MalariaPhase 4NCT00146796
A Randomised Trial of Rapid Diagnostic Tests in the Diagnosis of Malaria in Tanzania
A Phase 4 study testing Rapid diagnostic test for malaria in people with Malaria and Febrile Illness, run by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine at 1 site in Tanzania.
Trial summary
There is clear evidence diagnosis of malaria in much of Africa is sub-optimal and this has a negative impact on patient care. Many of those treated for malaria do not have it. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are dipsticks which diagnose malaria rapidly and accurately. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Malaria, Febrile Illness
- What is being tested?
- Rapid diagnostic test for malaria
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- How many people
- 2,400 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTanzania
- Study dates
- Jan 2005to Nov 2005
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All patients of any age attending the outpatient facility will be eligible to be considered for the trial
- A clinician decision to request a malaria test.
Who cannot join
- Where a clinician decides that they would prefer a hospital slide to the patient entering the trial- these cases will be noted but excluded from the trial.
- Patients are admitted from outpatients to the ward Those who appear to the study clinical officer to be too distressed or ill to participate.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Tanzania1 site
Kilimanjaro Christian Medical College
Moshi, Moshi, Private Bag
About this study
Official title: A Randomised Trial of Rapid Diagnostic Tests in the Diagnosis of Non-Severe Malaria at Different Transmission Intensities of Plasmodium Falciparum in Tanzania
There is clear evidence diagnosis of malaria in much of Africa is sub-optimal and this has a negative impact on patient care. Many of those treated for malaria do not have it. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are dipsticks which diagnose malaria rapidly and accurately. The main objective of this trial is to determine by means of a randomised trial the impact of introducing RDTs into a standard outpatient setting in Tanzania has on the appropriate prescription of antimalarials. Other objectives are:
- To compare at high, moderate and low P.falciparum transmission intensity the sensitivity and specificity of malaria diagnosis using hospital slide results and RDTs, using research quality slides as the reference.
- To estimate the specificity of clinical diagnosis of malaria at high, moderate and low transmission intensity of P. falciparum.
- To compare the proportion of cases reported as slide-negative who are treated for malaria with the proportion of RDT-negative cases treated for malaria.
- To evaluate the cost effectiveness of introducing RDTs compared to current diagnostic practice in facilities with microscopic diagnosis of malaria at different levels of transmission of P.falciparum.
Read the detailed description
In each of the hospital outpatient facilities, patients consenting to participate will have a free malaria test but the test will be randomly assigned to hospital laboratory blood slide or RDT.
Sensitisation of sites and information displayed.
Before the start of the intervention study we will conduct meetings with the medical staff to explain the intervention and standard study procedure. We will provide information from published sources of the accuracy of 'Paracheck' compared to expert slide reading. Staff will be encouraged to use the RDT result in the same way that they would use a blood slide result of equivalent accuracy. We will consult with the Malaria Control Programme what additional information they would disseminate if they were deploying the tests.
Information will be displayed for patients attending the clinic that, for the period of the trial, malaria diagnosis will be free if requested by the clinic doctor. Patients consenting to participate will be randomly allocated to receive either a slide test or RDT. Patients who do not consent to participate will receive free hospital slide testing if requested by the clinic doctor and their treatment will follow routine practice.
Inclusion criteria
- All patients of any age attending the outpatient facility will be eligible to be considered for the trial with the exception of those who are admitted from outpatients to the ward or those who appear to the study clinical officer to be too distressed or ill to participate.
- The inclusion criteria will be a clinician decision to request a malaria test. The only exclusion to this will be where a clinician decides that they would prefer a hospital slide to the patient entering the trial- these cases will be noted but excluded from the trial.
Patient recruitment and informed consent All patients attending the clinic will be informed of the trial, either by means of a written information sheet or, if they cannot read verbally. They will be asked for verbal informed consent to provide baseline information before they are seen by the clinic doctor. Consenting patients will be assigned a screening number and asked questions as in the baseline study relating to personal and socio-economic characteristics and the main presenting symptom.
On exit from the consultation patients will be asked to show what treatment has been given and if a request for a malaria test has been made. Clinicians will indicate where they have a preference for a hospital slide- these patients will be excluded. Those eligible for the trial for whom a malaria test has been requested will be invited to participate in the trial. Further information about the trial will be provided, and they or their guardians will provide written informed consent (or witnessed where they cannot read). Those who consent to the trial will be assigned to RDT or hospital slide by opening an opaque sealed envelope within which will be a slip with the study allocation, generated by computer randomisation (see below, randomization)). These will be numbered, and the number will become the study number for the patient. Opening the envelope defines entering the trial. If on discovering the allocation the patient demands a different test this will be deemed a withdrawal from the trial and this outcome will be noted. Patients who withdraw will be offered standard care (see below- ethical issues).
If RDT has been allocated, the rapid test and malaria slide (for later expert reading) will be taken by a qualified member of the survey team who will label slides and RDTs with the patient's name, date and study number. The result of the RDT will be read and recorded by the research assistant and then the test given back to the patient to present to the doctor in a consultation. Clinic doctors will read the result and give treatment according to their clinical judgement.
If hospital slide has been requested the patient will present the slide request slip to the hospital laboratory according to normal clinic practice. In addition to taking a blood slide, laboratory staff will be asked to take a duplicate slide which will be retained, stained and double-read at a later time according to research methodology. The result will be given back to the patient for the review consultation according to normal clinic practice.
On exit from the consultation any patient who has been seen for a review of a blood slide or RDT result will be briefly interviewed to collect data on any treatment given or changed as a result of the review of results by the doctor.
Some patients may choose to leave the clinic once they have their result without a review consultation. This will be determined from their failure to appear on the exit survey.
Primary outcome:
The proportion of clinical treatments that are consistent with the parasitological diagnosis in those randomised to RDT compared to those randomised to hospital slide. This is a composite measure defined as an antimalarial given where the research slide is positive or no antimalarial given where the research slide is negative.
Secondary outcomes:
The proportion of slide negative cases given an antimalarial (overprescription of antimalarials) in the RDT arm compared to the standard care arm.
The proportion of slide positives not given an antimalarial who are slide positive (underprescription of antimalarials).
The proportion of cases who are treated for malaria on clinical grounds alone Sensitivity and specificity of RDT and hospital malaria slide compared to double read research slide results.
The proportion of patients receiving additional or alternative treatments to antimalarials following a negative blood slide or RDT result. This will inform cost-effectiveness models.
From 1 published study and 1 unpublished study we estimate that an antimalarial will be prescribed in at least 45% of cases who have had a negative blood slide result. This is expected to apply to all transmission settings. To detect a minimum 25% reduction we require a total of 820 at each transmission band.
- Conditions
- Malaria, Febrile Illness
- Being tested
- Rapid diagnostic test for malaria
- Keywords
- Malaria, Diagnosis, RDT, Africa, Tanzania
- Medical subject headings
- Malaria, Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Rapid diagnostic test for malariaDevice
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2005
- Study completionNov 2005
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for MalariaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 2,400 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Tanzania
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Brian Greenwood, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
- Investigators
- Christopher Whitty, FRCP, Principal investigator, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00146796
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ITIMVG38
- Status last verified
- Jan 2017
- First submitted
- 5 Sep 2005
- Last updated
- 12 Jan 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Reyburn H, Mbatia R, Drakeley C, Carneiro I, Mwakasungula E, Mwerinde O, Saganda K, Shao J, Kitua A, Olomi R, Greenwood BM, Whitty CJ. Overdiagnosis of malaria in patients with severe febrile illness in Tanzania: a prospective study. BMJ. 2004 Nov 20;329(7476):1212. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38251.658229.55. Epub 2004 Nov 12.
PubMed 15542534Reyburn H, Mbakilwa H, Mwangi R, Mwerinde O, Olomi R, Drakeley C, Whitty CJ. Rapid diagnostic tests compared with malaria microscopy for guiding outpatient treatment of febrile illness in Tanzania: randomised trial. BMJ. 2007 Feb 24;334(7590):403. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39073.496829.AE. Epub 2007 Jan 26.
PubMed 17259188
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Jan 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Randomised Trial of Rapid Diagnostic Tests in the Diagnosis of Non-Severe Malaria at Different Transmission Intensities of Plasmodium Falciparum in Tanzania
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00146796
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ITIMVG38
- Conditions
- Malaria, Febrile Illness
- Keywords
- Malaria, Diagnosis, RDT, Africa, Tanzania
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 2,400 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Tanzania
- Study start
- Jan 2005
- Study completion
- Nov 2005 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
There is clear evidence diagnosis of malaria in much of Africa is sub-optimal and this has a negative impact on patient care. Many of those treated for malaria do not have it. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are dipsticks which diagnose malaria rapidly and accurately. The main objective of this trial is to determine by means of a randomised trial the impact of introducing RDTs into a standard outpatient setting in Tanzania has on the appropriate prescription of antimalarials. Other objectives are:
- To compare at high, moderate and low P.falciparum transmission intensity the sensitivity and specificity of malaria diagnosis using hospital slide results and RDTs, using research quality slides as the reference.
- To estimate the specificity of clinical diagnosis of malaria at high, moderate and low transmission intensity of P. falciparum.
- To compare the proportion of cases reported as slide-negative who are treated for malaria with the proportion of RDT-negative cases treated for malaria.
- To evaluate the cost effectiveness of introducing RDTs compared to current diagnostic practice in facilities with microscopic diagnosis of malaria at different levels of transmission of P.falciparum.
Detailed description
In each of the hospital outpatient facilities, patients consenting to participate will have a free malaria test but the test will be randomly assigned to hospital laboratory blood slide or RDT.
Sensitisation of sites and information displayed.
Before the start of the intervention study we will conduct meetings with the medical staff to explain the intervention and standard study procedure. We will provide information from published sources of the accuracy of 'Paracheck' compared to expert slide reading. Staff will be encouraged to use the RDT result in the same way that they would use a blood slide result of equivalent accuracy. We will consult with the Malaria Control Programme what additional information they would disseminate if they were deploying the tests.
Information will be displayed for patients attending the clinic that, for the period of the trial, malaria diagnosis will be free if requested by the clinic doctor. Patients consenting to participate will be randomly allocated to receive either a slide test or RDT. Patients who do not consent to participate will receive free hospital slide testing if requested by the clinic doctor and their treatment will follow routine practice.
Inclusion criteria
- All patients of any age attending the outpatient facility will be eligible to be considered for the trial with the exception of those who are admitted from outpatients to the ward or those who appear to the study clinical officer to be too distressed or ill to participate.
- The inclusion criteria will be a clinician decision to request a malaria test. The only exclusion to this will be where a clinician decides that they would prefer a hospital slide to the patient entering the trial- these cases will be noted but excluded from the trial.
Patient recruitment and informed consent All patients attending the clinic will be informed of the trial, either by means of a written information sheet or, if they cannot read verbally. They will be asked for verbal informed consent to provide baseline information before they are seen by the clinic doctor. Consenting patients will be assigned a screening number and asked questions as in the baseline study relating to personal and socio-economic characteristics and the main presenting symptom.
On exit from the consultation patients will be asked to show what treatment has been given and if a request for a malaria test has been made. Clinicians will indicate where they have a preference for a hospital slide- these patients will be excluded. Those eligible for the trial for whom a malaria test has been requested will be invited to participate in the trial. Further information about the trial will be provided, and they or their guardians will provide written informed consent (or witnessed where they cannot read). Those who consent to the trial will be assigned to RDT or hospital slide by opening an opaque sealed envelope within which will be a slip with the study allocation, generated by computer randomisation (see below, randomization)). These will be numbered, and the number will become the study number for the patient. Opening the envelope defines entering the trial. If on discovering the allocation the patient demands a different test this will be deemed a withdrawal from the trial and this outcome will be noted. Patients who withdraw will be offered standard care (see below- ethical issues).
If RDT has been allocated, the rapid test and malaria slide (for later expert reading) will be taken by a qualified member of the survey team who will label slides and RDTs with the patient's name, date and study number. The result of the RDT will be read and recorded by the research assistant and then the test given back to the patient to present to the doctor in a consultation. Clinic doctors will read the result and give treatment according to their clinical judgement.
If hospital slide has been requested the patient will present the slide request slip to the hospital laboratory according to normal clinic practice. In addition to taking a blood slide, laboratory staff will be asked to take a duplicate slide which will be retained, stained and double-read at a later time according to research methodology. The result will be given back to the patient for the review consultation according to normal clinic practice.
On exit from the consultation any patient who has been seen for a review of a blood slide or RDT result will be briefly interviewed to collect data on any treatment given or changed as a result of the review of results by the doctor.
Some patients may choose to leave the clinic once they have their result without a review consultation. This will be determined from their failure to appear on the exit survey.
Primary outcome:
The proportion of clinical treatments that are consistent with the parasitological diagnosis in those randomised to RDT compared to those randomised to hospital slide. This is a composite measure defined as an antimalarial given where the research slide is positive or no antimalarial given where the research slide is negative.
Secondary outcomes:
The proportion of slide negative cases given an antimalarial (overprescription of antimalarials) in the RDT arm compared to the standard care arm.
The proportion of slide positives not given an antimalarial who are slide positive (underprescription of antimalarials).
The proportion of cases who are treated for malaria on clinical grounds alone Sensitivity and specificity of RDT and hospital malaria slide compared to double read research slide results.
The proportion of patients receiving additional or alternative treatments to antimalarials following a negative blood slide or RDT result. This will inform cost-effectiveness models.
From 1 published study and 1 unpublished study we estimate that an antimalarial will be prescribed in at least 45% of cases who have had a negative blood slide result. This is expected to apply to all transmission settings. To detect a minimum 25% reduction we require a total of 820 at each transmission band.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- All patients of any age attending the outpatient facility will be eligible to be considered for the trial
- A clinician decision to request a malaria test.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Where a clinician decides that they would prefer a hospital slide to the patient entering the trial- these cases will be noted but excluded from the trial.
- Patients are admitted from outpatients to the ward Those who appear to the study clinical officer to be too distressed or ill to participate.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Rapid diagnostic test for malaria | Device | – |
Primary outcome
Not reported in the source record.
5 secondary outcomes
The proportion of slide negative cases given an antimalarial (overprescription of antimalarials) in the RDT arm compared to the standard care arm.
The proportion of slide positives not given an antimalarial who are slide positive (underprescription of antimalarials).
Proportion of cases who are treated for malaria on clinical grounds alone
Sensitivity and specificity of RDT and hospital malaria slide compared to double read research slide results.
The proportion of patients receiving additional or alternative treatments to antimalarials following a negative blood slide or RDT result. This will inform cost-effectiveness models
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Jan 2017.
- Background: PubMed 15542534Reyburn H, Mbatia R, Drakeley C, Carneiro I, Mwakasungula E, Mwerinde O, Saganda K, Shao J, Kitua A, Olomi R, Greenwood BM, Whitty CJ. Overdiagnosis of malaria in patients with severe febrile illness in Tanzania: a prospective study. BMJ. 2004 Nov 20;329(7476):1212. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38251.658229.55. Epub 2004 Nov 12.
- Results publication: PubMed 17259188Reyburn H, Mbakilwa H, Mwangi R, Mwerinde O, Olomi R, Drakeley C, Whitty CJ. Rapid diagnostic tests compared with malaria microscopy for guiding outpatient treatment of febrile illness in Tanzania: randomised trial. BMJ. 2007 Feb 24;334(7590):403. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39073.496829.AE. Epub 2007 Jan 26.
Related trials for Malaria
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Trajectories and Mechanisms of Recovery From Malaria: An Observational Study
Malaria
Not yet recruiting
Positron Emission Tomography and Organ-Specific Changes in Participants Co-Enrolled in NIH Studies of Plasmodium Vivax Controlled Human Malaria Infection
Healthy Volunteer, Malaria
Recruiting
The Effects of Iron Treatment on Vaccine Immunogenicity in Kenyan Infants With Iron Deficiency
Iron Deficiencies
RecruitingObservational study
Host and Parasite Factors That Influence Susceptibility to Malaria Infection and Disease During Pregnancy and Early Childhood in Ouelessebougou and Bamako, Mali
Malaria
RecruitingPhase 1
Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of PfSPZ-LARC2 Vaccine Against CHMI in Malaria-Naïve Adults
Malaria Falciparum
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Christopher Whitty, FRCP principal investigator
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Rapid diagnostic test for malaria in people with Malaria and Febrile Illness, run by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine at 1 site in Tanzania.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Jan 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Tanzania. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00146796, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Jan 2017.