Kim A. Lindblade’s research while affiliated with World Health Organization WHO and other places

In regions where malaria transmission persists, the implementation of approaches aimed at eliminating parasites from the population can effectively decrease both burden of disease and transmission of infection. Thus, mass strategies that target symptomatic and asymptomatic infections at the same time may help countries to reduce transmission. This systematic review assessed the potential benefits and harms of mass testing and treatment (MTaT) to reduce malaria transmission. Searches were conducted in March 2021 and updated in April 2022 and included cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) as well as nonrandomized studies (NRSs) using malaria infection incidence, clinical malaria incidence, or prevalence as outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane’s risk of bias (RoB2) tool and Risk of Bias Tool in Nonrandomized Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I), and the certainty of evidence (CoE) was graded for each outcome. Of 4,462 citations identified, seven studies (four cRCTs and three NRSs) contributed outcome data. The analysis revealed that MTaT did not reduce the incidence (risk ratio [RR]: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.87–1.04; 1,181 participants; moderate CoE) or prevalence (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.67–1.01; 7,522 participants; moderate CoE) of malaria infection but resulted in a small reduction in clinical malaria (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70–0.95; 334,944 participants; moderate CoE). Three studies contributing data on contextual factors concluded that MTaT is an acceptable, feasible, and cost-effective intervention. Mathematical modeling analyses ( n = 10) suggested that MTaT effectiveness depends on the baseline transmission level, diagnostic test performance, number of rounds, and other co-interventions. Based on the limited evidence available, MTaT has little to no impact on reducing malaria transmission.

As countries approach elimination of malaria, groups with increased exposure to malaria vectors or poor access to health services may serve as important human reservoirs of infection that help maintain transmission in the community. Parasitological testing and treatment targeted to these groups may reduce malaria transmission overall. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of targeted testing and treatment (TTaT) to reduce malaria transmission, the contextual factors, and the results of modeling studies that estimated the intervention’s potential impact. Bibliographic searches were conducted in March 2021 and updated in April 2022, and a total of 1,210 articles were identified. Three studies were included for outcome data: one factorial cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) in Kenya (5,233 participants), one cRCT in Ghana (3,046 participants), and one controlled before-and-after cohort study in schoolchildren in Malawi (786 participants). Nine reports were included for contextual factors, and two were included for mathematical modeling. Data on outcomes from the three studies suggested that at the community level, TTaT would result in little to no difference in the incidence of malaria infection (measured via active surveillance), adverse events, and severe AEs. In contrast, the effects of TTaT on prevalence (malaria parasitemia) among those targeted by the intervention were found to include a short-term impact on reducing transmission but little to no impact on transmission for extended periods. Future iterations of this review should ensure consideration for populations proven to host the vast majority of the reservoir of infection in lower-transmission settings to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.

In low– to very low–malaria transmission areas, most infections may be accrued within specific groups whose behaviors or occupations put them at increased risk of infection. If these infections comprise a large proportion of the reservoir of infection, targeting interventions to these groups could reduce transmission at the population level. We conducted a systematic review to assess the impact of providing antimalarials to groups of individuals at increased risk of malaria whose infections were considered to comprise a large proportion of the local reservoir of infections (targeted drug administration [TDA]). A literature search was conducted in March 2021 and updated in April 2022. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text records. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of the evidence (CoE) for each outcome. Out of 2,563 records, we identified five studies for inclusion: two cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) in Uganda and Kenya; one controlled before-after study in Ghana; and two uncontrolled before-after studies in Sri Lanka and Greece. Compared with no intervention, TDA resulted in little to no difference in the prevalence of infection at the population level (risk ratio [RR]: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73–1.00; one cRCT, high CoE), although TDA likely resulted in a large reduction in prevalence among those targeted by the intervention (RR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.06–0.38; two cRCTs, moderate CoE). Although TDA may reduce the burden of malaria among those receiving antimalarials, we found no evidence that it reduces transmission at the population level.

In designing mass drug administration (MDA) campaigns, it is imperative to consider contextual factors that affect uptake of the intervention, including acceptability, cost, feasibility, and health system considerations, to ensure optimal coverage. We reviewed the literature on contextual factors influencing MDA delivery to provide programs with information to design a successful campaign. From 1,044 articles screened, 37 included contextual factors relevant to participants’ values and preferences, drivers of MDA acceptability, health equity concerns, financial and economic aspects, and feasibility barriers; 13 included relevant modeling data. Key findings were abstracted by two reviewers and summarized. No studies directly assessed values or direct health equity concerns with respect to MDA, which represents an evidence gap as unequal distributions of effects and factors that impact participant acceptability and program feasibility must be considered to ensure equitable access. Participant acceptability was the most widely surveyed factor, appearing in 28 of 37 studies; perceived adverse events were a frequently noted cause of nonparticipation, mentioned in 15 studies. Feasibility considerations included when, where, and how drugs will be delivered and how to address pregnant women, as these can all have substantial implications for participation. Mass drug administration costs (∼$1.04 to$19.40 per person per round) are driven primarily by drug prices, but the delivery mechanism can have varying costs as well, and integration with other interventions may provide cost savings. Both programmatic goals and sociopolitical and economic contexts must be carefully considered before embarking on an MDA program to ensure programmatic success.

Many countries pursuing malaria elimination implement “reactive” strategies targeting household members and neighbors of index cases to reduce transmission. These strategies include reactive case detection and treatment (RACDT; testing and treating those positive) and reactive drug administration (RDA; providing antimalarials without testing). We conducted systematic reviews of RACDT and RDA to assess their effect on reducing malaria transmission and gathered evidence about key contextual factors important to their implementation. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full-text records using defined criteria (Patient = those in malaria-endemic/receptive areas; Intervention = RACDT or RDA; Comparison = standard of care; Outcome = malaria incidence/prevalence) and abstracted data for meta-analyses. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach was used to rate certainty of evidence (CoE) for each outcome. Of 1,460 records screened, reviewers identified five RACDT studies (three cluster-randomized controlled trials [cRCTs] and two nonrandomized studies [NRS]) and seven RDA studies (six cRCTs and one NRS); three cRCTs comparing RDA to RACDT were included in both reviews. Compared with RDA, RACDT was associated with nonsignificantly higher parasite prevalence (odds ratio [OR] = 1.85; 95% CI: 0.96–3.57; one study) and malaria incidence (rate ratio [RR] = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.94–1.79; three studies), both very low CoE. Compared with control or RACDT, RDA was associated with non-significantly lower parasite incidence (RR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.36–1.47; 2 studies, moderate CoE), prevalence (OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.52–1.17; 4 studies, low CoE), and malaria incidence (RR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.82–1.05; six studies, moderate CoE). Evidence for reactive strategies’ impact on malaria transmission is limited, especially for RACDT, but suggests RDA might be more effective.

Several temperate countries have used mass chemoprevention interventions with medicines of the 8-aminoquinoline class that prevent relapses from Plasmodium vivax before peak transmission to reduce transmission of malaria. The WHO commissioned a systematic review of the literature and evidence synthesis to inform development of recommendations regarding this intervention referred to as “mass relapse prevention” (MRP). Electronic databases were searched, 866 articles screened, and 25 assessed for eligibility after a full-text review. Two nonrandomized studies were included, one from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (391,357 participants) and the second from the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (∼30,000 participants). The two studies administered a single round of primaquine over 14 days (0.25 mg/kg per day). From 1 to 3 months after the treatment round, the incidence of P. vivax infections was significantly lower in areas that received MRP than those that did not (pooled rate ratio [RR] 0.08, 95% CI 0.07–0.08). At 4 to 12 months after the treatment round, the prevalence of P. vivax infection was significantly lower in MRP villages than non-MRP villages (odds ratio 0.12, 95% CI 0.03–0.52). No severe adverse events were found. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low and no conclusions as to the effectiveness or safety of MRP could be drawn. However, it is not likely that this intervention will be needed in the future as most temperate countries where P. vivax is transmitted are nearing or have already eliminated malaria.

Malaria remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, even in low-transmission settings. With the advent of longer acting, more effective, and well-tolerated antimalarials, there is renewed interest in the efficacy of mass drug administration (MDA) to accelerate to elimination. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of MDA to reduce the incidence and prevalence of Plasmodium falciparum ( Pf ) and Plasmodium vivax ( Pv ) infection. From 1,044 articles screened, 14 articles, including 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were identified. Five included data on Pf only; five included Pf and Pv . Two of the Pf studies were conducted in areas of high–moderate transmission, the remainder were in areas of low–very low transmission. In higher transmission areas, MDA reduced incidence of Pf parasitemia (rate ratio = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40–0.92; moderate certainty) 1 to 3 months after drug administration; no significant effect of MDA on Pf parasitemia prevalence was detected 1 to 3 months post-MDA (risk ratio [RR] = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58–5.36; low certainty). In lower transmission settings, both incidence and prevalence of Pf parasitemia were reduced 1 to 3 months post-MDA (rate ratio = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.21–0.66; RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.15–0.41, respectively). Pv prevalence was reduced 1 to 3 months post-MDA (RR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.10–0.24); there were no RCTs providing data on incidence of Pv . There was no significant effect of MDA at later time points. MDA may have short-term benefits; however, there was no evidence for longer term impact, although none of the trials assessed prolonged interventions.

As countries approach malaria elimination, imported cases of malaria make up a larger proportion of all cases and may drive malaria transmission. Targeted test and treat (TTaT) at points of entry (POEs) is a strategy that aims to reduce the number of imported infections in countries approaching elimination by testing and treating individuals at border crossings. No evidence has been systematically collected and evaluated to assess the impact and operational feasibility of this strategy. This systematic review gathered empirical evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention, contextual factors, and results of modeling studies that estimate its potential impact. Bibliographic searches were conducted in March 2021 and updated in April 2022, and a total of 1,569 articles were identified. All study designs were included, but none of them were intervention studies set up to measure the impact of TTaT at POEs. Seven nonrandomized observational studies were eligible for assessment of outcome data in terms of describing the extent of positive cases among people crossing borders. Also included in the review were three studies for assessment of acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and three for assessment of mathematical modeling. The positivity rates reported in the seven studies ranged between 0.0% and 70.0%, which may be attributable to the different settings and operational feasibility. Overall, there is limited evidence of the effect of TTaT at POEs on the prevalence of infection, and the certainty of the evidence was very low owing to critical risk of bias, serious inconsistency, and serious indirectness.

In the final stages of malaria elimination, interventions to reduce malaria transmission are often centered around a confirmed case of malaria, as cases tend to cluster together at very low levels of transmission. The WHO commissioned a systematic review of the literature and synthesis of evidence for reactive indoor residual spraying (IRS) to develop official recommendations for countries. Several electronic databases were searched in November 2020. A total of 455 records were identified and screened; 20 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Two cluster-randomized trials met the inclusion criteria for epidemiological outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using standard criteria. Because one study was a superiority trial in which the comparator included reactive case detection or mass drug administration and the other was a noninferiority trial in which the comparator was proactive, focal IRS, results could not be pooled. In the superiority trial, reactive IRS reduced malaria prevalence by 68% (risk ratio [RR]: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.13–0.80; certainty of evidence: HIGH) compared with no reactive IRS. No difference was observed for clinical malaria (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.38–1.11; certainty of evidence: MODERATE). In the noninferiority study, the mean difference in incidence between reactive IRS and proactive IRS was 0.10 additional case per 1,000 person-years, which was within the prespecified noninferiority bound (95% CI: −0.38 to 0.58; certainty of evidence: MODERATE). The evidence indicates that reactive IRS may be a cost-effective tool for the prevention of malaria in elimination settings. As only two cluster-randomized controlled trials from sub-Saharan Africa were found, additional high-quality studies should be encouraged.

The basis for an evidence-based recommendation is a well-conducted systematic review that synthesizes the primary literature relevant to the policy or program question of interest. In 2020, the WHO commissioned 10 systematic reviews of potential interventions in elimination or post-elimination settings to summarize their impact on malaria transmission. This paper describes the general methods used to conduct this series of systematic reviews and notes where individual reviews diverged from the common methodology. The paper also presents lessons learned from conducting the systematic reviews to make similar future efforts more efficient, standardized, and streamlined.