 d) periods after each vaccination. Serious adverse events were monitored for 6 mo after the last vaccination. RESULTS: Both vaccines were safe and well tolerated. FMP1/AS02A recipients experienced significantly more pain and injection-site swelling with a dose-effect relationship. Systemic reactogenicity was low at all dose levels. Hemoglobin levels remained stable and similar across arms. Baseline geometric mean titers were comparable in all groups. Anti-FMP1 antibody titers increased in a dose-dependent manner in subjects receiving FMP1/AS02A; no increase in anti-FMP1 titers occurred in subjects who received the comparator. By study end, subjects who received either 25 or 50 μg of FMP1 had similar antibody levels, which remained significantly higher than that of those who received the comparator or 10 μg of FMP1. A longitudinal mixed effects model showed a statistically significant effect of dosage level on immune response (F(3,1047) = 10.78, or F(3, 995) = 11.22, p < 0.001); however, the comparison of 25 μg and 50 μg recipients indicated no significant difference (F(1,1047) = 0.05; p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: The FMP1/AS02A vaccine was safe and immunogenic in malaria-exposed 12- to 47-mo-old children and the magnitude of immune response of the 25 and 50 μg doses was superior to that of the 10 μg dose

Blood Stage Malaria Vaccine Eliciting High Antigen-Specific Antibody Concentrations Confers No Protection to Young Children in Western Kenya

The antigen, falciparum malaria protein 1 (FMP1), represents the 42-kDa C-terminal fragment of merozoite surface protein-1 (MSP-1) of the 3D7 clone of P. falciparum. Formulated with AS02 (a proprietary Adjuvant System), it constitutes the FMP1/AS02 candidate malaria vaccine. We evaluated this vaccine's safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy in African children.A randomised, double-blind, Phase IIb, comparator-controlled trial.The trial was conducted in 13 field stations of one mile radii within Kombewa Division, Nyanza Province, Western Kenya, an area of holoendemic transmission of P. falciparum. We enrolled 400 children aged 12-47 months in general good health.Children were randomised in a 1ratio1 fashion to receive either FMP1/AS02 (50 microg) or Rabipur(R) rabies vaccine. Vaccinations were administered on a 0, 1, and 2 month schedule. The primary study endpoint was time to first clinical episode of P. falciparum malaria (temperature >/=37.5 degrees C with asexual parasitaemia of >/=50,000 parasites/microL of blood) occurring between 14 days and six months after a third dose. Case detection was both active and passive. Safety and immunogenicity were evaluated for eight months after first immunisations; vaccine efficacy (VE) was measured over a six-month period following third vaccinations.374 of 400 children received all three doses and completed six months of follow-up. FMP1/AS02 had a good safety profile and was well-tolerated but more reactogenic than the comparator. Geometric mean anti-MSP-1(42) antibody concentrations increased from1.3 microg/mL to 27.3 microg/mL in the FMP1/AS02 recipients, but were unchanged in controls. 97 children in the FMP1/AS02 group and 98 controls had a primary endpoint episode. Overall VE was 5.1% (95% CI: -26% to +28%; p-value = 0.7).FMP1/AS02 is not a promising candidate for further development as a monovalent malaria vaccine. Future MSP-1(42) vaccine development should focus on other formulations and antigen constructs.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00223990

Malaria Treatment with Atovaquone-Proguanil in Malaria-Immune Adults: Implications for Malaria Intervention Trials and for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis of Malaria▿

Eighty adults in areas of Kenya where malaria is holoendemic received presumptive treatment with atovaquone-proguanil and were followed closely. The time to the first Plasmodium falciparum parasitemia was 32 days. This prolonged prophylaxis period has implications for study design when used in malaria intervention trials and cautiously suggests clinical investigation of potential preexposure prophylaxis of malaria