The first month of 2010 has seen important developments in the world of malaria research. GlaxoSmithKline is putting into the public domain details of 13,500 “confirmed-hit structures” – compounds that other researchers will be free to screen for their potential use as antimalarials . Meanwhile, the genome has been mapped of the plant from which the key antimalarial artemisinin is produced , which should pay the way for the development of higher yielding varieties. Also announced has been an extension of efforts to develop a so-called transmission blocking vaccine  active against the sexual stages of the malaria parasite.
Such research, at the “basic” level, is essential if new tools active against malaria are to be developed, but putting effective interventions into practice is not easy. Research is also therefore needed at the implementation stage. A study in Tanzania  found that only a minority of women receiving bednets in a distribution programme were actually sleeping under them; studies like this one help to identify the points at which such programmes can fail.
The implementation of another new antimalarial tool – the rapid diagnostic test (RDT) – also continues to be the subject of research. A Nigerian study  asked people whether, if they were ill, they would pay to be tested with an RDT. The majority said they would do so and, on average, the amount they were prepared to pay was greater than the current cost of an RDT in Nigeria (about $1.25). Nevertheless, the study’s findings indicate that many people would not be willing (or could not afford) to be tested. It is therefore important that testing should be available free of charge. Further research in Tanzania  suggests that the introduction of RDTs could cut health care costs; malaria is considerably over-diagnosed and many antimalarials are given to patients who do not need them. (Tanzania is, by the way, one country where anti-malaria programmes are being significantly stepped up ).
But programmes to treat and control malaria must be integrated with those for other infectious diseases. It is good to hear of new funding that will enable the Malaria Consortium  to demonstrate how government-led integrated community case management programmes (iCCM) can be scaled up, so that more children with malaria, pneumonia and diarrhoeal diseases receive appropriate treatment.
A worrying story relating to the epidemiology of malaria has also been in the news during the last few days. It has become commonplace in the debate on climate change - which is likely to increase cases of many infectious diseases - to cite the rise of malaria in the East Africa highlands in order to demonstrate that global warming has already had such an impact. But where is the evidence that malaria has become more common in this part of Africa? When the UK government’s Department for International Development (DFID) issued a statement referring to the increase, an environmental campaigner asked to see the research on which the claim was based . What he was sent was certainly not convincing. The need for reliable evidence on the prevalence of malaria has thus, once more, been underlined.
Also in TropIKA.net
News on other infectious diseases of poverty also appearing on TropIKA.net within the last few days has included an analysis of the funding provided for tuberculosis research worldwide  – it is growing but is still nowhere near the level that is required. It has also been demonstrated in a new study  that individuals with a low birth weight are particularly susceptible to TB.
Recent months have seen major outbreaks of cholera across Africa for reasons that are by no means clear. A new surveillance programme  is therefore a welcome development.
Leptospirosis is an important zoonosis (a disease of animals that can spread to people) in many countries but rarely receives attention from researchers. A study in India  suggests that the disease in people is spreading northwards.
And a TropIKA.net opinion article  looks at WHO’s response to the appearance of H1N1 (“swine”) flu. This infection seemed likely to pose greater dangers for people living in the world’s poorest countries. Did WHO exaggerate the threat or was it correct to err on the side of caution?