Phok Sochea, Phanalasy Saysana, Thein Si Thu, Likhitsup Asawin
Population Services Khmer, 29 334 St, Boeung Keng Kang, P. O. Box 258, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Population Services International Lao PDR, T4 Road Unit 16, Donkai Village, P. O. Box 8723, Vientiane, Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Malar J. 2017 May 2;16(1):180. doi: 10.1186/s12936-017-1800-5.
The aim of this paper is to review multi-country evidence of private sector adherence to national regulations, guidelines, and quality-assurance standards for malaria case management and to document current coverage of private sector engagement and support through ACTwatch outlet surveys implemented in 2015 and 2016.
Over 76,168 outlets were screened, and approximately 6500 interviews were conducted (Cambodia, N = 1303; the Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR), N = 724; Myanmar, N = 4395; and Thailand, N = 74). There was diversity in the types of private sector outlets providing malaria treatment across countries, and the extent to which they were authorized to test and treat for malaria differed. Among outlets stocking at least one anti-malarial, public sector availability of the first-line treatment for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum or Plasmodium vivax malaria was >75%. In the anti-malarial stocking private sector, first-line treatment availability was variable (Cambodia, 70.9%; the Lao PDR, 40.8%; Myanmar P. falciparum = 42.7%, P. vivax = 19.6%; Thailand P. falciparum = 19.6%, P. vivax = 73.3%), as was availability of second-line treatment (the Lao PDR, 74.9%; Thailand, 39.1%; Myanmar, 19.8%; and Cambodia, 0.7%). Treatment not in the National Treatment Guidelines (NTGs) was most common in Myanmar (35.8%) and Cambodia (34.0%), and was typically stocked by the informal sector. The majority of anti-malarials distributed in Cambodia and Myanmar were first-line P. falciparum or P. vivax treatments (90.3% and 77.1%, respectively), however, 8.8% of the market share in Cambodia was treatment not in the NTGs (namely chloroquine) and 17.6% in Myanmar (namely oral artemisinin monotherapy). In the Lao PDR, approximately 9 in 10 anti-malarials distributed in the private sector were second-line treatments-typically locally manufactured chloroquine. In Cambodia, 90% of anti-malarials were distributed through outlets that had confirmatory testing available. Over half of all anti-malarial distribution was by outlets that did not have confirmatory testing available in the Lao PDR (54%) and Myanmar (59%). Availability of quality-assured rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) amongst the RDT-stocking public sector ranged from 99.3% in the Lao PDR to 80.1% in Cambodia. In Cambodia, the Lao PDR, and Myanmar, less than 50% of the private sector reportedly received engagement (access to subsidized commodities, supervision, training or caseload reporting), which was most common among private health facilities and pharmacies.
Findings from this multi-country study suggest that Cambodia, the Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Thailand are generally in alignment with national regulations, treatment guidelines, and quality-assurance standards. However, important gaps persist in the private sector which pose a threat to national malaria control and elimination goals. Several options are discussed to help align the private sector anti-malarial market with national elimination strategies.
本文旨在回顾多个国家私营部门遵守疟疾病例管理国家法规、指南和质量保证标准的证据,并通过2015年和2016年开展的ACTwatch网点调查记录私营部门参与和支持的当前覆盖率。
筛查了超过76,168个网点,进行了约6500次访谈(柬埔寨,N = 1303;老挝人民民主共和国,N = 724;缅甸,N = 4395;泰国,N = 74)。各国提供疟疾治疗的私营部门网点类型存在差异,其被授权进行疟疾检测和治疗的程度也不同。在至少储备了一种抗疟药的网点中,公共部门提供的单纯性恶性疟原虫或间日疟原虫疟疾一线治疗药物的可及率>75%。在储备抗疟药的私营部门,一线治疗药物的可及率各不相同(柬埔寨,70.9%;老挝人民民主共和国,40.8%;缅甸,恶性疟原虫为42.7%,间日疟原虫为19.6%;泰国,恶性疟原虫为19.6%,间日疟原虫为73.3%),二线治疗药物的可及率也是如此(老挝人民民主共和国,74.9%;泰国,39.1%;缅甸,19.8%;柬埔寨,0.7%)。不在国家治疗指南(NTGs)中的治疗方法在缅甸(35.8%)和柬埔寨(34.0%)最为常见,通常由非正规部门储备。柬埔寨和缅甸分发的抗疟药中大多数是一线恶性疟原虫或间日疟原虫治疗药物(分别为90.3%和77.1%),然而,柬埔寨市场份额的8.8%是不在NTGs中的治疗药物(即氯喹),缅甸为17.6%(即口服青蒿素单药疗法)。在老挝人民民主共和国,私营部门分发的抗疟药中约十分之九是二线治疗药物,通常是本地生产的氯喹。在柬埔寨,90%的抗疟药通过有确诊检测的网点分发。在老挝人民民主共和国(54%)和缅甸(59%),超过一半的抗疟药分发是由没有确诊检测的网点进行的。储备RDT的公共部门中质量有保证的快速诊断检测(RDT)的可及率在老挝人民民主共和国为99.3%,在柬埔寨为80.1%。在柬埔寨、老挝人民民主共和国和缅甸,据报告不到50%的私营部门获得了参与(获得补贴商品、监督、培训或病例量报告),这在私立医疗机构和药店中最为常见。
这项多国研究的结果表明,柬埔寨、老挝人民民主共和国、缅甸和泰国总体上符合国家法规、治疗指南和质量保证标准。然而,私营部门仍存在重大差距,对国家疟疾控制和消除目标构成威胁。讨论了几种有助于使私营部门抗疟药市场与国家消除战略保持一致的选择。