Falciparum malaria in malaria-naive travellers and African visitors

Abstract

Background: Patients from malaria-endemic areas who present in non-endemic countries with Plasmodium falciparum malaria are often assumed to have some degree of immunity. If this were reliably true, it would simplify their management. Aim: To determine whether being born and resident in a malaria-endemic country is a predictor of clinical course in UK admissions for malaria. Design: Prospective observational study. Methods: We compared clinical and laboratory parameters between two groups of adult patients with acute P. falciparum malaria, admitted to the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in London: one born and resident in non-endemic countries (n = 167); the other born and resident in malaria-endemic countries of Africa (n = 93). Patients were excluded if they had taken prophylaxis or prior treatment. Results: There were no differences between these two groups in terms of peak parasitaemia or time to parasite clearance. There was a significantly higher risk of malaria-naive patients having peak parasitaemia >5% (OR 4.5, 95%CI 1.5–13.2). Of those usually resident in Africa, 31% required parenteral treatment compared to 41% of the malaria-naive group. Of the visitors from Africa, 4.3% needed admission to the Intensive Therapy Unit (ITU), although there was a tendency for more malaria-naive patients to require ITU care (OR 2.69, 95%CI 0.9–8.1). Discussion: While there are differences in presentation between those who are malaria-naive and those who live in malaria-endemic African countries, making assumptions about the immunity or clinical course of an individual patient with malaria presenting in the UK on the basis of presumed history of exposure is unwise.