Premium
This is an archive article published on May 9, 2006

World Bank reacts to Lancet article on malaria

The World Bank has clarified its stand on the recent article in medical journal, Lancet, which had raised some questions on its role in India8217;s Malaria Control Programme between 1997 and 2005.

.

The World Bank has clarified its stand on the recent article in medical journal, Lancet, which had raised some questions on its role in India8217;s Malaria Control Programme between 1997 and 2005.

The WB, in its statement, said the treatment protocol used in India was in accordance with the recommendations of the World Health Organisation WHO. The authors of the Lancet article had argued that artemisinin-based combination therapies ACTs should be used to treat all malaria cases in India.

8216;8216;There are two forms of malaria found in India, a milder, rarely fatal form caused by Plasmodium vivax, that can be treated by chloroquine, and a more complicated type caused by Plasmodium falciparum, which is increasingly becoming chloroquine-resistant. This strain can only be treated with doses of the combined drug, ACT,8217;8217; the statement said.

According to the statement, the recent data from the National Vector-borne Disease Control Programme indicates that only 52 districts of India8217;s total 602 districts, show signs of chloroquine-resistance in P. falciparum. Following increasing instances of chloroquine-resistant falciparum cases, the Government of India, in keeping with the WHO8217;s 2003 recommendation, has begun administering ACT in high-risk areas,8217;8217; said the Bank. The World Bank-supported Malaria Control Project in its last year of activity, in fact, helped facilitate this shift by financing some 0.7 million tablets of artemisinin and 57,500 doses of ACT over 2005. The Lancet article also referred to the Bank8217;s statistics saying they gravely understated the malaria incidence and overstated the impact of the Project.

Reacting to this, the statement said: 8216;8216;The World Bank sources its project-related data from government agencies, in this case, the National Vector-borne Disease Control Program, whose figures were also used by the authors of the article. The difference in interpretation can be attributed to the fact that the authors accessed aggregated state-level data while the Bank8217;s project information was based on desegregated data for those 1,045 Primary Health Centres in 100 districts where the Project was being implemented.8217;8217;

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement