Skip to main content
PLOS Medicine logoLink to PLOS Medicine
. 2021 Apr 23;18(4):e1003576. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003576

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity in individuals with and without malaria: Analysis of clinical trial, cross-sectional and case–control data from Bangladesh

Benedikt Ley 1,*, Mohammad Shafiul Alam 2, Mohammad Golam Kibria 2, Jutta Marfurt 1, Ching Swe Phru 2, Jenifar Quaiyum Ami 2, Kamala Thriemer 1, Sarah Auburn 1, Nusrat Jahan 2, Fatema Tuj Johora 2, Mohammad Sharif Hossain 2, Cristian Koepfli 3, Wasif Ali Khan 2, Ric N Price 1,4,5
Editor: Kenji Hirayama6
PMCID: PMC8064587  PMID: 33891581

Abstract

Background

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) activity is dependent upon G6PD genotype and age of the red blood cell (RBC) population, with younger RBCs having higher activity. Peripheral parasitemia with Plasmodium spp. induces hemolysis, replacing older RBCs with younger cells with higher G6PD activity. This study aimed to assess whether G6PD activity varies between individuals with and without malaria or a history of malaria.

Methods and findings

Individuals living in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh were enrolled into 3 complementary studies: (i) a prospective, single-arm clinical efficacy trial of patients (n = 175) with uncomplicated malaria done between 2014 and 2015, (ii) a cross-sectional survey done between 2015 and 2016 (n = 999), and (iii) a matched case–control study of aparasitemic individuals with and without a history of malaria done in 2020 (n = 506). G6PD activity was compared between individuals with and without malaria diagnosed by microscopy, rapid diagnostic test (RDT), or polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and in aparasitemic participants with and without a history of malaria. In the cross-sectional survey and clinical trial, 15.5% (182/1,174) of participants had peripheral parasitemia detected by microscopy or RDT, 3.1% (36/1,174) were positive by PCR only, and 81.4% (956/1,174) were aparasitemic. Aparasitemic individuals had significantly lower G6PD activity (median 6.9 U/g Hb, IQR 5.2–8.6) than those with peripheral parasitemia detected by microscopy or RDT (7.9 U/g Hb, IQR 6.6–9.8, p < 0.001), but G6PD activity similar to those with parasitemia detected by PCR alone (submicroscopic parasitemia) (6.1 U/g Hb, IQR 4.8–8.6, p = 0.312). In total, 7.7% (14/182) of patients with malaria had G6PD activity < 70% compared to 25.0% (248/992) of participants with submicroscopic or no parasitemia (odds ratio [OR] 0.25, 95% CI 0.14–0.44, p < 0.001). In the case–control study, the median G6PD activity was 10.3 U/g Hb (IQR 8.8–12.2) in 253 patients with a history of malaria and 10.2 U/g Hb (IQR 8.7–11.8) in 253 individuals without a history of malaria (p = 0.323). The proportion of individuals with G6PD activity < 70% was 11.5% (29/253) in the cases and 15.4% (39/253) in the controls (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.41–1.23, p = 0.192). Limitations of the study included the non-contemporaneous nature of the clinical trial and cross-sectional survey.

Conclusions

Patients with acute malaria had significantly higher G6PD activity than individuals without malaria, and this could not be accounted for by a protective effect of G6PD deficiency. G6PD-deficient patients with malaria may have higher than expected G6PD enzyme activity and an attenuated risk of primaquine-induced hemolysis compared to the risk when not infected.


Benedikt Ley and co-authors found that G6PD-deficient patients, in Bangladesh, with malaria may have higher than expected G6PD enzyme activity and an attenuated risk of primaquine-induced hemolysis compared to the risk when not infected.

Author summary

Why was this study done?

  • Primaquine and tafenoquine are the only drugs that prevent relapses of the vivax malaria parasite.

  • Primaquine and tafenoquine cause significant side effects in patients with low activity of the G6PD enzyme.

  • Approximately 400 million people worldwide are affected by low G6PD enzyme activity.

What did the researchers do and find?

  • We measured G6PD activity among individuals with and without malaria.

  • We found G6PD activity to be significantly higher among malaria patients.

  • We then enrolled healthy individuals with and without a history of malaria to assess whether people with low G6PD activity were less likely to contract malaria.

  • G6PD activity did not differ significantly between people with and without a history of malaria who were free of malaria at the time point of G6PD measurement.

What do these findings mean?

  • We conclude that G6PD activity increases during a malaria infection and that the observed clinically relevant difference in G6PD activity between those with and without malaria is not due to people with lower G6PD activity being less likely to contract malaria.

  • These findings suggest that standard treatment for vivax malaria may be safer than assumed.

  • These findings will need to be confirmed.

Introduction

Over the last 2 decades, significant progress has been made in reducing the burden of malaria. However, the impact of intense malaria control activities has been far greater for Plasmodium falciparum than P. vivax, which is now the predominant malaria species in many co-endemic countries [1,2]. Unlike P. falciparum, P. vivax forms dormant liver stages (hypnozoites) that can reactivate weeks to months after the first infection, causing recurrent episodes of febrile illness associated with significant morbidity and mortality [3]. To date, the only drugs that can kill hypnozoites are the 8-aminoquinolines compounds, primaquine (PQ), and tafenoquine (TQ), which, although generally well tolerated, can cause severe hemolysis in individuals with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency [4]. In view of the risk of severe drug-induced hemolysis, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all patients should be tested for G6PD deficiency (G6PDd) prior to prescribing PQ or TQ [5].

G6PDd is an inherited X-linked enzymopathy with highest prevalence in malaria endemic settings [6,7]. The strong geographic overlap between current and historic areas of malaria transmission and G6PDd suggest an interaction between these exposures; however, investigations of this interaction are conflicting [8]. The correlation between G6PD genotype and phenotype is poor [912], since G6PD activity is also determined by a range of factors including the age of the red blood cell (RBC) population, with younger RBCs exhibiting higher levels of G6PD activity than older ones, and, in heterozygous females, the degree of Lyonization [13].

In the presence of oxidative stress, triggered by certain foods, drugs, and infection, G6PD-deficient RBCs hemolyze to a far greater degree than G6PD-normal RBCs [14]. Plasmodia are intraerythrocytic parasites that induce intravascular hemolysis, and this occurs in both parasitized and unparasitized RBCs [15,16]. Whilst P. vivax preferentially invades younger RBCs, hemolysis of non-parasitized cells may be particularly marked in older RBCs with lower G6PD activity [17]. We hypothesize that G6PD activity is elevated in patients with malaria compared to individuals without malaria, that this enzyme elevation is attributable to acute parasitemia, and that this enzyme elevation occurs to a greater degree than that attributable to inherent protection from infection in these individuals. The aim of this study was to determine whether G6PD activity varied in individuals with and without malaria and whether this was attributable to a reduced risk of malaria.

Methods

Malaria in Bangladesh is highly seasonal, with more than 80% of all cases reported during the rainy season from May to October, and 80% to 90% of all reported cases are attributed to P. falciparum, with the majority of other cases due to P. vivax [18].

Individuals were enrolled into 3 studies at the same location in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: a clinical trial of patients presenting with uncomplicated P. falciparum or P. vivax malaria [19], a cross-sectional survey [20], and a case–control study. First, we determined whether G6PD activity differed between patients with symptomatic malaria, recruited from the efficacy trial, and afebrile and malaria-negative participants from the cross-sectional survey. We then compared G6PD activities between participants with and without a history of malaria, all of whom were afebrile and free of malaria at the time point of G6PD measurement. This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (S1 File).

Clinical trial

The prospective, single-arm clinical trial [19] was conducted between September 2014 and February 2015 in Alikadam in the district of Bandarban (Chittagong Hill Tracts) and was registered with ClinicalTrials.org as NCT02389374. Patients with uncomplicated malaria diagnosed by microscopy were enrolled and treated according to national treatment guidelines. Venous blood samples were collected for phenotypic and genotypic G6PD testing on day of enrollment, prior to administration of PQ, which was commenced 48 hours later.

Cross-sectional survey

The cross-sectional survey [20,21] was conducted in the area around Alikadam, district of Bandarban, between August 2015 and January 2016 to assess the prevalence of G6PDd in the local population. Venous blood, collected from 1 household member of randomly selected households, was analyzed for peripheral parasitemia and quantified by microscopy and malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) (FalciVax, Zephyr Biomedicals, Goa, India). Parasite species was confirmed by PCR [20]. G6PD status was determined phenotypically and genotypically as described below. Participants with microscopic parasitemia provided a sample for laboratory analysis prior to being referred to the closest healthcare facility, where they were treated according to national treatment guidelines.

Case–control study

In 2009, a prospective demographic surveillance system (DSS) was established in the Bandarban district amongst a population of 20,558 and is currently part of the INDEPTH network [2224]. Coordinates of every household within the surveillance area were recorded, and all households were visited between 2009 and 2010 to enroll participants [25]. All participants were assigned a unique identifier (ID) at the initial visit and then reviewed every 3 months, until December 2014, then every 4 months in 2015, and biannually since 2016. At the end of 2018, a total of 19,117 people were under surveillance. At each follow-up visit, a history of malaria was recorded, along with in- and outmigration, births, deaths, and changes of address. Febrile participants were asked to notify the study clinical staff, who then provided a malaria RDT (FalciVax, Zephyr Biomedicals, Goa, India). RDT-positive participants were prescribed free antimalarial treatment according to national treatment guidelines, the episode of malaria was recorded, and the participant was reviewed at the end of treatment to ensure clinical recovery.

This cohort was used to generate a case–control study comprising individuals who were all afebrile and aparasitemic at the time of enrollment. Cases were selected randomly from DSS participants who had had at least 1 episode of malaria confirmed by microscopy during their monitoring within the DSS. Controls were selected from participants with no recorded episodes of malaria during their monitoring within the DSS. Cases and controls were selected in a ratio of 1:1, and matched according to the duration under surveillance, sex, age, and village of residence.

The recorded history of malaria was confirmed by all participants before enrollment, and the absence of parasitemia was determined by RDT (CareStart Malaria HRP2/pLDH [Pf/Pv] Combo RDT, Access Bio, Somerset, NJ, US) and confirmed by microscopic blood film examination. Thick and thin microscopy films were stained with Giemsa, parasites were counted per 200 white blood cells or 2,000 RBCs by 2 independent readers, and the mean of both readings was recorded. In the case of discrepant results, a third reading was done by an expert microscopist, and this finding was considered final.

After informed written consent, individuals were included in the study if no peripheral parasitemia was detected by either RDT or microscopy, and they had an axillary temperature of less than 37.5°C and no history of fever in the preceding 48 hours. Individuals not fulfilling these criteria were excluded and replaced by participants fitting all criteria until the desired sample size was reached. A venous blood sample was collected from all participants to measure hemoglobin (Hb) concentration, measure G6PD activity by spectrophotometry, and genotyping of the G6PD variant.

Hb measurement and G6PD phenotypic testing

Hb concentration was measured immediately after venipuncture, using a HemoCue 301 (Angelholm, Sweden). Venous samples were stored at 4°C, and a cold chain was maintained until samples reached the reference laboratory at the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) in the capital Dhaka.

G6PD activity was measured using a UV-1800 Shimadzu spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). Samples from the efficacy trial and the cross-sectional survey were tested using kits and controls (normal and deficient) from Randox (Crumlin, UK) at 37°C [19,26]. Samples from the case–control study were analyzed at 30°C using kits from Pointe Scientific (Canton, MI, US); quality control was done using normal, intermediate, and deficient controls from Analytical Control Systems (Fishers, IN, US) [19,21]. Controls were run daily before testing, which only commenced if the control readings were within the recommended G6PD activity range. All measurements were run in duplicate and repeated if the difference between the first and second measurement was greater than 10%. Since absolute values between different spectrophotometry assays can vary, results from the Randox and Pointe Scientific assays were not compared directly but rather used to categorize participants according to the percentage of normal enzyme activity [27].

G6PD genotypic testing

All samples from patients with G6PD activity less than 70% of the adjusted male median (AMM) [28] and a randomly selected subset of samples with higher G6PD activity were genotyped by PCR at a reference laboratory in Dhaka for the variants Mahidol, Viangchan, Mediterranean, and Orissa, as described previously [29]. All PCR products were also sequenced to identify the Kalyan–Kerala variant [20,30].

Sample size

G6PD data were available from 175 patients with uncomplicated malaria enrolled into the efficacy trial [19] and 999 individuals from the cross-sectional survey [20,26]. The case–control study was powered to determine a minimal difference of 0.75 U/g Hb between cases and controls with a 95% 2-sided confidence interval and 80% power, which required 253 cases and 253 controls. The total sample size of the 3 studies was 1,680 participants.

Statistical analysis

Clinical and laboratory data were entered on paper-based case report forms and digitalized using EpiData version 3.1 (EpiData, Odense, Denmark) [31]. All analyses were done using Stata version 14 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, US).

G6PD activity values, measured by spectrophotometry (in U/dl), were divided by the corresponding Hb measurement (in g/dl) collected in the field to provide a result in U/g Hb. The results from Randox control samples generated from the efficacy trial and cross-sectional survey were compared to assess whether the measurements from the trial and survey were comparable.

The AMM was calculated for each spectrophotometry assay as described previously and defined as 100% activity [28]. Current treatment guidelines recommend that individuals with G6PD activity < 30% be categorized as G6PD deficient, those with G6PD activity from 30% to <70% as G6PD intermediate, and those with activity ≥70% as G6PD normal [5,32,33].

Peripheral parasitemia was defined according to 3 categories: (i) individuals with peripheral parasitemia diagnosed by blood film examination or RDT and confirmed by PCR (microscopic parasitemia), (ii) individuals with submicroscopic parasitemia diagnosed by PCR but not microscopy or RDT (submicroscopic parasitemia), and (iii) individuals without detectable peripheral parasitemia assessed by microscopy, RDT, or PCR (aparasitemia).

Normally distributed continuous data were compared using Student t test or paired Student t test. Non-normally distributed continuous data were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the Hodges–Lehmann estimator, or the Kruskal–Wallis equality-of-populations rank test. Unpaired categorical data were compared using the chi squared test or Fisher exact test as appropriate. For each spectrophotometry assay, a multivariable regression model was developed to predict non-normalized G6PD activity (in U/dl), including Hb, sex, and G6PD genotype as biologically plausible independent variables. In addition, malaria status (defined as negative, positive only by PCR, or positive by microscopy or RDT) was included in the model comparing participants with and without parasitemia, while history of malaria was included as a predictor in the model corresponding to the case–control study.

Ethics

All protocols were approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the icddr,b, Bangladesh, and the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research, Australia. Protocol-specific identification numbers together with the exact title of the protocol can be found in S1 Table. Written informed consent was collected from all participants before enrollment, and, in addition, written assent was collected from all minors above the age of 11 years.

Results

Cross-sectional survey and clinical trial

Quality control samples were run on 75 normal and deficient control isolates during the efficacy trial and 255 control isolates during the cross-sectional survey. The median reading from normal controls in the efficacy trial was 8.7 U/g Hb (IQR 8.2–9.2) compared to 8.3 U/g Hb (IQR 7.8–8.7) in the cross-sectional survey (difference 0.4 U/g Hb, 95% CI 0.2–0.6). In deficient controls the median was 1.3 U/g Hb (IQR 1.0–1.7) in the efficacy trial and 1.6 U/g Hb (IQR 1.4–1.8) in the cross-sectional survey (difference −0.3 U/g Hb, 95% CI −0.4 to −0.2). After stratifying all results for type of control, a Hodges–Lehmann estimation showed no significant difference between the controls of the 2 studies (p = 0.962) (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Distribution of G6PD activity in normal and deficient controls by study.

Fig 1

G6PD, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase.

A total of 1,174 participants were enrolled in the clinical trial and cross-sectional survey and assessed by spectrophotometry, of whom 182 (15.5%) had microscopic parasitemia, 36 (3.0%) had submicroscopic parasitemia, and 956 (81.4%) were aparasitemic (Fig 2). Of the 182 participants with microscopic parasitemia, 117 (64.3%) were infected with P. falciparum, 54 (29.7%) with P. vivax, and 11 (6.0%) with a mixed P. falciparum and P. vivax infection. Among the 36 participants with submicroscopic parasitemia, 17 (47.2%) had a P. falciparum infection, 16 (44.4%) had a P. vivax infection, and 3 (8.3%) were positive for both species.

Fig 2. Study profile of participants enrolled in the treatment efficacy trial and cross-sectional survey.

Fig 2

*Four participants had a P. falciparum parasitemia detected by RDT, but not by microscopy. PCR, polymerase chain reaction; RDT, rapid diagnostic test.

Overall, 25.2% (134/531) of males had microscopic parasitemia, compared to 7.5% (48/643) of females (p < 0.001). All subsequent analyses were therefore stratified by sex. Participants in the treatment efficacy study differed significantly from those in the survey: They were younger, had lower body weight, were more likely to be febrile, and had lower Hb concentration (Table 1).

Table 1. Baseline variables stratified by study, and by microscopic malaria and submicroscopic malaria, for participants of the treatment efficacy trail and cross-sectional survey.

Comparing studies
Variable Clinical trial (CT, n = 175) Cross-sectional survey (CSS, n = 999) Difference (CT minus CSS) p-Value
Females, n (%) 45 (25.7%) 598 (59.9%) −34.2% <0.001
Mean age, years (95% CI) 22.0 (20.1–23.9) 32.5 (31.4–33.6) −10.5 (−13.3 to −7.8) <0.001
Mean body weight, kg (95% CI) 41.4 (39.1–43.7) 44.3 (43.6–45.0) −2.9 (−4.9 to −0.8) 0.002
Mean body temperature,°C (95% CI) 37.8 (37.6–37.9) 36.2 (36.2–36.3) −1.5 (−1.6 to −1.4) <0.001
Mean Hb concentration, g/dl (95% CI) 12.6 (12.3–12.9) 13.0 (12.9–13.1) −0.4 (−0.7 to −0.1) 0.002
Severe anemia (Hb < 7 g/dl), n 0 6 −6 0.379
Geometric mean parasitemia, μl−1 (95% CI; n) P. falciparum: 5,692 (3,745–8,651; 111)
P. vivax: 2,661 (1,675–4,228; 54)
P. falciparum + P. vivax mixed: 9,978 (1,279–77,844; 10)
P. falciparum: 3,986 (77–206,902; 3) NA
Comparing participants with parasitemia confirmed by microscopy versus participants with no parasitemia
Variable Microscopic parasitemia (MP, n = 182) No parasitemia (NP, n = 956) Difference (MP minus NP) p-Value
Females (%), n (%) 48 (26.4%) 579 (60.6%) −34.2% <0.001
Mean age, years (95% CI) 21.6 (19.8–23.5) 32.8 (31.7–33.9) −11.2 (−13.9 to −8.5) <0.001
Mean body weight, kg (95% CI) 41.0 (38.7–43.3) 44.5 (43.8–45.3) −3.5 (−5.5 to −1.5) <0.001
Mean body temperature,°C (95% CI) 37.7 (37.6–37.9) 36.2 (36.2–36.3) −1.5 (−1.6 to −1.4) <0.001
Mean Hb concentration, g/dl (95% CI) 12.6 (12.3–12.9) 13.0 (12.9–13.1) −0.5 (−0.7 to −0.2) <0.001
Severe anemia (Hb < 7 g/dl), n (%) 0 6 (0.6%) −6 0.597
Geometric mean parasitemia, μl−1 (95% CI; n) P. falciparum: 5.639 (3,744–8,492; 114)
P. vivax: 2,661 (1,675–4,228; 54)
P. falciparum + P. vivax mixed: 9,978 (1,279–77,843; 10)
NA
Comparing participants with parasitemia confirmed by PCR versus participants with no parasitemia
Variable PCR positive only (PCRP, n = 36) No parasitemia (NP, n = 956) Difference (PCRP minus NP) p-Value
Females (%), n (%) 16 (44.4%) 579 (60.6%) −16.2% 0.053
Mean age, years (95% CI) 29.6 (23.7–35.5) 32.8 (31.7–33.9) −3.2 (−9.1 to 2.7) 0.145
Mean body weight, kg (95% CI) 41.7 (37.3–46.1)) 44.5 (43.8–45.3) −2.8 (−6.7 to 1.1) 0.080
Mean body temperature,°C (95% CI) 36.4 (36.3–36.6) 36.2 (36.2–36.3) 0.2 (0.0 to 0.3) 0.012
Mean Hb concentration, g/dl (95% CI) 13.1 (12.7–13.5) 13.0 (12.9–13.1) 0.1 (−0.4 to 0.7) 0.354
Severe anemia (Hb < 7 g/dl), n 0 6 −6 0.801

Significant p-values given in bold.

NA = not applicable.

Individuals with microscopic parasitemia had a median G6PD activity of 7.86 U/g Hb (IQR 6.62–9.84), compared to 6.88 U/g Hb (IQR 5.16–8.59) in aparasitemic participants (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was no significant difference in G6PD activity between submicroscopic and aparasitemic individuals (p > 0.05) (Table 2; Figs 3 and S1).

Table 2. Distribution of median G6PD activity stratified by sex and malaria status.

Malaria status Median G6PD activity in U/g Hb (IQR), n, p-value
Males Females All
Aparasitemic (reference) 6.67 (4.94–8.54),
n = 377
7.01 (5.36–8.67),
n = 579
6.88 (5.16–8.59),
n = 956
Subpatent parasitemia 6.84 (4.35–9.45),
n = 20, p = 0.975*
6.08 (4.92–6.87),
n = 16, p = 0.146*
6.09 (4.79–8.62),
n = 36, p = 0.312*
Microscopic parasitemia 7.82 (6.59–10.00),
n = 134, p < 0.001*
8.06 (6.89–9.53),
n = 48, p < 0.001*
7.86 (6.62–9.84),
n = 182, p < 0.001*

*Level of significance compared to aparasitemic reference.

G6PD = glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase; n = number of participants.

Fig 3. G6PD activity (in U/g Hb) distribution stratified by microscopic parasitemia and sex in the efficacy trial and cross-sectional survey.

Fig 3

Red vertical lines indicate 30%, 70%, and 100% G6PD activity of the adjusted male median (from left to right). 100% G6PD activity = 7.4 U/g Hb. Participants with submicroscopic parasitemia included in malaria-negative cohort. G6PD, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase.

The AMM was defined as 7.4 U/g Hb (IQR 5.68–9.07), based on 496 normal males. A total of 77.7% (912/1,174) of participants were categorized as G6PD normal (≥70%), 14.3% (168/1,174) had intermediate G6PD activity (30% to <70%), and 8.0% (94/1,174) were G6PD deficient (<30%).

There was no significant difference in G6PD status between aparasitemic and subpatent parasitemic individuals (Table 2), and these groups were therefore pooled (Table 3). Overall, 9.2% (92/992) of those without microscopic parasitemia had G6PD activities below 30%, compared to 1.1% (2/182) of individuals with microscopic parasitemia (odds ratio [OR] 9.2, 95% CI 2.43–77.71, p < 0.001). At the 70% G6PD threshold, 33.3% (244/992) of participants without microscopic parasitemia were G6PD deficient compared to 7.6% (14/182) of patients with microscopic parasitemia (OR = 4.0, 95%CI: 2.26 to 7.61, p<0.001) (Table 2). This difference was particularly apparent in females, of whom 23.0% (137/595) with submicroscopic parasitemia or aparasitemia were intermediate or severely deficient compared to 2.1% (1/48) of those with microscopic parasitemia (OR 14.1, 95% CI 2.4–570.9, p < 0.001). The corresponding proportions for males were 9.7% (13/134) and 28.0% (111/397) (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.9–7.3, p < 0.001).

Table 3. Proportions of phenotypic G6PD deficient, intermediate, and normal participants among individuals with no parasitemia, parasitemia confirmed by PCR only, and parasitemia confirmed by microscopy.

G6PD category Aparasitemia,
n (%)
Subpatent parasitemia,
n (%)
Microscopic parasitemia,
n (%)
Total
n (%)
G6PD deficient 88 (9.2) 4 (11.1) 2 (1.1) 94 (8.0)
G6PD intermediate 149 (15.6) 7 (19.4) 12 (6.6) 168 (14.3)
G6PD normal 719 (75.2) 25 (69.4) 168 (92.3) 912 (77.7)
Total 956 (100.0) 36 (100.0) 182 (100.0) 1,174 (100.0)

G6PD, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase.

In the 178 individuals with microscopic parasitemia, the geometric mean parasitemia was 5,107 (95% CI 3,632–7,180) parasites μl−1. There was no significant correlation between peripheral parasitemia and G6PD activity (rs = 0.001, p = 0.988), and this did not change after stratifying by species (all p > 0.05).

Genotyping was undertaken in 29.6% (348/1,174) of patients, including all 94 patients with G6PD activity < 30%, 79.8% (134/168) of randomly selected patients with intermediate G6PD activity, and 13.2% (120/912) of randomly selected G6PD-normal patients. A known G6PD variant was identified in 31.6% (110/348) of samples; variants showed a considerable range of G6PD activity (Tables 4 and S2).

Table 4. G6PD variants and corresponding G6PD activity in participants of the clinical trial and cross-sectional survey.

G6PD variant Parasitemia Aparasitemia p-Value
n (column percent) Median G6PD activity in U/g Hb (IQR, minimum–maximum) n (column percent) Median G6PD activity in U/g Hb (IQR, minimum–maximum)
Microscopic parasitemia
Mahidol homozygous 2 (40.0) 2.03 (0.02–4.03, 0.02–4.03) 56 (53.3) 0.51 (0.16–0.78, 0.00–13.06) 0.448
Mahidol heterozygous 1 (20.0) 5.38 (n = 1) 42 (40.0) 3.72 (2.06–4.85, 0.00–14.52) 0.348
Orissa homozygous 1 (20.0) 0.7 (n = 1) 6 (5.7) 2.77 (1.21–3.17, 0.27–4.19) 0.285
Orissa heterozygous 1 (20.0) 6.22 (n = 1) 0 (0.0) n = 0 0.045
Kalyan–Kerala homozygous 0 (0.0) n = 0 1 (1.0) 2.07 (n = 1) 0.955
Total 5 (100.0) 105 (100.0)
Submicroscopic parasitemia
Mahidol homozygous 3 (60.0) 0.19 (0.00–1.53, 0.00–1.53) 53 (53.0) 0.53 (0.18–0.77, 0.00–13.06) 1.00
Mahidol heterozygous 2 (40.0) 2.59 (2.06–3.11, 2.06–3.11) 40 (40.0) 3.81 (2.09–4.96, 0.00–15.52) 1.00
Orissa homozygous 0 (0.0) 6 (6.0) 2.77 (1.21–3.17, 0.27–4.19) 1.00
Kalyan–Kerala homozygous 0 (0.0) 1 (1.0) 2.07 (n = 1) 1.00
Total 5 100

G6PD, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase; IQR, interquartile range.

The median non-normalized G6PD activity was 90.8 U/dl (IQR 72.4–111.5). In a multivariable regression model (F[9, 338] = 24.78, p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.3815) including all 348 participants who were genotyped, the following independent factors were correlated negatively with G6PD activity: G6PD variant, female sex, and Hb concentration. Being positive for either species by microscopy, but not submicroscopic parasite carriage, was correlated positively with G6PD enzyme activity (Table 5).

Table 5. Significant predictors of non-normalized G6PD activity among participants with known G6PD variant.

Variable (type) β (95% CI) p-Value
Contributors lowering G6PD activity
Mahidol hemi-/homozygous (cat) −62.6 (−71.8 to −53.5) <0.001
Orissa hemi-/homozygous (cat) −44.9 (−68.0 to −21.8) <0.001
Mahidol heterozygous (cat) −15.6 (−26.3 to −5.0) 0.004
Sex (females compared to males) (cat) −15.5 (−23.2 to −7.8) <0.001
Hb in g/dl (cont) −2.0 (−4.1 to 0.0) 0.050
Contributors increasing G6PD activity
Microscopic parasitemia (cat) 22.6 (9.7 to 35.4) 0.001

Significant p-values given in bold. Model details: F(11, 336) = 20.50, p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.3820.

cat, categorical; cont, continuous; G6PD, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase.

Case–control study

A total of 506 participants were enrolled in the case–control study, 253 in each arm, which were well matched (Table 6). Before enrollment, cases had been under observation for a median time of 8.7 years (IQR 8.4–8.9, range 1.3–9.5) and controls for a median time of 8.6 years (IQR 8.5–8.9, range 1.9–9.5; p = 0.669).

Table 6. Baseline characteristics for individuals in the case–control study.

Variable Cases Controls Difference (cases − controls) p-Value
Females, n (%) 110 (43.5%) 110 (43.5%) 0.0% 1.000
Mean age, years (95% CI) 33.2 (31.1–35.4) 33.2 (31.1–35.4) 0.0 (−3.0 to 3.0) 0.988
Age < 5 years, n 0 0 0 0.917
Age 5–15 years, n 60 62 −2
Age > 15 years, n 193 191 2
Mean body weight, kg (95% CI) 45.4 (43.9–47.0) 45.6 (44.0–47.3) 0.2 (−2.5 to 2.0) 0.850
Mean body height, cm (95% CI) 152.1 (150.5–153.7) 151.7 (150.0–153.4) 0.4 (−2.0 to 2.7) 0.738
Mean body temperature,°C (95% CI) 36.0 (35.9–36.0) 36.0 (35.9–36.0) 0.0 (0.0 to 0.1) 0.688
Mean Hb concentration, g/dl (95% CI) 14.3 (14.0–14.6) 14.4 (14.2–14.7) −0.1 (−0.5 to 0.3) 0.622
Severe anemia (Hb < 7 g/dl), n (%) 3 (2.7%) 0 3 0.249
Median person-years of observation (IQR, range) 8.67 (8.44–8.88, 1.33–9.50) 8.62 (8.45–8.88, 1.91–9.50) −0.03 (−0.22 to 0.17) 0.669

The median G6PD activity was 10.2 U/g Hb (IQR 8.7–11.8) for cases and 10.3 U/g Hb (IQR 8.8–12.2) for controls (p = 0.323) (Fig 4). The combined AMM for cases and controls was 10.7 U/g Hb (IQR 9.0–12.4). There was no significant difference between cases and controls in the proportion of patients categorized as G6PD normal, intermediate, or deficient (p = 0.328); although cases were at lower risk than controls of having a G6PD deficiency defined at the 30% threshold (OR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.27 to 1.29) and at the 70% threshold (OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.41 to 1.23) this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.155 and p = 0.241 respectively) (Fig 4; Table 7).

Fig 4. Distribution of G6PD activity stratified by sex in cases and controls.

Fig 4

Red vertical lines indicate 30%, 70%, and 100% G6PD activity of the adjusted male median. G6PD, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase.

Table 7. Distribution of G6PD-deficient, -intermediate, and -normal participants among cases and controls.

G6PD category Cases,
n (%)
Controls,
n (%)
Total,
n (%)
Deficient 13 (5.1) 21 (8.3) 34 (6.7)
Intermediate 16 (6.3) 18 (7.1) 34 (6.7)
Normal 224 (88.5) 214 (84.6) 438 (86.6)
Total 253 253 506

G6PD, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase.

All but 1 of the G6PD-deficient (<30% activity) participants were genotyped (n = 33), and a known variant was identified in 97.0% (32/33); also, all 34 G6PD-intermediate participants were genotyped, and a variant was identified in 23.5% (8/34) of participants (S3 Table).

The median non-normalized G6PD activity was 147.4 U/dl (IQR 123.0–171.5). In a multivariable regression model (F[7, 60] = 27.91, p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.7377, n = 68), being hemi- or homozygous for the Mahidol or Orissa variant and being heterozygous for the Mediterranean variant were found to be significant predictors of non-normalized G6PD activity, but Hb (p = 0.169), sex (p = 0.693), and a history of malaria (p = 0.725) were not significant predictors (Table 8).

Table 8. Significant predictors of non-normalized G6PD activity among cases and controls.

Variable (type) β (95% CI) p-Value
Mahidol hemi-/homozygous (cat) −76.2 (−91.5 to −60.9) <0.001
Mediterranean heterozygous (cat) •−52.8 (−95.2 to −10.3) 0.016
Orissa hemi-/homozygous (cat) −39.7 (−65.5 to −13.9) 0.011

Significant p-values given in bold. Model details: F(7, 60) = 27.91, p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.7377, n = 68.

cat, categorical variable; G6PD, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase.

Discussion

Our study highlights a significant difference in G6PD activity between patients with clinical malaria and asymptomatic individuals who were either aparasitemic or had very low-level parasitemia that was only detected by PCR. This difference could not be accounted for by a protective effect against malaria from low G6PD activity [8]. Although individuals with a history of malaria were less likely to be G6PD deficient or G6PD intermediate, the ORs were only 0.6 and 0.7, respectively, and did not reach statistical significance.

Within an individual, G6PD activity varies with the age of the RBC population, with younger RBCs, reticulocytes, and nucleated normoblasts having higher G6PD activity [13,3436]. Malaria induces hemolysis, to which the host responds through reactive erythropoiesis, increasing the number of reticulocytes and, in severe cases, normoblasts within the bloodstream [3639]. As a consequence, the mean age of the host RBC population decreases, while the mean G6PD activity increases. It is therefore plausible that G6PD activity rises during or shortly after an episode of acute malaria [40].

The WHO malaria treatment guidelines recommend that patients with malaria who have G6PD enzyme activity less than 30% should not be treated with a standard 14-day regimen of PQ, but rather PQ should be administered weekly for 8 weeks [33]. These guidelines were formulated following studies suggesting that, except for the Mediterranean variant, PQ-induced hemolysis is self-limiting and that an initial dose of PQ would lead to a replacement of older RBCs with younger cells, conferring transitional low-grade resistance against PQ-induced hemolysis [32,33,4043]. Acute malaria may have a similar effect.

The hemolytic risk associated with PQ rises as G6PD activity falls [43]. G6PD-deficient individuals with activity below 30% can be identified with qualitative diagnostics that can be used in remote settings [44]. Heterozygous females with intermediate G6PD activity (30% to <70%) are also at a significant risk of PQ-induced hemolysis, but their diagnosis requires a quantitative enzyme assay [45]. Our analysis highlights that, compared to females with subpatent parasitemia or aparasitemia, females with microscopic parasitemia were 14 times less likely to be G6PD intermediate or deficient; the corresponding OR for males was 3.6. We hypothesize that this is due to preferential parasite-induced hemolysis of G6PD-deficient RBCs in mosaic heterozygous females. If confirmed, our findings suggest that the risk of PQ-induced hemolysis in heterozygous females with malaria would be considerably less than that predicted by cross-sectional surveys of healthy populations.

Our study has some important limitations. We relied on non-contemporaneous collection of specimens from a prospective, single-arm clinical trial and cross-sectional survey, rather than clinical observation of the same patients over multiple time points with and without malaria. However, when comparing results from laboratory quality control testing, results did not differ significantly, suggesting that the results of the studies are comparable.

In the case–control study, participants were tested using a combination RDT for both P. falciparum and P. vivax, and this is known to have lower sensitivity for identifying patients with P. vivax malaria [46]. It is also possible that some participants had malaria that was not detected due to treatment-seeking outside of the surveillance system. However, patients must pay for services and drugs provided at private clinics, pharmacies, and, to some extent, public hospitals; it is unlikely that many participants would prefer this option over free treatment delivered at home as part of the DSS. A subset of 100 participants from each case and control arm were included in a separate study of the perceptions of malaria [47]. A total of 6 participants from the control arm recalled having had malaria previously, whereas only 1 case could not recall any previous episodes of malaria. While these findings are vulnerable to recall and response bias, they suggest that the majority of participants were categorized correctly.

There was a tendency for individuals without a history of malaria to be G6PD intermediate or deficient, as has been observed by others [8,4850]. A recent study among more than 17,000 infants and neonates in Kenya found the odds in heterozygous females of being admitted to hospital with a malaria-positive microscopy slide to be lower (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68–0.93, p = 0.004) compared to G6PD-normal individuals; a recent article from Afghanistan reported an even greater protective effect against P. vivax malaria for the Mediterranean variant (76% in hemizygous males and 55% in females) [51,52]. In our analysis the protective effect was modest and did not reach statistical significance. If a protective effect of G6PDd against malaria in Bangladesh was present, it is likely to be a minor contributor to G6PD status and would not have accounted for asymptomatic and parasite-free individuals being 4- to 9-fold more likely to be diagnosed as G6PD deficient in the clinical trial and cross-sectional survey.

More than 30% of participants were genotyped against a panel of G6PD variants known to be prevalent in the study area [4,53,54]. However, a genetic variant could not be identified in a large proportion of phenotypically G6PD-deficient individuals, perhaps indicative of the genetic diversity in the area [20]. Only patients with known variants were included in the regression models, and, accordingly, these were restricted to 25% of all study participants, which could have affected their validity. Reassuringly, in the multivariable models, the phenotypic observations highlighted that malaria was a significant predictor of phenotypic G6PD activity, whereas previous history of malaria was not.

In conclusion, our study highlights the potential impact of acute malaria on G6PD status, which may influence treatment allocation of 8-aminoquinoline drugs. If our findings are confirmed prospectively, 8-aminoquinoline-based radical cure may be safer than assumed in patients with clinical malaria, compared to individuals who have submicroscopic parasitemia or who are aparasitemic.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Distribution of G6PD activity (in U/g Hb) in patients with and without peripheral parasitemia.

Red vertical lines indicate 30%, 70%, and 100% G6PD activity of the adjusted male median. 100% G6PD activity = 7.4 U/g Hb.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Protocol names and ethics identifiers.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Distribution of G6PD activity among genotyped participants.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Distribution of G6PD variants among cases and controls and corresponding G6PD activity.

(DOCX)

S1 File. STROBE table.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Database. Control results of clinical trial and cross-sectional survey.

(XLS)

S3 File. Database. Clinical trial and cross-sectional survey.

(XLS)

S4 File. Database. Case–control study.

(XLS)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all participants who agreed to participate, and all staff involved in making this work happen. icddr,b is grateful to the governments of Bangladesh, Canada, Sweden, and the UK for providing core/unrestricted support.

Abbreviations

AMM

adjusted male median

DSS

demographic surveillance system

G6PD

glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase

G6PDd

glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency

Hb

hemoglobin

icddr,b

International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh

OR

odds ratio

PQ

primaquine

RBC

red blood cell

RDT

rapid diagnostic test

TQ

tafenoquine

Data Availability

All relevant data are included as supporting information.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1054404) and the Wellcome Trust (Senior Fellowship in Clinical Science awarded to RNP, 200909). SA is supported by a Georgina Sweet Award for Women in Quantitative Biomedical Science and KT is CSL Centenary fellow. No funding bodies had any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Battle KE, Lucas TCD, Nguyen M, Howes RE, Nandi AK, Twohig KA, et al. Mapping the global endemicity and clinical burden of Plasmodium vivax, 2000–17: a spatial and temporal modelling study. Lancet. 2019;394(10195):332–43. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31096-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Price RN, Commons RJ, Battle KE, Thriemer K, Mendis K. Plasmodium vivax in the era of the shrinking P. falciparum map. Trends Parasitol. 2020;36(6):560–70. 10.1016/j.pt.2020.03.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dini S, Douglas NM, Poespoprodjo JR, Kenangalem E, Sugiarto P, Plumb ID, et al. The risk of morbidity and mortality following recurrent malaria in Papua, Indonesia: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):28. 10.1186/s12916-020-1497-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Phru C, Kibria M, Thriemer K, Chowdhury M, Jahan N, Aktaruzzaman MM, et al. Case report: a case of primaquine-induced hemoglobinuria in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficient malaria patient in southeastern Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;102(1):156–8. 10.4269/ajtmh.19-0643 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.World Health Organization. Guide to G6PD deficiency rapid diagnostic testing to support P. vivax radical cure. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cappellini MD, Fiorelli G. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. Lancet. 2008;371(9606):64–74. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60073-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Howes RE, Battle KE, Satyagraha AW, Baird JK, Hay SI. G6PD deficiency: global distribution, genetic variants and primaquine therapy. Adv Parasitol. 2013;81:133–201. 10.1016/B978-0-12-407826-0.00004-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mbanefo EC, Ahmed AM, Titouna A, Elmaraezy A, Trang NT, Phuoc Long N, et al. Association of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency and malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:45963. 10.1038/srep45963 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Robinson KM, Yang W, Haidar CE, Hankins JS, Jay DW, Kornegay N, et al. Concordance between glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) genotype and phenotype and rasburicase use in patients with hematologic malignancies. Pharmacogenomics J. 2019;19(3):305–14. 10.1038/s41397-018-0043-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Roh ME, Oyet C, Orikiriza P, Wade M, Mwanga-Amumpaire J, Boum Y 2nd, et al. Screening for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency using three detection methods: a cross-sectional survey in southwestern Uganda. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;95(5):1094–9. 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0552 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shah SS, Macharia A, Makale J, Uyoga S, Kivinen K, Craik R, et al. Genetic determinants of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity in Kenya. BMC Med Genet. 2014;15:93. 10.1186/s12881-014-0093-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Johnson MK, Clark TD, Njama-Meya D, Rosenthal PJ, Parikh S. Impact of the method of G6PD deficiency assessment on genetic association studies of malaria susceptibility. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(9):e7246. 10.1371/journal.pone.0007246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chu CS, Bancone G, Nosten F, White NJ, Luzzatto L. Primaquine-induced haemolysis in females heterozygous for G6PD deficiency. Malar J. 2018;17(1):101. 10.1186/s12936-018-2248-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Luzzatto L, Arese P. Favism and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(1):60–71. 10.1056/nejmra1708111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.White NJ. Malaria parasite clearance. Malar J. 2017;16(1):88. 10.1186/s12936-017-1731-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Anstey NM, Russell B, Yeo TW, Price RN. The pathophysiology of vivax malaria. Trends Parasitol. 2009;25(5):220–7. 10.1016/j.pt.2009.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Douglas NM, Anstey NM, Buffet PA, Poespoprodjo JR, Yeo TW, White NJ, et al. The anaemia of Plasmodium vivax malaria. Malar J. 2012;11:135. 10.1186/1475-2875-11-135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Noe A, Zaman SI, Rahman M, Saha AK, Aktaruzzaman MM, Maude RJ. Mapping the stability of malaria hotspots in Bangladesh from 2013 to 2016. Malar J. 2018;17(1):259. 10.1186/s12936-018-2405-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ley B, Alam MS, Thriemer K, Hossain MS, Kibria MG, Auburn S, et al. G6PD deficiency and antimalarial efficacy for uncomplicated malaria in Bangladesh: a prospective observational study. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(4):e0154015. 10.1371/journal.pone.0154015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ley B, Kibria M, Khan W, Auburn S, Phru C, Jahan N, et al. Wide range of G6PD activities found among ethnic groups of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(9):e0008697. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008697 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ley B, Alam MS, O’Donnell JJ, Hossain MS, Kibria MG, Jahan N, et al. A comparison of three quantitative methods to estimate G6PD activity in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):e0169930. 10.1371/journal.pone.0169930 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Scobie H, Ahmed S, Ram M, Hossain MS, Prue CS, Khyang J, et al. Initial demographic surveillance system report for the icddr,b Bandarban field site. Scientific Report no. 119. Dhaka: International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Khan WA, Sack DA, Ahmed S, Prue CS, Alam MS, Haque R, et al. Mapping hypoendemic, seasonal malaria in rural Bandarban, Bangladesh: a prospective surveillance. Malar J. 2011;10:124. 10.1186/1475-2875-10-124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Streatfield PK, Khan WA, Bhuiya A, Alam N, Sie A, Soura AB, et al. Cause-specific mortality in Africa and Asia: evidence from INDEPTH health and demographic surveillance system sites. Glob Health Action. 2014;7:25362. 10.3402/gha.v7.25362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Galagan SR, Prue CS, Khyang J, Khan WA, Ahmed S, Ram M, et al. The practice of jhum cultivation and its relationship to Plasmodium falciparum infection in the Chittagong Hill Districts of Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91(2):374–83. 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Alam MS, Kibria MG, Jahan N, Thriemer K, Hossain MS, Douglas NM, et al. Field evaluation of quantitative point of care diagnostics to measure glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(11):e0206331. 10.1371/journal.pone.0206331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pfeffer DA, Ley B, Howes RE, Adu P, Alam MS, Bansil P, et al. Quantification of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity by spectrophotometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17(5):e1003084. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Domingo GJ, Satyagraha AW, Anvikar A, Baird K, Bancone G, Bansil P, et al. G6PD testing in support of treatment and elimination of malaria: recommendations for evaluation of G6PD tests. Malar J. 2013;12:391. 10.1186/1475-2875-12-391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kashmoola MA, Eissa AA, Al-Takay DT, Al-Allawi NA. Molecular characterization of G6PD deficient variants in Nineveh Province, Northwestern Iraq. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2015;31(1):133–6. 10.1007/s12288-014-0368-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sarker SK, Islam MT, Eckhoff G, Hossain MA, Qadri SK, Muraduzzaman AK, et al. Molecular analysis of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase gene mutations in Bangladeshi individuals. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0166977. 10.1371/journal.pone.0166977 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ley B, Rijal KR, Marfurt J, Adhikari NR, Banjara MR, Shrestha UT, et al. Analysis of erroneous data entries in paper based and electronic data collection. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):537. 10.1186/s13104-019-4574-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.von Seidlein L, Auburn S, Espino F, Shanks D, Cheng Q, McCarthy J, et al. Review of key knowledge gaps in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency detection with regard to the safe clinical deployment of 8-aminoquinoline treatment regimens: a workshop report. Malar J. 2013;12:112. 10.1186/1475-2875-12-112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.World Health Organization. Guidelines for the treatment of malaria. 3rd edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Luzzatto L, Nannelli C, Notaro R. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2016;30(2):373–93. 10.1016/j.hoc.2015.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Minucci A, Giardina B, Zuppi C, Capoluongo E. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase laboratory assay: how, when, and why? IUBMB Life. 2009;61(1):27–34. 10.1002/iub.137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Watson J, Taylor WR, Menard D, Kheng S, White NJ. Modelling primaquine-induced haemolysis in G6PD deficiency. Elife. 2017;6:e23061. 10.7554/eLife.23061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Haldar K, Mohandas N. Malaria, erythrocytic infection, and anemia. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2009;2009:87–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lamikanra AA, Brown D, Potocnik A, Casals-Pascual C, Langhorne J, Roberts DJ. Malarial anemia: of mice and men. Blood. 2007;110(1):18–28. 10.1182/blood-2006-09-018069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hillman RS. Characteristics of marrow production and reticulocyte maturation in normal man in response to anemia. J Clin Invest. 1969;48(3):443–53. 10.1172/JCI106001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Beutler E, Dern RJ, Alving AS. The hemolytic effect of primaquine. IV. The relationship of cell age to hemolysis. J Lab Clin Med. 1954;44(3):439–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Alving AS, Johnson CF, Tarlov AR, Brewer GJ, Kellermeyer RW, Carson PE. Mitigation of the haemolytic effect of primaquine and enhancement of its action against exoerythrocytic forms of the Chesson strain of Plasmodium vivax by intermittent regimens of drug administration: a preliminary report. Bull World Health Organ. 1960;22:621–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Dern RJ, Beutler E, Alving AS. The hemolytic effect of primaquine. II. The natural course of the hemolytic anemia and the mechanism of its self-limited character. J Lab Clin Med. 1954;44(2):171–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ashley EA, Recht J, White NJ. Primaquine: the risks and the benefits. Malar J. 2014;13:418. 10.1186/1475-2875-13-418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ley B, Winasti Satyagraha A, Rahmat H, von Fricken ME, Douglas NM, Pfeffer DA, et al. Performance of the Access Bio/CareStart rapid diagnostic test for the detection of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2019;16(12):e1002992. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002992 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Chu CS, Bancone G, Moore KA, Win HH, Thitipanawan N, Po C, et al. Haemolysis in G6PD heterozygous females treated with primaquine for Plasmodium vivax malaria: a nested cohort in a trial of radical curative regimens. PLoS Med. 2017;14(2):e1002224. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gunasekera W, Premaratne RG, Weerasena O, Premawansa WS, Handunnetti SM, Fernando SD. Utility of pf/pan RDT for diagnosis in the prevention of re-establishment of malaria in Sri Lanka. Pathog Glob Health. 2018;112(7):360–7. 10.1080/20477724.2018.1536855 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Matin MA, Sarkar NDP, Phru CS, Ley B, Thriemer K, Price RN, et al. Precarity at the margins of malaria control in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh: a mixed-methods study. Pathogens. 2020;9(10):840. 10.3390/pathogens9100840 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ruwende C, Khoo SC, Snow RW, Yates SN, Kwiatkowski D, Gupta S, et al. Natural selection of hemi- and heterozygotes for G6PD deficiency in Africa by resistance to severe malaria. Nature. 1995;376(6537):246–9. 10.1038/376246a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Guindo A, Fairhurst RM, Doumbo OK, Wellems TE, Diallo DA. X-linked G6PD deficiency protects hemizygous males but not heterozygous females against severe malaria. PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):e66. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Clarke GM, Rockett K, Kivinen K, Hubbart C, Jeffreys AE, Rowlands K, et al. Characterisation of the opposing effects of G6PD deficiency on cerebral malaria and severe malarial anaemia. Elife. 2017;6:e15085. 10.7554/eLife.15085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Awab GR, Aaram F, Jamornthanyawat N, Suwannasin K, Pagornrat W, Watson JA, et al. Protective effect of Mediterranean-type glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency against Plasmodium vivax malaria. Elife. 2021;10:e62448. 10.7554/eLife.62448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Uyoga S, Macharia AW, Ndila CM, Nyutu G, Shebe M, Awuondo KO, et al. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency and susceptibility to childhood diseases in Kilifi, Kenya. Blood Adv. 2020;4(23):5942–50. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Howes RE, Dewi M, Piel FB, Monteiro WM, Battle KE, Messina JP, et al. Spatial distribution of G6PD deficiency variants across malaria-endemic regions. Malar J. 2013;12:418. 10.1186/1475-2875-12-418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Plewes K, Soontarawirat I, Ghose A, Bancone G, Kingston HW, Herdman MT, et al. Genotypic and phenotypic characterization of G6PD deficiency in Bengali adults with severe and uncomplicated malaria. Malar J. 2017;16(1):134. 10.1186/s12936-017-1788-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Artur Arikainen

18 Sep 2020

Dear Dr Ley,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Variability of Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase activity in individuals with and without malaria in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by .

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosmedicine@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Artur Arikainen,

Associate Editor

PLOS Medicine

Decision Letter 1

Emma Veitch

11 Dec 2020

Dear Dr. Ley,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Variability of Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase activity in individuals with and without malaria in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh" (PMEDICINE-D-20-04491R1) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was evaluated by a senior editor and discussed among all the editors here. It was also discussed with an academic editor with relevant expertise, and sent to three independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer (#r1). The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, I am afraid that we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments. Obviously we cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we plan to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript by Jan 01 2021 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Emma Veitch, PhD

PLOS Medicine

On behalf of Richard Turner PhD, Senior Editor,

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

*PLOS Medicine style for the title is normally to include some designation of the study design for the methodological approach (usually after a colon following the study question/objective) - here I appreciate that is tricky because three groups are involved (trial, x-sectional and case-control). If the authors are amenable however we'd suggest stating that in the title subtitle (eg, "Variability of Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase activity in individuals with and without malaria: analysis of trial, cross-sectional and case-control data" for example.

*There is some confusion in the abstract where initially the authors state they have analysed patient groups per the above frameworks (trial, cross-sectional and case-control data) but later on the authors suggest they are analysing a prospective cohort. For consistency the authors need to be clear, and also to help the readers follow which of the groups they are referring to.

*The Author Summary section would need some stylistic changes to fit our usual format, please check the guidelines here: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary and note this should be 2-3 single sentence bullet points for each of the sections; see also an example at: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002416

*Where the authors mention the Ley et al accepted paper in PLOS NTD's, we'd suggest instead noting the accepted paper in the reference list as for the other papers - give the author list, paper title, and then PLOS NTD's "accepted for publication". PLOS Med reference policy allows for inclusion in the reference list of accepted publications (https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references) and it will be more straight forward to simply call out the paper with a citation number and then point the readers to the reference in the reflist. If a DOI is available from NTDs please include that, and if the NTD paper gets a formal citation before your PLOS Medicine paper gets a final decision, you can update the citation in the reflist.

*For the analysis of trial data that is from a PLOS ONE published trial, we'd also suggest including the clinicaltrials.gov ID number directly in the manuscript text, as well as the reference citation - https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02389374

*Please clarify whether the analytical approach followed here corresponds to one laid out in a prospective protocol or analysis plan? Please state this (either way) early in the Methods section.

a) If a prospective analysis plan (from your funding proposal, IRB or other ethics committee submission, study protocol, or other planning document written before analyzing the data) was used in designing the study, please include the relevant prospectively written document with your revised manuscript as a Supporting Information file to be published alongside your study, and cite it in the Methods section. A legend for this file should be included at the end of your manuscript.

b) If no such document exists, please make sure that the Methods section transparently describes when analyses were planned, and when/why any data-driven changes to analyses took place.

c) In either case, changes in the analysis-- including those made in response to peer review comments-- should be identified as such in the Methods section of the paper, with rationale.

*Although this is complex because the paper uses data from three separate participant groups, we'd suggest aiming to ensure the study is reported according to the STROBE guideline, and include the completed STROBE checklist as Supporting Information. The important thing here would be to ensure that the elements of the guideline are covered in the reporting in the paper, rather than to try to fill out the checklist in a way that reflects all three study populations. We'd also suggest including this statement (or something along these lines) in the methods section of the paper - "This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (S1 Checklist)." The STROBE guideline can be found here: http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/

-----------------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: See attachment

Michael Dewey

-----------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer #2:

G6PD activity is dependent on genotype and RBC's age. The authors tried to clarify the real time enzymatic activity in the individuals who are exposed to acute malaria using a DSS cohort and a clinical efficacy trial in the endemic area of Bangladesh. The authors found the G6PD activity showed a significant increase in malaria positive patients compared with malaria negative or asymptomatic PCR positives.

Combined with a case control study of past malaria history positives, the authors concluded that the G6PD activity increased after the hemolysis of parasitized old RBCs which is independent from genotype origin. Field study and related laboratory protocol including enzymatic estimation and genotyping are reasonable. However, the conclusion could not be completely supported by their findings. To make more convincing discussion and recommendation, several major points should be clarified.

Major comment

1. Case-control study needs more details because this is essential to lead to their conclusion that malaria infection increased the enzyme activity, For the reviewer, there are a lot of questions about the criteria of malaria history positive or negative.

Even the protective effect of G6PDd is controversial in Asia and Africa especially against different species such as P. falciparum and P. vivax. Please describe how many Pf and Pv.

The endemicity of malaria is not clear there. Please describe how many positive cases observed in the cohort population. Also the authors should explain the seasonality and annual changes of the endemicity.

2. The comparison between G6PD low, intermediate and normal groups for their malaria infection strongly suggested a protective effect of low enzymatic activity which is opposite to the description at page 21, line 356. For the reviewer, the protective effect looks very clear. However, the authors denied this possibility. Please explain the reason why without mentioning the case control study.

3. Regarding genetic polymorphism, the Mahidol variant looked a major one. Please describe more about the genotype information about female population in the Figure 3 separating by 30,70,100% activity.

Minor comment

1. In the title, is it necessary to use Variability?

2. Please explain the relationship between acute malaria infection time course and PQ treatment.

3. Please cite any reference to give an evidence of increased G6PD activity in experimental malaria model or in human study. Or is it possible to show any information about the enzymatic activity of the same individual when infected or not?

4. Page 21, line 378. I need a detailed description about this odds. It is very difficult for me to understand.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer #3:

Accept with suggestions for a few minor revisions

The paper by Benedikt Ley et al. of the Variability of Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase activity in individuals with and without malaria in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh:

The authors measured G6PD activities among

- individuals with and without malaria and found G6PD activities to be significantly higher among malaria patients.

- individuals enrolled healthy with and without a history of malaria to assess whether people with low G6PD activities were less likely to contract malaria. They found thatG6PD activities did not differ significantly.

They conclude that G6PD activity increases during a malaria infection and the observed clinically relevant difference is not due to people with lower G6PD activities being less likely to contract malaria.

The title and abstract are appropriate for the content of the text. Furthermore, the article is well constructed and analysis was well performed.

The authors demonstrated that their study highlights the potential impact of acute malaria on G6PD status, which may influence treatment allocation of an 8-aminoquinoline drug. this a good alternative because the cure may be safer than assumed in patients with clinical malaria, compared

The article highlights important data to know, however, we have some suggestions.

1. The document: need a few minor amendment (formatting, Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues). I have propose some suggestions.

2. The authors should clarify and give more explanation in the discussion sections: paragraph bellow:

"During laboratory quality control testing, there was a significant difference in the enzyme activity of controls between the efficacy study and the cross-sectional survey that may have influenced the direct comparison of results

3. The authors should confirm if their findings indicate a substantial variation in G6PD measurements between the different methods used and different studies. We will suggest that the authors give more explication because caution is advised in comparing findings based on absolute G6PD activity measurements across studies.

4. The authors should give if possible the mean temperature and mean precipitation during the different periods of three studies (The main climatic factors that influence the transmission of malaria are temperatures and precipitation)

5. The authors have identified much literature to relates to this research. However, we suggest that the authors using also the below some publications to explain the introduction

1) Pfeffer DA, Ley B, Howes RE, Adu P, Alam MS, Bansil P, et al. (2020) Quantification of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity by spectrophotometry: A systematic review and metaanalysis. PLoS Med 17(5): e1003084. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003084

2) Kießling et al. Malar J (2018) 17:358 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-018-2510-3

3) Emilie S. Badoum, Samuel S. Sermé, Jean B. Yaro, Sam. A Coulibaly, Désiré Kargougou, Amidou Diarra, Amidou Z Ouédraogo, Lankoande Malik, Issa Nébié, Issiaka Soulama, Alphonse Ouédraogo, Alfred B. Tiono, Yves Traoré, Sodiomon B. Sirima, Edith C. Bougouma* Abnormalities of hemoglobin and Glucose-6-Phosphate-Dehydrogenase deficiency in children with uncomplicated malaria and living in Banfora and Saponé, two different malaria setting of Burkina Faso International Journal of TROPICAL DISEASE & Health 37(3): 1-10, 2019; Article no.IJTDH.50379 ISSN: 2278-1005, NLM ID: 101632866

-----------------------------------------------------------

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Attachment

Submitted filename: ley.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer 3 - G6PD_Malaria_v01.1 mod 22 Nov 2020.docx

Decision Letter 2

Beryne Odeny

15 Feb 2021

Dear Dr. Ley,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase activity in individuals with and without malaria:  analysis of clinical trial, cross-sectional and case-control data from Bangladesh" (PMEDICINE-D-20-04491R2) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor and it was also seen again by two reviewers. I am pleased to say that provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.  

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by Feb 22 2021 11:59PM.   

Sincerely,

Beryne Odeny,

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Editors:

Thank you for addressing the previously stated issues. Before we proceed, please address the following issues:

• Was the clinical trial registered in a recognized database?

• At key points in the paper, i.e., in the abstract, methods section and discussion, please adapt the description "clinical trial" to provide slightly more information on the study design, e.g., "prospective, single-arm clinical trial"

• Please reduce the length of your abstract, if possible.

• Please quote study dates in your abstract; along with number of participants in the individual studies and aggregate demographic details

• At line 98, it may be that "lyonization" should take an initial capital, or the alternative term used.

• Please remove trademarks from your manuscript, e.g. at line 159

• Please remove information on funding from the title page and end of the main text. This information will appear in the article metadata upon publication, via information in the submission form

• Please hyphenate "case-control" consistently.

• Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (S1 Checklist)."

• Please indicate in the figure caption the meaning of the red vertical lines in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4

• Please define the abbreviations in all tables and figures, including: G6PD, RDT, PCR, IQR

• Please provide titles and legends for all figures (including those in Supporting Information files).

• Please use the "Vancouver" style for reference formatting and see our website for other reference guidelines https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references . Please note that citations should be in square brackets.

• Thank you for providing your [CONSORT/PRISMA/STROBE] checklist. Please replace the page numbers with paragraph numbers per section (e.g. "Methods, paragraph 1"), since the page numbers of the final published paper may be different from the page numbers in the current manuscript.

• Line 409 -410, the term "trend" is used to refer to a nonsignificant P value. The term trend should be used only when the test for trend has been conducted. Please revise accordingly.

• Please style reference call outs as follows throughout the text, noting the absence of spaces within the square brackets: "... countries [1,2]."

• In the reference list, please ensure that all citations have full access details, e.g., reference 1.

• Please abbreviate journal names consistently, e.g., "PLoS ONE"; "PLoS Med.".

Comments from Reviewers:

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed my points.

Michael Dewey

Reviewer #2: The authors reacted to reviewers' comments properly and the revised paper is acceptable for publication.

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 3

Beryne Odeny

1 Mar 2021

Dear Dr Ley, 

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Kenji Hirayama, I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase activity in individuals with and without malaria:  analysis of clinical trial, cross-sectional and case-control data from Bangladesh" (PMEDICINE-D-20-04491R3) in PLOS Medicine.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process. 

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper. 

Sincerely, 

Beryne Odeny 

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Distribution of G6PD activity (in U/g Hb) in patients with and without peripheral parasitemia.

    Red vertical lines indicate 30%, 70%, and 100% G6PD activity of the adjusted male median. 100% G6PD activity = 7.4 U/g Hb.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Protocol names and ethics identifiers.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Distribution of G6PD activity among genotyped participants.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Distribution of G6PD variants among cases and controls and corresponding G6PD activity.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. STROBE table.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Database. Control results of clinical trial and cross-sectional survey.

    (XLS)

    S3 File. Database. Clinical trial and cross-sectional survey.

    (XLS)

    S4 File. Database. Case–control study.

    (XLS)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ley.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer 3 - G6PD_Malaria_v01.1 mod 22 Nov 2020.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal_Ley_v0.2.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal_Ley_v0.3.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are included as supporting information.


    Articles from PLoS Medicine are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES