Testing and treatment for malaria elimination: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Global interest in malaria elimination has prompted research on active test and treat (TaT) strategies. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the effectiveness of TaT strategies to reduce malaria transmission. RESULTS: A total of 72 empirical research and 24 modelling studies were identified, mainly focused on proactive mass TaT (MTaT) and reactive case detection (RACD) in higher and lower transmission settings, respectively. Ten intervention studies compared MTaT to no MTaT and the evidence for impact on malaria incidence was weak. No intervention studies compared RACD to no RACD. Compared to passive case detection (PCD) alone, PCD + RACD using standard diagnostics increased infection detection 52.7% and 11.3% in low and very low transmission settings, respectively. Using molecular methods increased this detection of infections by 1.4- and 1.1-fold, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results suggest MTaT is not effective for reducing transmission. By increasing case detection, surveillance data provided by RACD may indirectly reduce transmission by informing coordinated responses of intervention targeting.

District-level approach for tailoring and targeting interventions: a new path for malaria control and elimination.

Despite huge investments and implementation of effective interventions for malaria, progress has stalled, with transmission being increasingly localized among difficult-to-reach populations and outdoor-biting vectors. Targeting difficult pockets of transmission will require the development of tailored and targeted approaches suited to local context, drawing from insights close to the frontlines. Districts are best placed to develop tailored, locally appropriate approaches. We propose a reorganization of how malaria services are delivered. Firstly, enabling district health officers to serve as conduits between technical experts in national malaria control programmes and local community leaders with knowledge specific to local, at-risk populations; secondly, empowering district health teams to make malaria control decisions. This is a radical shift that requires the national programme to cede some control. Shifting towards a district or provincial level approach will necessitate deliberate planning, and repeated, careful assessment, starting with piloting and learning through experience. Donors will need to alter current practice, allowing for flexible funding to be controlled at sub-national levels, and to mix finances between case management, vector control and surveillance, monitoring and evaluation. System-wide changes proposed are challenging but may be necessary to overcome stalled progress in malaria control and elimination and introduce targeted interventions tailored to the needs of diverse malaria affected populations.

What is community engagement and how can it drive malaria elimination? Case studies and stakeholder interviews.

BACKGROUND: In light of increasing complexity of identifying and treating malaria cases in low transmission settings, operational solutions are needed to increase effective delivery of interventions. Community engagement (CE) is at the forefront of this conversation given the shift toward creating local and site-specific solutions. Malaria programmes often confuse CE with providing information to the community or implementing community-based interventions. This study seeks to expand on CE approaches for malaria by looking to a variety of health and development programmes for lessons that can be applied to malaria elimination. METHODS: Qualitative data was collected from key informant interviews and community-based focus group discussions. Manual analysis was conducted with a focus on key principles, programme successes and challenges, the operational framework, and any applicable results. RESULTS: Ten programmes were included in the analysis: Ebola, HIV/Hepatitis C, Guinea worm, malaria, nutrition, and water, sanitation and hygiene. Seven focus group discussions (FGDs) with 69 participants, 49 key informant (KI) interviews with programme staff, and 7 KI interviews with thought leaders were conducted between October-April 2018. Participants discussed the critical role that village leaders and community health workers play in CE. Many programmes stated understanding community priorities is key for CE and that CE should be proactive and iterative. A major theme was prioritizing bi-directional interpersonal communication led by local community health workers. Programmes reported that measuring CE is difficult, particularly since CE is ongoing and fluid. CONCLUSIONS: Results overwhelmingly suggest that CE must be an iterative process that relies on early involvement, frequent feedback and active community participation to be successful. Empowering districts and communities in planning and executing community-based interventions is necessary. Communities affected by the disease will ultimately achieve malaria elimination. For this to happen, the community itself must define, believe in, and commit to strategies to interrupt transmission.

Regional initiatives for malaria elimination: Building and maintaining partnerships.

Andrew Lover and colleagues discuss regional malaria initiatives, the strengths and challenges.

Targeting populations at higher risk for malaria: a survey of national malaria elimination programmes in the Asia Pacific.

BACKGROUND: Significant progress has been made in reducing the malaria burden in the Asia Pacific region, which is aggressively pursuing a 2030 regional elimination goal. Moving from malaria control to elimination requires National Malaria Control Programmes (NMCPs) to target interventions at populations at higher risk, who are often not reached by health services, highly mobile and difficult to test, treat, and track with routine measures, and if undiagnosed, can maintain parasite reservoirs and contribute to ongoing transmission. METHODS: A qualitative, free-text questionnaire was developed and disseminated among 17 of the 18 partner countries of the Asia Pacific Malaria Elimination Network (APMEN). RESULTS: All 14 countries that responded to the survey identified key populations at higher risk of malaria in their respective countries. Thirteen countries engage in the dissemination of malaria-related Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) materials. Eight countries engage in diagnostic screening, including of mobile and migrant workers, military staff, and/or overseas workers. Ten countries reported distributing or recommending the use of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) among populations at higher risk with fewer countries engaging in other prevention measures such as indoor residual spraying (IRS) (two countries), spatial repellents (four countries), chemoprophylaxis (five countries), and mass drug administration (MDA) (three countries). Though not specifically tailored to populations at higher risk, 11 countries reported using mass blood surveys as a surveillance tool and ten countries map case data. Most NMCPs lack a monitoring and evaluation structure. CONCLUSION: Countries in the Asia Pacific have identified populations at higher risk and targeted interventions to these groups but there is limited information on the effectiveness of these interventions. Platforms like APMEN offer the opportunity for the sharing of protocols and lessons learned related to finding, targeting and successfully clearing malaria from populations at higher risk. The sharing of programme data across borders may further strengthen national and regional efforts to eliminate malaria. This exchange of real-life experience is invaluable to NMCPs when scarce scientific evidence on the topic exists to aid decision-making and can further support NMCPs to develop strategies that will deliver a malaria-free Asia Pacific by 2030.