Abstract
AbstractMalaria elimination interventions in low-transmission settings aim to extinguish hot spots and prevent transmission to nearby areas. In malaria elimination settings, the World Health Organization recommends reactive, focal interventions targeted to the area near malaria cases shortly after they are detected. A key question is whether these interventions reduce transmission to nearby uninfected or asymptomatic individuals who did not receive interventions. Here, we measured direct effects (among intervention recipients) and spillover effects (among non-recipients) of reactive, focal interventions delivered within 500m of confirmed malaria index cases in a cluster-randomized trial in Namibia. The trial delivered malaria chemoprevention (artemether lumefantrine) and vector control (indoor residual spraying with Actellic) separately and in combination using a factorial design. We compared incidence, infection prevalence, and seroprevalence between study arms among intervention recipients (direct effects) and non-recipients (spillover effects) up to 3 km away from index cases. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios accounting for spillover effects. The combined chemoprevention and vector control intervention produced direct effects and spillover effects. In the primary analysis among non-recipients within 1 km from index cases, the combined intervention reduced malaria incidence by 43% (95% CI 20%, 59%). In secondary analyses among non-recipients 500m-3 km from interventions, the combined intervention reduced infection by 79% (6%, 95%) and seroprevalence 34% (20%, 45%). Accounting for spillover effects increased the cost-effectiveness of the combined intervention by 37%. Our findings provide the first evidence that targeting hot spots with combined chemoprevention and vector control interventions can indirectly benefit non-recipients up to 3 km away.Significance StatementIn settings where malaria transmission is declining and approaching elimination, new malaria cases are clustered in space and time. Prior studies have found that targeting prophylactic antimalarial drugs and vector control in the area around newly detected malaria cases reduced community-wide malaria. Here, we found that when antimalarials and vector control were delivered as a combined strategy in the area near recent cases, malaria incidence was reduced up to 3 kilometers away among individuals who did not receive interventions. Accounting for these benefits to non-recipients increased cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Overall, our findings suggest that combined, targeted malaria interventions can reduce local transmission and support their use for malaria elimination.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference67 articles.
1. Malaria eradication within a generation: ambitious, achievable, and necessary;The Lancet,2019
2. “World malaria report 2022” (World Health Organization) (May 8, 2023).
3. Costs and financial feasibility of malaria elimination;The Lancet,2010
4. E. Halloran , I. M. Longini Jr ., C. J. Struchiner , Design and Analysis of Vaccine Studies (Springer, 2010).
5. Spillover effects in epidemiology: parameters, study designs and methodological considerations