Browsing by Author "Bukirwa, Hasifa"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Anti-Malarial Targeting and Dosing Practices among Health Workers at Lower Level Health Facilities in Uganda
    (Health, 2014) Kakeeto, Stella; Wanzira, Humphrey; Kagambirwe Karyeija, Gerald; Kamya, Moses; Bukirwa, Hasifa
    Health worker shortages remain a significant challenge to delivery of health care services globally. Moving tasks, where appropriate, to less specialized health workers is recommended by the World Health Organization as a strategy to address this challenge. However, this concept is feared to raise specific quality concerns. This research aimed at assessing the performance of health workers to correctly prescribe (target) appropriate antimalarial treatment. Methods: We conducted a cross sectional study at three public health centre IVs in Uganda, with varying malaria transmission intensities (Kihihi-low, Kasambya-medium and Nagongera-high). We categorized prescribers into two groups: specialized prescribers (doctors and clinical officers) and less specialized prescribers (nurses and midwives). At each site, 100 records of patients seen between September and November 2011 and prescribed an antimalarial were retrieved for each group of prescribers. Correctness of the antimalarial drug prescribed and dose given were assessed for each group and compared to the 2005 Uganda national malaria treatment guidelines which recommend Artemether Lumefantrine (AL) for treatment of uncomplicated malaria and Quinine for complicated malaria. Results: Findings of the study showed that specialized health workers were more likely to target correctly as compared to the less specialized health workers [OR = 1.49 (1.00 - 2.22), p = 0.046]. Appropriateness of dosing was higher among specialized prescribers compared to less specialized prescribers however this was not significant [OR = 1.58 0.77 - 3.25), p = 0.206]. Age of the participants, history of fever, diagnosis of malaria and prescription experience were not associated with correct targeting. Conclusion: This study shows that task shifting at the targeting level is not suitable; however, there is inadequate evidence to show that this also applies to anti-malarial dosing. Task shifting for the treatment of Malaria in Uganda should be investigated further using larger studies if it is to be considered as an option for solving the health worker shortages especially in regions with few specialized health workers but high malaria burden.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Artemether-Lumefantrine versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Treating Uncomplicated Malaria: A Randomized Trial to Guide Policy in Uganda
    (PloS one, 2008) Yeka, Adoke; Dorsey, Grant; Kamya, Moses R.; Talisuna, Ambrose; Lugemwa, Myers; Rwakimari, John Bosco; Staedke, Sarah G.; Rosenthal, Philip J.; Mangen, Fred Wabwire; Bukirwa, Hasifa
    Uganda recently adopted artemether-lumefantrine (AL) as the recommended first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria. However, AL has several limitations, including a twice-daily dosing regimen, recommendation for administration with fatty food, and a high risk of reinfection soon after therapy in high transmission areas. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) is a new alternative artemisinin-based combination therapy that is dosed once daily and has a long post-treatment prophylactic effect. We compared the efficacy and safety of AL with DP in Kanungu, an area of moderate malaria transmission.Patients aged 6 months to 10 years with uncomplicated falciparum malaria were randomized to therapy and followed for 42 days. Genotyping was used to distinguish recrudescence from new infection. Of 414 patients enrolled, 408 completed follow-up. Compared to patients treated with artemether-lumefantrine, patients treated with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine had a significantly lower risk of recurrent parasitaemia (33.2% vs. 12.2%; risk difference = 20.9%, 95% CI 13.0–28.8%) but no statistically significant difference in the risk of treatment failure due to recrudescence (5.8% vs. 2.0%; risk difference = 3.8%, 95% CI −0.2–7.8%). Patients treated with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine also had a lower risk of developing gametocytaemia after therapy (4.2% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.01). Both drugs were safe and well tolerated.DP is highly efficacious, and operationally preferable to AL because of a less intensive dosing schedule and requirements. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine should be considered for a role in the antimalarial treatment policy of Uganda.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Artemether-Lumefantrine versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Treatment of Malaria: A Randomized Trial
    (PLoS clinical trials, 2007) Kamya, Moses R.; Yeka, Adoke; Bukirwa, Hasifa; Lugemwa, Myers; Rwakimari, John B.; Staedke, Sarah G.; Talisuna, Ambrose O.; Mangen, Fred Wabwire
    To compare the efficacy and safety of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Uganda.Randomized single-blinded clinical trial.Apac, Uganda, an area of very high malaria transmission intensity.Children aged 6 mo to 10 y with uncomplicated falciparum malaria.Treatment of malaria with AL or DP, each following standard 3-d dosing regimens.Risks of recurrent parasitemia at 28 and 42 d, unadjusted and adjusted by genotyping to distinguish recrudescences and new infections.Of 421 enrolled participants, 417 (99%) completed follow-up. The unadjusted risk of recurrent falciparum parasitemia was significantly lower for participants treated with DP than for those treated with AL after 28 d (11% versus 29%; risk difference [RD] 18%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 11%–26%) and 42 d (43% versus 53%; RD 9.6%, 95% CI 0%–19%) of follow-up. Similarly, the risk of recurrent parasitemia due to possible recrudescence (adjusted by genotyping) was significantly lower for participants treated with DP than for those treated with AL after 28 d (1.9% versus 8.9%; RD 7.0%, 95% CI 2.5%–12%) and 42 d (6.9% versus 16%; RD 9.5%, 95% CI 2.8%–16%). Patients treated with DP had a lower risk of recurrent parasitemia due to non-falciparum species, development of gametocytemia, and higher mean increase in hemoglobin compared to patients treated with AL. Both drugs were well tolerated; serious adverse events were uncommon and unrelated to study drugs.DP was superior to AL for reducing the risk of recurrent parasitemia and gametocytemia, and provided improved hemoglobin recovery. DP thus appears to be a good alternative to AL as first-line treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Uganda. To maximize the benefit of artemisinin-based combination therapy in Africa, treatment should be integrated with aggressive strategies to reduce malaria transmission intensity.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Artemisinin Combination Therapies for Treatment of Uncomplicated Malaria in Uganda
    (PLoS clinical trials, 2006) Bukirwa, Hasifa; Yeka, Adoke; Kamya, Moses R.; Talisuna, Ambrose; Banek, Kristin; Bakyaita, Nathan; Rwakimari, John Bosco; Rosenthal, Philip J.; Mangen, Fred Wabwire; Dorsey, Grant; Staedke, Sarah G.
    To compare the efficacy and safety of artemisinin combination therapies for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Uganda.Randomized single-blind controlled trial.Tororo, Uganda, an area of high-level malaria transmission.Children aged one to ten years with confirmed uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria.Amodiaquine + artesunate or artemether–lumefantrine.Risks of recurrent symptomatic malaria and recurrent parasitemia at 28 days, unadjusted and adjusted by genotyping to distinguish recrudescences and new infections.Of 408 participants enrolled, 403 with unadjusted efficacy outcomes were included in the per-protocol analysis. Both treatment regimens were highly efficacious; no recrudescences occurred in patients treated with amodiaquine + artesunate, and only two occurred in those treated with artemether–lumefantrine. However, recurrent malaria due to new infections was common. The unadjusted risk of recurrent symptomatic malaria was significantly lower for participants treated with artemether–lumefantrine than for those treated with amodiaquine + artesunate (27% versus 42%, risk difference 15%, 95% CI 5.9%–24.2%). Similar results were seen for the risk of recurrent parasitemia (51% artemether–lumefantrine versus 66% amodiaquine + artesunate, risk difference 16%, 95% CI 6.2%–25.2%). Amodiaquine + artesunate and artemether–lumefantrine were both well-tolerated. Serious adverse events were uncommon with both regimens.Amodiaquine + artesunate and artemether–lumefantrine were both highly efficacious for treatment of uncomplicated malaria. However, in this holoendemic area, despite the excellent performance of both regimens in terms of efficacy, many patients experienced recurrent parasitemia due to new infections. Artemether–lumefantrine was superior to amodiaquine + artesunate for prevention of new infections. To maximize the benefit of artemisinin combination therapy in Africa, treatment should be integrated with strategies to prevent malaria transmission. The impact of frequent repeated therapy on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of new artemisinin regimens should be further investigated.