Impact of seasonal malaria chemoprevention based on the number of medicines doses received on malaria burden among children aged 3-59 months in Nigeria: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal malaria chemoprevention using sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine (sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine on Day 1 and amodiaquine on both Day 2 and Day 3) is delivered to children aged 3-59 months in areas of highly season malaria transmission. While the overall population-level impact of seasonal malaria chemoprevention on malaria control has been documented in various countries and time periods, there is no clear evidence regarding seasonal malaria chemoprevention impact based on the number of medicine doses children receive in one cycle in routine programmatic conditions. METHODS: Data were extracted from Nigeria's routinely collected seasonal malaria chemoprevention end-of-round coverage surveys (2021, 2022). We matched seasonal malaria chemoprevention-targeted children who received specific numbers of seasonal malaria chemoprevention medicines with those who did not receive any doses of seasonal malaria chemoprevention medicines (non-sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine) using multiple sets of propensity score matches. We performed multilevel logistic regression for each matched group to evaluate the association between the number of doses of seasonal malaria chemoprevention medicines and monthly confirmed malaria cases (caregiver-reported malaria infection diagnosed by rapid diagnostic test at a health facility following the penultimate cycle of seasonal malaria chemoprevention). RESULTS: Among 21,621 SMC-targeted children, 9.7% received non-sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine, 0.5% received only Day 1 sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine, 1.0% received Day 1 sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine and either Day 2 amodiaquine or Day 3 amodiaquine (sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine + amodiaquine), and 88.8% received Day 1 sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine and both Day 2 and Day 3 amodiaquine (sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine + amodiaquine + amodiaquine). Children receiving only Day 1 sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine did not have significant lower odds of rapid diagnostic tests-confirmed malaria than those receiving non-sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine (OR 0.77, 0.42-1.42). However, children receiving sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine + amodiaquine had significantly lower odds of rapid diagnostic tests-confirmed malaria than those receiving non-sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28-0.63). Similarly, children receiving sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine + amodiaquine + amodiaquine also had significantly lower odds of rapid diagnostic test-confirmed malaria than those receiving non-sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.47-0.62). CONCLUSION: Adherence to at least one daily dose of amodiaquine administration following receipt of Day 1 sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine by eligible children is crucial to ensure the effectiveness of seasonal malaria chemoprevention. This demonstrates the importance of enhancing caregiver awareness regarding the importance of amodiaquine and identifying barriers toward amodiaquine administration at the community level.

Predictors of accessing seasonal malaria chemoprevention medicines through non-door-to-door distribution in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: In Nigeria, seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) is typically administered door-to-door to children under five by community medicine distributors during high transmission seasons. While door-to-door distribution (DDD) is exclusively employed in Nigeria as part of standard operating procedures of SMC programmes, some households access SMC through non-DDD channels, such as fixed-point distributions, health facilities, and private purchase. However, analysis of access to SMC medicines through non-DDD has been limited, with little evidence of its outcomes on adherence to the three-day complete course of SMC medicines and caregiver actions in the event of adverse reactions to SMC medicines. METHODS: Data were obtained from SMC end-of-round coverage surveys conducted in Nigeria in 2021 and 2022, including 25,278 households for the analysis. The proportion of households accessing SMC medicine through non-DDD and the distribution of various non-DDD sources of SMC medicines were described. Multivariate random-effects logistic regression models were performed to identify predictors of accessing SMC medicines through non-DDD. The associations between non-DDD, and caregiver-reporting of adherence to complete administration of SMC medicines and caregiver actions in the event of adverse reactions to SMC medicines were also assessed. RESULTS: Less than 2% (314/24003) of households accessed SMC medicines through non-DDD in the states surveyed. Over 60% of non-DDD access was via health facility personnel and community medicine distributors from different locations. Variables associated with non-DDD access included heads of household being born in the local state (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.90), households residing in the study state since the first cycle of the SMC round (OR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.88), households with high wealth index (OR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.82), and caregivers hearing about date of SMC delivery in the previous cycle (OR = 0.18, 95%CI 0.14 to 0.24). Furthermore, non-DDD was associated with reduced SMC adherence and higher caregiver non-reporting of adverse reactions to SMC medicines in children compared with DDD. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence on the characteristics of households accessing SMC medicines through non-DDD and its potential negative outcomes on adherence to SMC medicine and adverse reaction reporting, underscoring potential implementation issues that may arise if non-DDD delivery models are adopted in SMC, particularly in places where DDD had been firstly used.

A quasi-experimental study to estimate effectiveness of seasonal malaria chemoprevention in Aweil South County in Northern Bahr El Ghazal, South Sudan.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) is an effective intervention to prevent malaria in children in locations where the burden of malaria is high and transmission is seasonal. There is growing evidence suggesting that SMC with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine can retain its high level of effectiveness in East and Southern Africa despite resistance concerns. This study aims to generate evidence on the effectiveness of SMC when delivered under programmatic conditions in an area with an unknown anti-malarial drug resistance profile in the Northern Bahr el-Ghazal region of South Sudan. METHODS: A non-randomized quasi experimental study was conducted to compare an intervention county with a control county. Five monthly SMC cycles were delivered between July and November 2022, targeting about 19,000 children 3-59 months old. Data were obtained from repeated cross-sectional household surveys of caregivers of children aged 3-59 months using cluster sampling. Wave 1 survey took place in both counties before SMC implementation; Waves 2 and 3 took place after the second and fourth monthly SMC cycles. Difference-in-differences analyses were performed by fitting logistic regression models with interactions between county and wave. RESULTS: A total of 2760 children were sampled in the study across the three survey waves in both study counties. Children in the intervention arm had 70% lower odds of caregiver-reported fever relative to those in the control arm during the one-month period prior to Wave 2 (OR: 0.30, 95% CI 0.12-0.70, p = 0.003), and 37% lower odds in Wave 3 (OR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.22-1.59, p = 0.306) after controlling for baseline difference between counties in Wave 1. Odds of caregiver-reported RDT-confirmed malaria were 82% lower in the previous 1-month period prior to Wave 2 (OR: 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.49, p = 0.001) and Wave 3 (OR: 0.18, 95% CI 0.06-0.54, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: These results show high effectiveness of SMC using SPAQ in terms of reducing malaria disease during the high transmission season in children 3-59 month. Despite the promising results, additional evidence and insights from chemoprevention efficacy cohort studies, and analyses of relevant resistance markers, are required to assess the suitability of SMC for this specific context.

Metformin combined with spironolactone vs. metformin alone in polycystic ovary syndrome: a meta-analysis.

Aims: Due to its high heterogenicity and unclear etiology, there is currently no specific treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Metformin, as an insulin sensitizer, combined with spironolactone, an antiandrogen medication, may exert complementary effects on PCOS. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of trials in which metformin combined with spironolactone was applied to treat PCOS to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy. Methods: We retrieved the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wangfang, and VIP databases for literatures published from their inception to December 16, 2022 on the effects of metformin combined with spironolactone in the treatment of PCOS. Inclusion criteria according to P.I.C.O.S criteria were: PCOS patients, metformin combined with spironolactone interventions, metformin alone control group, and randomized controlled trials with the following outcome data: body mass index (BMI), hirsutism score, luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), total testosterone (TT), fasting blood glucose (FBG), Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), and side effects including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and drug withdrawal. Results: Our results revealed that metformin combined with spironolactone significantly reduced BMI and TT, but that it exerted no significant effects on hirsutism score, or on FSH or LH concentrations. Combined treatment also resulted in a significant diminution in FBG and insulin resistance using the HOMA-IR when the interventional time was greater than 6 months. In addition, the combination did not have a higher occurrence of adverse reactions than metformin alone. Conclusion: Compared with metformin alone, metformin combined with spironolactone therapy may be more effective in reducing BMI and serum androgen levels, but the combination showed no significant effect on the hirsutism score or gonadotropin hormone levels, and was not associated with an elevation in side-effects. Moreover, when the treatment course was greater than 6 months, combination therapy reduced FBG and improved insulin resistance more effectively than metformin alone. However, more research is needed to determine the most effective course of treatment. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022355515.