Kano Pillars FC has revealed that it will soon announce a substantive coach to replace Kadiri Ikhana, who recently parted ways with the club.
Coach Kadiri Ikhana
The Nigerian Professional Football League (NPFL) outfit, Pillars, on Monday, April 25, 2017 accepted the resignation of its former handler, who stepped down after an attack.
Ikhana suffered from his team’s fight in a previous league game, causing him injuries. The team’s Media Officer, Idris Malikawa, said the club has thanked Ikhana for his contributions while wishing him a speedy recovery.
Malikawa added that Pillars would maintain their usual cordial relationship with the veteran coach.
Meanwhile, former Plateau United coach, Zakare Baraje, has been touted to take over as new coach of Kano Pillars, but Malikawa said the report is false.
“Up till now, we have never contacted anybody, as we don’t have any coach on our minds. We are going to study the situation and sit down with our technical crew and analyse our situation and then take their advice and suggestions before making a statement,” he said.
Some re-scheduled matches in the NPFL will be decided on Wednesday.
Rangers International of Enugu, which is currently languishing at the bottom of the log, will try Wikki Tourists of Bauchi for size.
Tourists will be without Coach Babagana Roku, who was recently sacked for poor performance.
Rivers United, fresh from the CAF Confederation Cup victory against Rayos Sporting of Rwandan, will be playing away against Katsina United.
The NPFL is currently on mid-season break and will resume on Sunday, May 7, 2017.
Rivers United has forced Rayos Sporting of Uganda to a goalless draw to advance into the next stage of the CAF Confederations Cup.
Rivers United of Port Harcourt
A 2-0 Rivers United first-leg win in Port Harcourt a week ago meant Rayos needed to score three un-replied goals in the return fixture to progress to the next stage.
But the Port Harcourt side stopped its opponent in Kigali to progress on a 2-0 aggregate score. Coach of the Rwandan side, Maseli Juba, said his team lost to a more experienced side.
“We played well but the problem is that we played to a more experienced team and they have a lot of experience,” Juba lamented.
Rivers United thus becomes the 16th and final side to qualify for the group stages of the 2017 CAF Confederation Cup.
Rivers United coach, Stanley Eguma, is already looking forward to a credible performance at the group stages of the competition.
“We would have to map out and re-strategise to enable us to perform, since we have passed through the rigorous preliminaries,” he stated.
Rivers United is the only Nigerian club side left in any CAF Continental Club Football competition in the current season.
In his welcome remarks at the Lawyers Roundtable on Biosafety held at the Apo Apartments, Abuja on Tuesday, April 25 2017, Nnimmo Bassey, Director of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), says that, in the light of the seeming defective NBMA Act, government cannot afford to gamble with the citizen’s biosafety and biosecurity
Dr Rufus Ebegba, Director-General and CEO of the the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA). Photo credit: climatereporters.com
Dead people cannot speak against judicial or other decisions. Likewise, dead people cannot be compensated if their demise was triggered by some poison they unknowingly ingested.
These and several other considerations are markers on the pathways of justice. They underscore why we cannot shut our eyes to the laws that leave yawning gaps for transgressions. They illustrate the reasons why we cannot and should not stomach permissive laws that endanger our food and agricultural systems.
The Nigerian Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) Act came into force on 18th April 2015 after the then President Goodluck Jonathan put his signature on it. On Thursday 28th April 2016, NABMA wrote a letter to HOMEF and ERA/FoEN (Ref: NBMA/ODG/050/1/68), acknowledging receipt of our copious objections to the applications from Monsanto and the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA) to conduct confined field trials of two maize events and of another application from Monsanto for commercial release and placement in the environment of GMO cotton. In the letter of acknowledgement of receipt of our objections NBMA said they have “noted” our objections and pledged to “review the application holistically and take the best decision in the interest of Nigeria, to avoid risks to human health, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The socio-economic impacts would also be well considered before taking final decision on the application.” The agency then thanked us for our views.
Two days later, on Sunday, 1st May 2016, NBMA issued permits to the two applications made by Monsanto and its government agency partner. It is clear to us that our objections were not considered.
Two things. We have an agency that approved applications for introduction of GMOs into Nigeria in less than a year of its being constituted. The speed with which the new agency approved Monsanto’s application breaks all records of similar processes anywhere in the world.
The speed of approval raises questions over the readiness of the agency to tackle the delicate and serious issue of modern agricultural biotechnology – a contentious technology that has foisted tales of woes on citizens as well as farmers in other climes, a technology that opposes the basic tenets of our agricultural and food systems.
Secondly, the speed shows a disdain for public consultation and participation in the serious approval processes. These are some of the issues that we have invited you, legal luminaries to examine in this roundtable.
As we discuss the issues surrounding biosafety, we hope you will focus particularly on the NBMA Act 2015 and see if the Agency as constituted is wired to serve the best biosafety interests of Nigeria or if it should be dramatically reviewed or even repealed. In particular, we hope that you, as legal experts, consider if there are issues of conflict of interest in a setting such as that of NBMA where board members are promoters of the risky technology and are also applicants that have benefited from the very first application to have come before the Agency.
We wish to be advised if such a construct does not obstruct avenues for justice, fairness, probity and equity in our collective struggle for a food regime that ensures that we are not turned into guinea pigs by those pushing to colonise our food systems and expose us to avoidable risks.
As we engage in our dialogue, let us all keep in mind that this matter has implications that is intergenerational and lapses have consequences for Nigerians yet unborn. Laws are not cast in concrete. The right to safe and nutritious food is a universal right. GMOs challenge that right with its creation of novel organisms, dependence on toxic chemicals and abridgement of the rights of farmers to preserve and share seeds and to stay free from contamination by genetically engineered seeds.
A defective law cannot provide justice. It cannot protect our biodiversity, ensure biosecurity or secure our very life. We cannot gamble with our biosafety and biosecurity.
The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) has lodged an appeal to the High Court of South Africa to overturn decisions of the GMO authority, the GMO Appeal Board and the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, to commercialise Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) drought tolerant (DT) maize seed. More than 25 000 concerned citizens have signed petitions and submitted objections in support yet the South African government ignores the pleas of its people.
The ACB is resisting the commercialisation of Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) drought tolerant (DT) maize seed
The appeal raises a number of irregularities with the decision-making processes, which ACB argues flout South Africa’s Constitution and laws prescribing administrative justice and procedural fairness. ACB is alleging mere rubbing stamping of Monsanto’s claims that its patented GM DT trait (MON 87460) confers drought tolerance. Monsanto’s claims of drought tolerance are disputed “based on sound science”; that a single gene (cspB) does not confer efficacious drought tolerance and is yet another risky and novel gene introduced into the staple food of millions of people in South Africa in the name of corporate profits.
The ACB and various organisations and members of the public have, since 2008, resisted Monsanto’s allegedly unproven claimed benefits of drought tolerance.
The Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project has specifically come under close scrutiny. The ACB describes WEMA is a “charitable” Monsanto/Gates Foundation project, geared towards coaxing governments and smallholder farmers in South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique and Kenya into accepting Monsanto’s GM DT maize seed as a “climate smart” solution. WEMA and its proponents are said to be disingenuously propagating the myth that this will assist smallholder farmers in Africa cope with water stressed conditions.
The ACB said in a statement on Tuesday, April 25, 2017: “This GM maize push will be hugely strengthened if South Africa’s Competition Commission approves the proposed merger between Bayer and Monsanto. Such a marriage will give control of 30% of the world’s commercial seed market and 25% of the world’s commercial pesticide and herbicide (agrochemical) markets to the merged entity. Such a behemoth will wield enormous power and control in the region where good governance and biosafety safeguards will be sacrificed at the altar of profits, power and myth making.
“The appeal is but only one small example of the pushback by social movements against corporate power and abuse. These movements have long since been contesting the hegemony of large-scale commercial farming and corporate agri-business, which has deepened structural inequalities, caused environmental damage and eroded farmers’ sovereignty. Farmers and small producers on the continent are resisting Monsanto-like constructed seed systems that oblige them to use patented seed and criminalise their historical rights to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed. These small producers are building alternative food systems that are diverse, resilient, autonomous and socially just. However, these efforts are not being supported by the state but undermined by the stranglehold of the dominant technological platforms based on patented innovations, seed traits and agrochemicals.
“Africans are demanding the end of corporate controlled systems that seek profits from nature and undervalue human effort. They want the destruction of the environment and social and community structures in the name of corporate profit to end now! Africans are demanding the space to work out solutions built on people power through smallholder farmers, unions, farm workers, consumers and mass-based organisations.”
In his welcome remarks at a Media Training on Biosafety held in Abuja on Monday, April 24 2017, Nnimmo Bassey, Director of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), insists that food sovereignty is the right of peoples to safe and culturally appropriate food produced through methods that are ecologically sound and sustainable
L-R: Jackie Ikeotuoye-Offiah (Country Representative, Bio-integrity and Natural Food Awareness Initiative), Nnimmo Bassey (director, HOMEF), Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour (Public Policy Expert and the Convener of Nigerians against GMO), and Dr Ify Aniebo (molecular geneticist from Oxford University and award wining scientist), during the Media Training on Biosafety in Abuja
Should science not be in the public interest and in service of society? The answer to that is obvious and it is a YES. Science has to be in the interest of society. Is all science in the interest of society? Again, this question attracts an easy answer and that answer is NO.
Must a people utilise a technology based on unproven or mythic promises? Indeed, must we use a technology simply because it exists or because we can acquire it? Does domesticating a technology, such as modern agricultural biotechnology, make its utility inevitable? Do nations shy away from utilising the technology that produces atomic bombs merely for lack of access to the technology or for reasons of safety and survival of humankind? Where does public participation begin and where does it end with regard to decisions that are matters of life and death?
If we are malnourished, what must be done? Can food aid solve the challenge of food shortages in the North East when the root causes fester and lurk under every shrub or clump? Why are fisher folks in our Niger Delta creeks depending on imported frozen fish?
These questions are raised to remind us that there are many issues surrounding the matter of our food and the challenge of agricultural modern biotechnology that require clarifications and in-depth interrogations.
On 13th November 1996, the World Food Summit hosted by the United Nations, the world affirmed that all humans have a right to access to safe and nutritious food in a manner consistent with the right to adequate food and freedom from hunger. The provisions for the right to life in our constitution and other global covenants speak of the right to food that is safe and nutritious.
As we begin our conversations on the state of biosafety in Nigeria, let us state that the fundamental way to ensure safe, nutritious food is through the promotion and support of food sovereignty. This is the way to ensure sustainable food production. Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to safe and culturally appropriate food produced through methods that are ecologically sound and sustainable. It is critically the right of our peoples to define their own food and agriculture systems. It allows communities to control the way food is produced, traded and eaten. We understand that the best food security can be attained through food sovereignty. Any other understanding of food security leaves open the gates for dumping of inappropriate foods and products with the singular end of filling hungry mouths and stomachs. It essentially erodes a people’s sovereignty and promotes food colonialism.
The media has an enormous responsibility to inform the public about issues that fundamentally affect their safety – especially with regard to the sort of food or things that we eat. It is a sacred duty to lay open basic information and to encourage public participation in policy issues surrounding our food systems. We have a biosafety law, the National Biosafety Management Agency Act 2015, that is not only permissive in favour of the biotech industry, but is adversarial or against the public interest. This is illustrated by the fact that the Act only requires NBMA to hold public consultations at its discretion as in its Section 26 (1). We believe that holding public consultations on plans to release genetically modified organisms should be a legal and binding requirement and not left to the whims of the Agency. Section 25(2) of the Act also allows NBMA to decide whether to advertise applications to introduce GMOs in national or local newspapers.
The ‘public enlightenment’ events held by promoters and regulators of biosafety in Nigeria merely suggest that our people are misinformed about the risks that GMOs pose. What our people need is accurate information from all sides of the issues so that they can make informed decisions and demand for or reject risky technologies. Assurances that NBMA will not allow dangerous GMOs into Nigeria are nothing but mere platitudes if the claims are not backed by open, neutral and unstilted adjudications.
How much do we know of the GMO beans that will soon be unleashed on Nigerians? And what does the public know of GMO cassava experimentations/release in Nigeria? What about the approval of GMO cotton that failed in Burkina Faso for commercial release in Nigeria? Burkina Faso’s cotton production is regaining its former productivity since the government decided to jettison the GMO variety and return to planting natural cotton. Why is Nigeria being pushed blindly into a failed venture? We cannot be fooled when we are told that a permit for commercial release and placement in the market is the same as a permit for trials to be conducted.
As the conversations begin, let us all keep in mind that this is a matter of security, cultural heritage, freedom from neo-colonialism and a human right to life. We are talking about food. And food is a human right.
The world’s 49 most climate vulnerable countries have called on the G20 group of nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 and to ensure that adequate climate finance is provided so that they can green their economies and adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change.
Fossil fuel pollution from a coal power station
Under the Paris Climate Change Agreement, governments have agreed to limit the global average temperature rise to as close as possible to 1.5 degrees Celsius – a goal which can only be achieved if the world is weaned off fossil fuels and if finance for clean technology is stepped up.
In a communiqué issued at a meeting in Washington DC, Ministers of the “V20” Group of Vulnerable Nations say: “Our and other countries’ very existence is threatened by climate change. All financial flows, including those of multilateral development banks, should be aligned with the Paris Agreement, the 1.5C temperature limit, and our member economies’ 100% renewable energy vision in support of sustainable development.”
Specifically, the Ministers call for market distorting fossil fuel production subsidies to be removed immediately and no later than 2020, and urge the G20 to set a clear timeframe for the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.
“Fossil fuel consumption subsidies need to be checked rigorously whether they provide an actual benefit to the poor, and subsequently should be replaced worldwide without harm to those relying on them for their basic energy needs.”
In the closing statement of the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, China, last year the G20 countries reaffirmed their commitment to “rationalize and phase-out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption over the medium term, recognizing the need to support the poor.”
According to a 2015 study by the Overseas Development Institute in London, G20 fossil fuel subsidies total $444 billion a year.
The V20 Ministers also called on the G20 counties to lead with them a drive towards ensuring all emissions are subjected to carbon pricing and pledge to continue to pursue ambitious climate action themselves.
This includes pioneering innovation in climate change financing with leading global examples in renewable energy access, ecosystem services and micro-insurance solutions.
In addition, the Ministers urged the G20 countries to deliver their long-term low-emissions development strategies before 2020.
“(We) call on them to deliver ambitious climate change action as part of the G20 outcome in July. Pulling resources from climate protection will create economic instability. Investing in climate action is necessary and critical to inclusive development and economic growth,” the Ministers said.
The significance of Africa’s access to, and utilisation of Earth Observation (EO) data and information to policy and decision making has been stressed.
Commissioner for Rural Economy and Agriculture of the African Union Commission (AUC), Mrs. Josefa Leonel Correia Sacko
Commissioner for Rural Economy and Agriculture of the African Union Commission (AUC), Mrs. Josefa Leonel Correia Sacko, who made the submission at the opening of the Second Monitoring for Environment and Security in Africa (MESA) on Monday, April 24, 2017 in Dakar, Senegal added that the utilisation of EO data to development planning, sustainable management of environmental and natural resources, and social economic development cannot be overemphasised. The forum has “From Earth Observation to Policy Development and Implementation” as its theme.
She further said, “To reach our African destiny of a prosperous, peaceful, and integrated Africa by 2063, Africa needs concerted effort and determination.”
Also speaking, Abdoulaye Balde, Minister of the Environment and Sustainable Development of Senegal, stated: “Initiatives such as the MESA Programme have strengthened the capacities of many Senegalese institutions, including the Ecological Monitoring Centre (CSE), facilitating the development of specialised expertise in the exploitation and use of spatial information to: decision-making in the field of environmental monitoring and management of natural resources; understanding and mitigation of the effects of climate variability on ecosystems and populations; the provision of relevant and localised information to policy makers, scientists, the private sector and general public.”
The 2nd MESA Forum is organised by the AUC in collaboration with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Government of the Republic of Senegal. Over 200 international delegates composed of decision and policy makers, planners, earth observation data users and experts from 49 beneficiary countries of MESA Project, other stakeholders and partner institutions are participating in the Forum. The European Union is providing financial support to the MESA Project.
The event runs from 24 to 28 April 2017. Delegates are expected to share their experiences on how Earth Observation through the MESA Project supported African Governments, institutions, Regional Economic Communities, and communities in policy development, policy decisions and policy implementations at national, regional and continental scales in Africa. Testimonies and stories of success of users of MESA data and information will be shared both through plenary and exhibitions. The youth are also taking part in the Forum.
In a concerted effort to ensure that African Oceans are not overexploited and also not seen as a dumping ground for dangerous materials, participating countries at the just concluded conference of the Association of Heads of African Maritime Administrations have agreed on the need for population, assets and critical infrastructure protection from maritime pollution by prevention of dumping of toxic and nuclear wastes.
Dr. Dakuku Peterside, Director General of NIMASA and chairman, African Maritime Administrators
This was contained in the communique of the association released at the weekend at the end of the conference, which held in Abuja, Nigeria.
The body of all administrators of maritime regulatory bodies came up with the position as one of the major ways to safeguard the future of maritime wealth in the continent alongside other pertinent positions.
Members of the association consequently agreed to devote concerted efforts and planning to pursue the enhancement of wealth creation and regional and international trade performance through maritime-centric capacity and capability building while ensuring the minimisation of environmental damage and expedited recovery from catastrophic events.
These they observed should be taken into cognisance as well as prevention of hostile and criminal acts at sea, by coordination/harmonisation of the prosecution of offenders and improvement of Integrated Coastal Zone/Area Management in Africa, if the continent is to grow maritime trade.
The conference, which had in attendance representatives from Mauritania, South Sudan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, United Republic of Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Ghana, Cote D’Ivoire, Comoros, Cape Verde, Djibouti, Benin, DR Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Kenya, Guinea, Libya and Nigeria as well as other non-African countries and International Associations such as Jamaica, Netherlands, Malaysia, IMO, Abuja MOU, PMAWCA, SOAN, NPA, NSC, NITT, NIWA, ASA, WIMA and FAO, also witnessed the election of the Director General of NIMASA, Dr. Dakuku Peterside, as the chairman of the association.
Dr. Peterside, who takes over from Sobantu Tilayi, the acting Chief Executive Officer of South African Maritime and Safety Agency, who has been the acting Chair of the association since 2013, stated that the task of leading the African Maritime Administrators is enormous but there is the need to collaborate with one another to ensure that the African Oceans and seas are not over exploited to the detriment of the continent.
Part of the Resolutions made at the conference enjoined all African countries to participate in the day set aside by the African Union (AU) as the African Day of Oceans and Seas.
“The African Union Commission has set aside 25th July of every year as Africa’s Day of the Seas and Oceans. Maritime Administrations are encouraged to institutionalise this day to raise awareness amongst stakeholders of the strategic importance of maritime governance for sustainable development; highlight the important role Africa needs to play at international maritime forum; raise awareness on Africa’s “Blue Economy” and enhance the focus on maritime safety, security, maritime environment protection and human element,” the Communique read.
In noting that capacity building had been a major challenge in the African Maritime sector, member nations agreed to address the enormous challenges of building human capacities in the maritime sector especially regarding training and employment of cadets by urging maritime Administrations to develop an integrated human resources strategy for the maritime sector to support the provision of skills taking into account gender balance in the entire maritime value chain which includes shipping and logistics, offshore activities, fishing, tourism and recreation, and safety and security (AIMS 2050).
Meanwhile, Tilayi, at the closing of the three-day event, described Peterside as a committed and dedicated technocrat that will, no doubt, take maritime administration to a higher level.
He pledged his support for the NIMASA Director General and urged other African Nations to do so likewise in order to advance the African Maritime Industry.
In a related development, President Muhammadu Buhari, who had also congratulated Peterside on his election as the chairman of AAMA, stated at the opening of the three-day conference that the Federal Government of Nigeria on its own part has paid significant attention to making the Nigerian maritime business environment a much friendlier one, adding that the immediate priority in this regard is the entry and exit of goods especially in Nigerian seaports to increase efficiency of Nigerian Ports and enable quick turnaround time of vessels.
Buhari, who was represented by the Vice President, Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), said the Nigerian Government had recently approved a new maritime security architecture and infrastructure to be jointly coordinated by NIMASA, National Security Adviser and Federal Ministry of Transport. According to him, the Federal Government has given required support to the Navy so that they can work with others within our sub region to effectively police our waters for trade. This arrangement will also contribute to resolving and eliminating piracy as well as sea robbery in our maritime domain.
The President also used the opportunity to unveil the new NIMASA brand to usher in a new direction for the African Maritime Sector.
Nigeria has been elected Chairman of AAMA with 11 members’ executive committee comprising of representatives of Central Africa (Cameroun & Cape Verde), West Africa (Cote D’Ivoire & Ghana), East Africa (Tanzania & Comoros), Southern Africa (Mozambique and South Africa), North Africa (Egypt & Sudan) and Uganda representing Land-locked countries.
South Africa also retained Secretariat of the Association while the Association agreed to hold the 2018 Conference in Egypt. Sychelles and Namibia are jostling for the 2019 hosting rights.
AAMA also formally approved the Organisation of African Maritime Awards starting from Egypt 2018 to recognise and honor outstanding Africans in the sector.
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Secretary General, Kitack Lim, who was represented by the head, Africa (Anglophone) Section Technical Cooperation Division of the IMO, William Azuh, observed that African continent needs to increase its level of vessel tonnage as well as develop the much needed maritime infrastructure, especially in terms of ship building and equipment to be able to effectively participate in the global shipping trade to the benefits of its citizenry.
Azuh charged the leadership of the association and indeed member states of the association to begin to develop the framework that would enable them take full advantage of the vast maritime potential embedded in the continent.
According to researchers, Americans are traveling more often to countries with malaria but have stopped short of taking necessary precautions
The malaria-causing anopheles mosquito feeding on a victim
Though transmission of malaria was wiped out in the United States decades ago and infections are falling in parts of the developing world, malaria hospitalisations and deaths in the U.S. appear to be far more common than generally appreciated as a steady stream of travelers returns home with the dangerous mosquito-borne disease.
This is the key finding from a new study published on Monday, April 24, 2017 in the “American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene” that shows malaria led to a count of hospitalised patients and deaths that easily eclipsed other travel-related illness and generated about half a billion dollars in healthcare costs in the U.S. over a 15-year period.
“It appears more and more Americans are traveling to areas where malaria is common and many of them are not taking preventive measures, such as using anti-malarial preventive medications and mosquito repellents, even though they are very effective at preventing infections,” said Diana Khuu, a scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the lead author of the study, which included contributions from the U.S. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Khuu and her colleagues looked for malaria patients in a database maintained by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that tracks hospital admissions nationwide. The researchers found that between 2000 and 2014, about 22,000 people were admitted to U.S. hospitals due to complications from malaria. Moreover, 4,823 patients were diagnosed with severe malaria, which means they suffered from problems like renal failure, coma or acute respiratory distress that significantly increase the risk of death, and 182 of these patients died.
The study showed that malaria hospitalisations were more common in the U.S. than hospitalisations for many other travel-associated diseases. For example, during the same period, dengue fever, which is common in Mexico, Puerto Rico, and throughout Latin America, and has caused small, local outbreaks in south Florida and Texas, generated, on average, 259 hospitalisations a year compared with 1,489 for malaria.
According to the study, malaria hospitalisations are quite common in the U.S., and the associated burden from these cases is substantial. The researchers found that the average cost per patient was about $25,800 and that the total bill for treating malaria patients in the U.S. from 2000 to 2014 was about $555 million.
Overall, the scientists estimated that each year there are about 2,100 people in the U.S. suffering from malaria, since about 69 percent require hospital treatment. That case count would exceed the high end of the official CDC estimate of 1,500 to 2,000 cases per year. Khuu attributed the difference to the fact that CDC’s malaria count is based on reports submitted to the agency by hospitals or physicians, and hospital admission records that were used in her study may capture additional cases that have not been reported to CDC.
While those admissions’ records did not include travel history, the researchers believe the malaria infections they documented most likely were acquired during travel to parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where malaria is still common. Over the last 15 years a blitz of malaria interventions that include insecticide-treated bednets and increased access to highly effective malaria drugs has been accompanied by an estimated 37 percent drop in malaria incidence and a 60 percent drop in malaria deaths globally.
Meanwhile, although malaria was eliminated from the U.S. in the 1950s, there are sporadic reports of locally-acquired malaria infections, presumably caused by a mosquito that either fed on an infected traveler or hitched a ride on a flight or ship coming from a malaria-endemic region.
But Khuu noted that mosquitoes capable of carrying malaria are common in many parts of the U.S., and that increases in the number of travelers coming home with the disease increases the risk of malaria re-establishing itself in the U.S. According to the study, the majority of malaria hospitalisations occurred in the eastern U.S. in states along the Atlantic seaboard. Malaria’s last domestic stronghold was in the Southeast.
Also, the study found that men accounted for 60 percent of the malaria-related hospital admissions. The researchers believe the overrepresentation of males in the U.S. malaria count may indicate that men are less likely to seek travel advice or, when they do, less likely to adhere to recommendations for preventing infections, like taking an anti-malarial preventive medication and using a mosquito repellent.
The researchers noted that most of the deaths and severe disease appeared to be linked to infections with the malaria parasite known as Plasmodium falciparum, which is responsible for the vast majority of malaria deaths and severe disease worldwide. But the study found that in almost half of the malaria-related hospitalisations there was no indication of parasite type, though Khuu pointed out that information can be obtained via a relatively simple blood test.
Khuu noted that identifying the parasite causing the infection can be crucial for determining treatment and prognosis. For example, patients sickened by the P. vivax and P. ovale parasites can appear to be fully recovered. But unlike the case with P. falciparum malaria, the P. vivax and P. ovale parasites can enter a dormant stage and then, after treatment, re-emerge to cause a relapse of the disease. According to the CDC, preventing relapse requires both treating the acute infection and, in addition, a course of a drug called primaquine.
“Hospitalisations in the United States from malaria remind us that we live in an interconnected world,” said ASTMH President Patricia F. Walker. “For this reason, the U.S. must continue to invest in tropical medicine research efforts and programs, even for diseases like malaria that we don’t think of as American diseases. To get the job done, we need a strong NIH a strong CDC, and commitment to military research.”
The World Health Organisation Regional Office for Africa (WHO/AFRO) announced on Monday, April 24, 2017 in Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, that Ghana, Kenya and Malawi will take part in a WHO-coordinated malaria vaccine implementation programme (MVIP) that will make the world’s first malaria vaccine available in selected areas, beginning in 2018.
Dr. Matshidiso Moeti, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Regional Director for Africa. Photo credit: pbs.twimg.com
The injectable vaccine, RTS,S, was developed to protect young children from the most deadly form of malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum. RTS,S will be assessed in the pilot programme as a complementary malaria control tool that could potentially be added to the core package of WHO-recommended measures for malaria prevention.
“The prospect of a malaria vaccine is great news. Information gathered in the pilot programme will help us make decisions on the wider use of this vaccine,” said Dr Matshidiso Moeti, WHO Regional Director for Africa. “Combined with existing malaria interventions, such a vaccine would have the potential to save tens of thousands of lives in Africa,” she added.
Africa bears the greatest burden of malaria worldwide. Global efforts in the last 15 years have led to a 62 percent reduction in malaria deaths between 2000 and 2015, yet approximately 429,000 people died of the disease in 2015, the majority of them young children in Africa.
The WHO pilot programme will assess whether the vaccine’s protective effect in children aged five to 17 months old during Phase 3 testing can be replicated in real-life. Specifically, the pilot programme will assess the feasibility of delivering the required four doses of RTS,S, the vaccine’s potential role in reducing childhood deaths, and its safety in the context of routine use.
WHO recommendations and RTS,S RTS,S was developed by GSK and is the first malaria vaccine to have successfully completed a Phase 3 clinical trial. The trial was conducted between 2009 and 2014 through a partnership involving GSK, the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), and a network of African research sites in seven African countries – including Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi.
RTS,S is also the first malaria vaccine to have obtained a positive scientific opinion from a stringent medicines regulatory authority, the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The opinion indicated that, in EMA’s assessment, the quality of the vaccine and its risk-benefit profile was favorable from a regulatory perspective.
In October 2015, two independent WHO advisory groups, comprised of the world’s foremost experts on vaccines and malaria, recommended pilot implementation of RTS,S in three to five settings in sub-Saharan Africa. The recommendation came from the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunisation and the Malaria Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC), following a joint review of all available evidence on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy. WHO formally adopted the recommendation in January 2016.
Pilot implementation
The three countries were selected to participate in the pilot programme based on the following criteria: high coverage of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs); well-functioning malaria and immunisation programmes, a high malaria burden even after scale-up of LLINs, and participation in the Phase 3 RTS,S malaria vaccine trial. Each of the three countries will decide on the districts and regions to be included in the pilots. High malaria burden areas will be prioritised, as this is where the benefit of the vaccine is predicted to be highest. Information garnered from the pilot will help to inform later decisions about potential wider use of the vaccine.
The malaria vaccine will be administered via intramuscular injection and delivered through the routine national immunisation programmes. WHO is working with the three countries to facilitate regulatory authorisation of the vaccine for use in the pilots through the African Vaccine Regulatory Forum (AVAREF). Regulatory support will also include measures to enable the appropriate safety monitoring of the vaccine and rigorous evaluation for eventual large scale use.
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and UNITAID are partnering to provide $49.2 million for the first phase of the pilot programme (2017-2020), which will be complemented by in-kind contributions from WHO and GSK.
