Quality of care for the treatment for uncomplicated malaria in South-East Nigeria: how important is socioeconomic status?

Introduction: Ensuring equitable coverage of appropriate malaria treatment remains a high priority for the Nigerian government. This study examines the health seeking behaviour, patient-provider interaction and quality of care received by febrile patients of different socio-economic status (SES) groups. Methods: A total of 1642 febrile patients and caregivers exiting public health centres, pharmacies and patent medicine dealers were surveyed in Enugu state, South-East Nigeria to obtain information on treatment seeking behaviour, patient-provider interactions and treatment received. Socioeconomic status was estimated for each patient using exit survey data on household assets in combination with asset ownership data from the 2008 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. Results: Among the poorest SES group, 29% sought treatment at public health centres, 13% at pharmacies and 58% at patent medicine dealers (p < 0.01). Very few of those in the richest SES group used public health centres (4%) instead choosing to go to pharmacies (44%) and patent medicine dealers (52%, p < 0.001). During consultations with a healthcare provider, the poorest compared to the richest were significantly more likely to discuss symptoms with the provider, be physically examined and rely on providers for diagnosis and treatment rather than request a specific medicine. Those from the poorest SES group were however, least likely to request or to receive an antimalarial (p < 0.001). The use of artemisinin combination therapy (ACT), the recommended treatment for uncomplicated malaria, was low across all SES groups. Conclusions: The quality of malaria treatment is sub-optimal for all febrile patients. Having greater interaction with the provider also did not translate to better quality care for the poor. The poor face a number of significant barriers to accessing quality treatment especially in relation to treatment seeking behaviour and type of treatment received. Strategies to address these inequities are fundamental to achieving universal coverage of effective malaria treatment and ensuring that the most vulnerable people are not left behind

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

PCR-Based Techniques for Leprosy Diagnosis: From the Laboratory to the Clinic

In leprosy, classic diagnostic tools based on bacillary counts and histopathology have been facing hurdles, especially in distinguishing latent infection from active disease and diagnosing paucibacillary clinical forms. Serological tests and IFN-gamma releasing assays (IGRA) that employ humoral and cellular immune parameters, respectively, are also being used, but recent results indicate that quantitative PCR (qPCR) is a key technique due to its higher sensitivity and specificity. In fact, advances concerning the structure and function of the Mycobacterium leprae genome led to the development of specific PCR-based gene amplification assays for leprosy diagnosis and monitoring of household contacts. Also, based on the validation of point-of-care technologies for M. tuberculosis DNA detection, it is clear that the same advantages of rapid DNA detection could be observed in respect to leprosy. So far, PCR has proven useful in the determination of transmission routes, M. leprae viability, and drug resistance in leprosy. However, PCR has been ascertained to be especially valuable in diagnosing difficult cases like pure neural leprosy (PNL), paucibacillary (PB), and patients with atypical clinical presentation and histopathological features compatible with leprosy. Also, the detection of M. leprae DNA in different samples of the household contacts of leprosy patients is very promising. Although a positive PCR result is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship with disease outcome, quantitation provided by qPCR is clearly capable of indicating increased risk of developing the disease and could alert clinicians to follow these contacts more closely or even define rules for chemoprophylaxis