Home page  |  About this library  |  Help  |  Clear       English  |  French  |  Spanish  
Expand Document
Expand Chapter
Full TOC
Preferences
to previous section to next section

close this bookGuidelines for the Treatment of Malaria (WHO; 2006; 266 pages) View the PDF document
View the documentGlossary
View the documentAbbreviations
open this folder and view contents1. Introduction
View the document2. The clinical disease
open this folder and view contents3. Treatment objectives
close this folder4. Diagnosis of malaria
View the document4.1 Clinical diagnosis
View the document4.2 Parasitological diagnosis
View the document4.3 Where malaria transmission is low to moderate and/or unstable
View the document4.4 In stable high-transmission settings
View the document4.5 Malaria parasite species identification
View the document4.6 In epidemics and complex emergencies
open this folder and view contents5. Resistance to antimalarial medicines9
open this folder and view contents6. Antimalarial treatment policy
open this folder and view contents7. Treatment of uncomplicated P. Falciparum malaria10
open this folder and view contents8. Treatment of severe falciparum malaria14
open this folder and view contents9. Treatment of malaria caused by P. vivax, P. ovale or P. malariae19
View the document10. Mixed malaria infections
open this folder and view contents11. Complex emergencies and epidemics
open this folder and view contentsAnnexes
 

4.2 Parasitological diagnosis

The introduction of ACTs has increased the urgency of improving the specificity of malaria diagnosis. The relatively high cost of these drugs makes waste through unnecessary treatment of patients without parasitaemia unsustainable. In addition to cost savings, parasitological diagnosis has the following advantages:

• improved patient care in parasite-positive patients owing to greater certainty that the patient has malaria;

• identification of parasite-negative patients in whom another diagnosis must be sought;

• prevention of unnecessary exposure to antimalarials, thereby reducing side-effects, drug interactions and selection pressure;

• improved health information;

• confirmation of treatment failures.


The two methods in use for parasitological diagnosis are light microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). Light microscopy has the advantage of low cost and high sensitivity and specificity when used by well-trained staff. RDTs for detection of parasite antigen are generally more expensive, but the prices of some of these products have recently decreased to an extent that makes their deployment cost-effective in some settings. Their sensitivity and specificity are variable, and their vulnerability to high temperatures and humidity is an important constraint. Despite these concerns, RDTs make it possible to expand the use of confirmatory diagnosis. Deployment of these tests, as with microscopy, must be accompanied by quality assurance. Practical experience and operational evidence from large-scale implementation are limited and, therefore, their introduction should be carefully monitored and evaluated.

The results of parasitological diagnosis should be available within a short time (less than 2 h) of the patient presenting. If this is not possible, the patient must be treated on the basis of a clinical diagnosis.

4.2.1 The choice between RDTs and microscopy

The choice between RDTs and microscopy depends on local circumstances, including the skills available, the usefulness of microscopy for other diseases found in the area, and the case-load. Where the case-load of fever patients is high, microscopy is likely to be less expensive than RDTs. Microscopy has further advantages in that it can be used for speciation and quantification of parasites, and identification of other causes of fever. However, most malaria patients are treated outside the health services, for example, in the community, in the home or by private providers; microscopy is generally not feasible in such circumstances, but RDTs may be.

The following conclusions and recommendations are based on evidence summarized by recent WHO consultations, especially the Technical Consultation on the Role of Parasitological Diagnosis in Malaria Case Management in Areas of High Transmission, held in Geneva from 25 to 26 October 2004 (report in preparation).

to previous section to next section

Please provide your feedback   English  |  French  |  Spanish