Malaria transmission in landscapes with varying deforestation levels and timelines in the Amazon: a longitudinal spatiotemporal study.

The relationship between deforestation and malaria is a spatiotemporal process of variation in Plasmodium incidence in human-dominated Amazonian rural environments. The present study aimed to assess the underlying mechanisms of malarial exposure risk at a fine scale in 5-km2 sites across the Brazilian Amazon, using field-collected data with a longitudinal spatiotemporally structured approach. Anopheline mosquitoes were sampled from 80 sites to investigate the Plasmodium infection rate in mosquito communities and to estimate the malaria exposure risk in rural landscapes. The remaining amount of forest cover (accumulated deforestation) and the deforestation timeline were estimated in each site to represent the main parameters of both the frontier malaria hypothesis and an alternate scenario, the deforestation-malaria hypothesis, proposed herein. The maximum frequency of pathogenic sites occurred at the intermediate forest cover level (50% of accumulated deforestation) at two temporal deforestation peaks, e.g., 10 and 35 years after the beginning of the organization of a settlement. The incidence density of infected anophelines in sites where the original forest cover decreased by more than 50% in the first 25 years of settlement development was at least twice as high as the incidence density calculated for the other sites studied (adjusted incidence density ratio = 2.25; 95% CI, 1.38-3.68; p = 0.001). The results of this study support the frontier malaria as a unifying hypothesis for explaining malaria emergence and for designing specific control interventions in the Brazilian Amazon.

Socioeconomic and demographic characterization of an endemic malaria region in Brazil by multiple correspondence analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the process of geographical retraction of malaria, some important endemicity pockets remain. Here, we report results from a study developed to obtain detailed community data from an important malaria hotspot in Latin America (Alto Juruá, Acre, Brazil), to investigate the association of malaria with socioeconomic, demographic and living conditions. METHODS: A household survey was conducted in 40 localities (n = 520) of Mâncio Lima and Rodrigues Alves municipalities, Acre state. Information on previous malaria, schooling, age, gender, income, occupation, household structure, habits and behaviors related to malaria exposure was collected. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was applied to characterize similarities between households and identify gradients. The association of these gradients with malaria was assessed using regression. RESULTS: The first three dimensions of MCA accounted for almost 50% of the variability between households. The first dimension defined an urban/rurality gradient, where urbanization was associated with the presence of roads, basic services as garbage collection, water treatment, power grid energy, and less contact with the forest. There is a significant association between this axis and the probability of malaria at the household level, OR = 1.92 (1.23-3.02). The second dimension described a gradient from rural settlements in agricultural areas to those in forested areas. Access via dirt road or river, access to electricity power-grid services and aquaculture were important variables. Malaria was at lower risk at the forested area, OR = 0.55 (1.23-1.12). The third axis detected intraurban differences and did not correlate with malaria. CONCLUSIONS: Living conditions in the study area are strongly geographically structured. Although malaria is found throughout all the landscapes, household traits can explain part of the variation found in the odds of having malaria. It is expected these results stimulate further discussions on modelling approaches targeting a more systemic and multi-level view of malaria dynamics.

Correction to: Socioeconomic and demographic characterization of an endemic malaria region in Brazil by multiple correspondence analysis.

After publication of the article [1], it has been brought to our attention that the y-axis of Fig. 6 has been labeled incorrectly. It should read "linear predictor". This has now been corrected in the original article.