Models of effectiveness of interventions against malaria transmitted by Anopheles albimanus.

BACKGROUND: Most impact prediction of malaria vector control interventions has been based on African vectors. Anopheles albimanus, the main vector in Central America and the Caribbean, has higher intrinsic mortality, is more zoophilic and less likely to rest indoors. Therefore, relative impact among interventions may be different. Prioritizing interventions, in particular for eliminating Plasmodium falciparum from Haiti, should consider local vector characteristics. METHODS: Field bionomics data of An. albimanus from Hispaniola and intervention effect data from southern Mexico were used to parameterize mathematical malaria models. Indoor residual spraying (IRS), insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), and house-screening were analysed by inferring their impact on the vectorial capacity in a difference-equation model. Impact of larval source management (LSM) was assumed linear with coverage. Case management, mass drug administration and vaccination were evaluated by estimating their effects on transmission in a susceptible-infected-susceptible model. Analogous analyses were done for Anopheles gambiae parameterized with data from Tanzania, Benin and Nigeria. RESULTS: While LSM was equally effective against both vectors, impact of ITNs on transmission by An. albimanus was much lower than for An. gambiae. Assuming that people are outside until bedtime, this was similar for the impact of IRS with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) or bendiocarb, and impact of IRS was less than that of ITNs. However, assuming people go inside when biting starts, IRS had more impact on An. albimanus than ITNs. While house-screening had less impact than ITNs or IRS on An. gambiae, it had more impact on An. albimanus than ITNs or IRS. The impacts of chemoprevention and chemotherapy were comparable in magnitude to those of strategies against An. albimanus. Chemo-prevention impact increased steeply as coverage approached 100%, whilst clinical-case management impact saturated because of remaining asymptomatic infections. CONCLUSIONS: House-screening and repellent IRS are potentially highly effective against An. albimanus if people are indoors during the evening. This is consistent with historical impacts of IRS with DDT, which can be largely attributed to excito-repellency. It also supports the idea that housing improvements have played a critical role in malaria control in North America. For elimination planning, impact estimates need to be combined with feasibility and cost-analysis.

Mapping multiple components of malaria risk for improved targeting of elimination interventions.

There is a long history of considering the constituent components of malaria risk and the malaria transmission cycle via the use of mathematical models, yet strategic planning in endemic countries tends not to take full advantage of available disease intelligence to tailor interventions. National malaria programmes typically make operational decisions about where to implement vector control and surveillance activities based upon simple categorizations of annual parasite incidence. With technological advances, an enormous opportunity exists to better target specific malaria interventions to the places where they will have greatest impact by mapping and evaluating metrics related to a variety of risk components, each of which describes a different facet of the transmission cycle. Here, these components and their implications for operational decision-making are reviewed. For each component, related mappable malaria metrics are also described which may be measured and evaluated by malaria programmes seeking to better understand the determinants of malaria risk. Implementing tailored programmes based on knowledge of the heterogeneous distribution of the drivers of malaria transmission rather than only consideration of traditional metrics such as case incidence has the potential to result in substantial improvements in decision-making. As programmes improve their ability to prioritize their available tools to the places where evidence suggests they will be most effective, elimination aspirations may become increasingly feasible.

Safety and immunogenicity of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored Ebola vaccine in healthy adults: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 1/2a study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing Ebola outbreak led to accelerated efforts to test vaccine candidates. On the basis of a request by WHO, we aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the monovalent, recombinant, chimpanzee adenovirus type-3 vector-based Ebola Zaire vaccine (ChAd3-EBO-Z). METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 1/2a trial at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland. Participants (aged 18-65 years) were randomly assigned (2:2:1), via two computer-generated randomisation lists for individuals potentially deployed in endemic areas and those not deployed, to receive a single intramuscular dose of high-dose vaccine (5 × 10(10) viral particles), low-dose vaccine (2·5 × 10(10) viral particles), or placebo. Deployed participants were allocated to only the vaccine groups. Group allocation was concealed from non-deployed participants, investigators, and outcome assessors. The safety evaluation was not masked for potentially deployed participants, who were therefore not included in the safety analysis for comparison between the vaccine doses and placebo, but were pooled with the non-deployed group to compare immunogenicity. The main objectives were safety and immunogenicity of ChAd3-EBO-Z. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02289027. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2014, and June 22, 2015, we randomly assigned 120 participants, of whom 18 (15%) were potentially deployed and 102 (85%) were non-deployed, to receive high-dose vaccine (n=49), low-dose vaccine (n=51), or placebo (n=20). Participants were followed up for 6 months. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. We recorded local adverse events in 30 (75%) of 40 participants in the high-dose group, 33 (79%) of 42 participants in the low-dose group, and five (25%) of 20 participants in the placebo group. Fatigue or malaise was the most common systemic adverse event, reported in 25 (62%) participants in the high-dose group, 25 (60%) participants in the low-dose group, and five (25%) participants in the placebo group, followed by headache, reported in 23 (57%), 25 (60%), and three (15%) participants, respectively. Fever occurred 24 h after injection in 12 (30%) participants in the high-dose group and 11 (26%) participants in the low-dose group versus one (5%) participant in the placebo group. Geometric mean concentrations of IgG antibodies against Ebola glycoprotein peaked on day 28 at 51 µg/mL (95% CI 41·1-63·3) in the high-dose group, 44·9 µg/mL (25·8-56·3) in the low-dose group, and 5·2 µg/mL (3·5-7·6) in the placebo group, with respective response rates of 96% (95% CI 85·7-99·5), 96% (86·5-99·5), and 5% (0·1-24·9). Geometric mean concentrations decreased by day 180 to 25·5 µg/mL (95% CI 20·6-31·5) in the high-dose group, 22·1 µg/mL (19·3-28·6) in the low-dose group, and 3·2 µg/mL (2·4-4·9) in the placebo group. 28 (57%) participants given high-dose vaccine and 31 (61%) participants given low-dose vaccine developed glycoprotein-specific CD4 cell responses, and 33 (67%) and 35 (69%), respectively, developed CD8 responses. INTERPRETATION: ChAd3-EBO-Z was safe and well tolerated, although mild to moderate systemic adverse events were common. A single dose was immunogenic in almost all vaccine recipients. Antibody responses were still significantly present at 6 months. There was no significant difference between doses for safety and immunogenicity outcomes. This acceptable safety profile provides a reliable basis to proceed with phase 2 and phase 3 efficacy trials in Africa. FUNDING: Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), through the EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme.