"We were afraid of the lion that has roared next to us"; community response to reactive focal mass drug administration for malaria in Eswatini (formerly Swaziland).

BACKGROUND: Reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA), or presumptive treatment without malaria testing of household members and neighbours of a passively identified malaria case, is currently being explored as a possible malaria elimination strategy in low transmission settings. One of the primary factors determining the effectiveness of rfMDA on reducing or interrupting transmission is achieving high coverage of the target population with drug administration. This study aims to explore the acceptability of rfMDA and identify facilitators and barriers to its potential implementation, as well as the community's general knowledge, attitudes and beliefs with regard to malaria elimination. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed using focus group discussions (FGDs) among villagers that received rfMDA through the National Malaria Control Programme in the low transmission setting of Eswatini as part of a 2-year clinical trial. FGDs were audio-recorded, transcribed and translated into English. All transcripts were managed in Dedoose and underwent qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The majority of participants perceived their community to be at high risk of malaria. Witnessing others in their community suffer from malaria, proximity to Mozambique, various ecological factors, and the presence of mosquitoes contributed to this perception. The greatest motivator of participation in rfMDA was witnessing someone else suffer from malaria, since most participants had not personally experienced malaria themselves. Participants valued the education on rfMDA and on malaria in general, particularly when communicated by nurses and other health workers from the Ministry of Health. Participants were overwhelmingly motivated to participate in rfMDA in order to obtain protection from malaria. Most participants did not understand the concept of sub-clinical infection and, therefore, did not perceive the anti-malarial medication given in rfMDA to be a treatment medication. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived risk for malaria was a major driver of acceptability; therefore, future intervention campaigns could aim to better quantify risk to inform interventions and encourage uptake. There were misunderstandings about the asymptomatic reservoir of parasites in humans. Given that this phenomenon is the rationale for rfMDA, this misunderstanding could threaten the uptake of the intervention if it persists in the community. Using local authorities to deliver messaging, additional education on this concept with re-inforcement that risk of malaria is ongoing, even in the absence of frequent cases, may help to maximize and maintain acceptability.

Towards malaria elimination in the MOSASWA (Mozambique, South Africa and Swaziland) region.

The substantial impact of cross-border collaborative control efforts on the burden of malaria in southern Africa has previously been demonstrated through the successes of the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative. Increases in malaria cases recorded in the three partner countries (Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland) since termination of that programme in 2011 have provided impetus for the resuscitation of cooperation in the form of the MOSASWA malaria initiative. MOSASWA, launched in 2015, seeks to renew regional efforts to accelerate progress towards malaria elimination goals already established in the region. National malaria programmes, together with developmental partners, academic institutions and the private sector seek to harmonize policy, strengthen capacity, share expertise, expand access to elimination interventions particularly amongst migrant and border population groups, mobilize resources and advocate for long-term funding to ultimately achieve and sustain malaria elimination in the MOSASWA region.

A national policy for malaria elimination in Swaziland: a first for sub-Saharan Africa.

Swaziland is working to be the first country in mainland sub-Saharan Africa to eliminate malaria. The highest level of Swaziland's government recently approved a national elimination policy, which endorses Swaziland's robust national elimination strategic plan. This commentary outlines Swaziland's progress towards elimination as well as the challenges that remain, primarily around securing long-term financial resources and managing imported cases from neighbouring countries.

Effectiveness and safety of reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) using dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine to reduce malaria transmission in the very low-endemic setting of Eswatini: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: To reduce malaria transmission in very low-endemic settings, screening and treatment near index cases (reactive case detection (RACD)), is widely practised, but the rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) used miss low-density infections. Reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) may be safe and more effective. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in Eswatini, a very low-endemic setting. 77 clusters were randomised to rfMDA using dihydroartemisin-piperaquine (DP) or RACD involving RDTs and artemether-lumefantrine. Interventions were delivered by the local programme. An intention-to-treat analysis was used to compare cluster-level cumulative confirmed malaria incidence among clusters with cases. Secondary outcomes included safety and adherence. RESULTS: From September 2015 to August 2017, 222 index cases from 47 clusters triggered 46 RACD events and 64 rfMDA events. RACD and rfMDA were delivered to 1455 and 1776 individuals, respectively. Index case coverage was 69.5% and 62.4% for RACD and rfMDA, respectively. Adherence to DP was 98.7%. No serious adverse events occurred. For rfMDA versus RACD, cumulative incidences (per 1000 person-years) of all malaria were 2.11 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.59) and 1.97 (95% CI 1.57 to 2.47), respectively; and of locally acquired malaria, they were 1.29 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.67) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.34), respectively. Adjusting for imbalance in baseline incidence, incidence rate ratio for rfMDA versus RACD was 0.95 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.65) for all malaria and 0.82 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.71) for locally acquired malaria. Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis that excluded clusters with <80% index case coverage. CONCLUSION: In a very low-endemic, real-world setting, rfMDA using DP was safe, but did not lower incidence compared with RACD, potentially due to insufficient coverage and/or power. To assess impact of interventions in very low-endemic settings, improved coverage, complementary interventions and adaptive ring trial designs may be needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02315690.

Low-Quality Housing Is Associated With Increased Risk of Malaria Infection: A National Population-Based Study From the Low Transmission Setting of Swaziland.

BACKGROUND: Low-quality housing may confer risk of malaria infection, but evidence in low transmission settings is limited. METHODS: To examine the relationship between individual level housing quality and locally acquired infection in children and adults, a population-based cross-sectional analysis was performed using existing surveillance data from the low transmission setting of Swaziland. From 2012 to 2015, cases were identified through standard diagnostics in health facilities and by loop-mediated isothermal amplification in active surveillance, with uninfected subjects being household members and neighbors. Housing was visually assessed in a home visit and then classified as low, high, or medium quality, based on housing components being traditional, modern, or both, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 11426 individuals were included in the study: 10960 uninfected and 466 infected (301 symptomatic and 165 asymptomatic). Six percent resided in low-quality houses, 26% in medium-quality houses, and 68% in high-quality houses. In adjusted models, low- and medium-quality construction was associated with increased risk of malaria compared with high-quality construction (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.11 and 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-3.53 for low vs high; AOR, 1.56 and 95% CI, 1.15-2.11 for medium vs high). The relationship was independent of vector control, which also conferred a protective effect (AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, .50-.90) for sleeping under an insecticide-treated bed net or a sprayed structure compared with neither. CONCLUSIONS: Our study adds to the limited literature on housing quality and malaria risk from low transmission settings. Housing improvements may offer an attractive and sustainable additional strategy to support countries in malaria elimination.