Comparison of Two Strategies for the Delivery of IPTc
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government.
Read our disclaimer for details.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00376155
Recruitment Status :
First Posted : September 14, 2006
Last Update Posted : February 10, 2017
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Medical Research Council
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Brian Greenwood, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Antimalarial chemoprophylaxis can reduce morbidity and mortality from malaria in children. However, this approach to malaria control has not been implemented widely because of concerns over its possible effect on the development of resistance and natural immunity. Intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) may be able to achieve some of the beneficial effects of chemoprophylaxis without its drawbacks. Recently, it has been shown that IPT given to Senegalese children under the age of five years on three occasions during the malaria transmission season reduced the incidence of clinical malaria by approximately 90%. However, it is uncertain how this intervention can be most effectively delivered. Therefore, 26 Maternal and Child Health (MCH) trekking clinics in Upper River Division, south of the River Gambia, each with an average catchment population of 400-500 children under 5 years of age, will be randomly allocated to receive IPT from the MCH trekking team or from a IPT dispenser (village health worker, traditional birth attendant or a community mother based in a primary health care village). Treatment with a single dose of sulfadoxine /pyrimethamine (SP) plus three doses of amodiaquine will be given to all study subjects at monthly intervals on three occasions during the months of September, October and November. The primary end points will be the incidence of clinical attacks of malaria detected by passive case detection, and cost-effectiveness of the delivery methods. Important secondary endpoints will be the coverage and the equity of coverage of IPT in preventing malaria morbidity.
Malaria incidence (the number of OPD attendances with clinical malaria that meet the case definitions as indicated below during the surveillance period ) and the number of hospital admissions with malaria during the surveillance period. [ Time Frame: during malaria transmission period ]
Cost-effectiveness of the delivery system. [ Time Frame: during the study period ]
Secondary Outcome Measures :
Coverage of IPTC [ Time Frame: During the study period ]
the proportion of children who received three IPT courses on schedule; [ Time Frame: during the study period ]
the proportion of children who received partial or off-schedule IPT courses [ Time Frame: during the study period ]
the proportion of children with no IPT. [ Time Frame: during the study period ]
Unit cost of delivery per fully adherent child. [ Time Frame: during the study period ]
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each systems of delivery. [ Time Frame: During the study period ]
Mean Hb (g/dl) [ Time Frame: at the end of malaria transmission ]
Prevalence of malaria parasitaemia [ Time Frame: At the end of the malaria transmission season ]
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.
Ages Eligible for Study:
3 Months to 5 Years (Child)
Sexes Eligible for Study:
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
Age between 3 months and 5 years at enrolment.
Informed consent obtained from parents or legal guardians.
No current participation in another malaria intervention trial.
1. Previous adverse reaction to treatment with SP or amodiaquine. If this is unknown, then a history of allergic reaction to any drug.