Monitoring Temporal Changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike Antibody Levels and Variant-Specific Risk for Infection, Dominican Republic, March 2021-August 2022.

To assess changes in SARS-CoV-2 spike binding antibody prevalence in the Dominican Republic and implications for immunologic protection against variants of concern, we prospectively enrolled 2,300 patients with undifferentiated febrile illnesses in a study during March 2021-August 2022. We tested serum samples for spike antibodies and tested nasopharyngeal samples for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection using a reverse transcription PCR nucleic acid amplification test. Geometric mean spike antibody titers increased from 6.6 (95% CI 5.1-8.7) binding antibody units (BAU)/mL during March-June 2021 to 1,332 (95% CI 1,055-1,682) BAU/mL during May-August 2022. Multivariable binomial odds ratios for acute infection were 0.55 (95% CI 0.40-0.74), 0.38 (95% CI 0.27-0.55), and 0.27 (95% CI 0.18-0.40) for the second, third, and fourth versus the first anti-spike quartile; findings were similar by viral strain. Combining serologic and virologic screening might enable monitoring of discrete population immunologic markers and their implications for emergent variant transmission.

Serological evaluation of the effectiveness of reactive focal mass drug administration and reactive vector control to reduce malaria transmission in Zambezi Region, Namibia: Results from a secondary analysis of a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Due to challenges in measuring changes in malaria at low transmission, serology is increasingly being used to complement clinical and parasitological surveillance. Longitudinal studies have shown that serological markers, such as Etramp5.Ag1, can reflect spatio-temporal differences in malaria transmission. However, these markers have yet to be used as endpoints in intervention trials. METHODS: Based on data from a 2017 cluster randomised trial conducted in Zambezi Region, Namibia, evaluating the effectiveness of reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) and reactive vector control (RAVC), this study conducted a secondary analysis comparing antibody responses between intervention arms as trial endpoints. Antibody responses were measured on a multiplex immunoassay, using a panel of eight serological markers of Plasmodium falciparum infection - Etramp5.Ag1, GEXP18, HSP40.Ag1, Rh2.2030, EBA175, PfMSP119, PfAMA1, and PfGLURP.R2. FINDINGS: Reductions in sero-prevalence to antigens Etramp.Ag1, PfMSP119, Rh2.2030, and PfAMA1 were observed in study arms combining rfMDA and RAVC, but only effects for Etramp5.Ag1 were statistically significant. Etramp5.Ag1 sero-prevalence was significantly lower in all intervention arms. Compared to the reference arms, adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) for Etramp5.Ag1 was 0.78 (95%CI 0.65 - 0.91, p = 0.0007) in the rfMDA arms and 0.79 (95%CI 0.67 - 0.92, p = 0.001) in the RAVC arms. For the combined rfMDA plus RAVC intervention, aPR was 0.59 (95%CI 0.46 - 0.76, p < 0.0001). Significant reductions were also observed based on continuous antibody responses. Sero-prevalence as an endpoint was found to achieve higher study power (99.9% power to detect a 50% reduction in prevalence) compared to quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) prevalence (72.9% power to detect a 50% reduction in prevalence). INTERPRETATION: While the observed relative reduction in qPCR prevalence in the study was greater than serology, the use of serological endpoints to evaluate trial outcomes measured effect size with improved precision and study power. Serology has clear application in cluster randomised trials, particularly in settings where measuring clinical incidence or infection is less reliable due to seasonal fluctuations, limitations in health care seeking, or incomplete testing and reporting. FUNDING: This study was supported by Novartis Foundation (A122666), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1160129), and the Horchow Family Fund (5,300,375,400).

Malaria risk factors in northern Namibia: The importance of occupation, age and mobility in characterizing high-risk populations.

In areas of low and unstable transmission, malaria cases occur in populations with lower access to malaria services and interventions, and in groups with specific malaria risk exposures often away from the household. In support of the Namibian National Vector Borne Disease Program's drive to better target interventions based upon risk, we implemented a health facility-based case control study aimed to identify risk factors for symptomatic malaria in Zambezi Region, northern Namibia. A total of 770 febrile individuals reporting to 6 health facilities and testing positive by rapid diagnostic test (RDT) between February 2015 and April 2016 were recruited as cases; 641 febrile individuals testing negative by RDT at the same health facilities through June 2016 were recruited as controls. Data on socio-demographics, housing construction, overnight travel, use of malaria prevention and outdoor behaviors at night were collected through interview and recorded on a tablet-based questionnaire. Remotely-sensed environmental data were extracted for geo-located village residence locations. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors and latent class analyses (LCA) used to identify and characterize high-risk subgroups. The majority of participants (87% of cases and 69% of controls) were recruited during the 2016 transmission season, an outbreak year in Southern Africa. After adjustment, cases were more likely to be cattle herders (Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR): 4.46 95%CI 1.05-18.96), members of the police or other security personnel (aOR: 4.60 95%CI: 1.16-18.16), and pensioners/unemployed persons (aOR: 2.25 95%CI 1.24-4.08), compared to agricultural workers (most common category). Children (aOR 2.28 95%CI 1.13-4.59) and self-identified students were at higher risk of malaria (aOR: 4.32 95%CI 2.31-8.10). Other actionable risk factors for malaria included housing and behavioral characteristics, including traditional home construction and sleeping in an open structure (versus modern structure: aOR: 2.01 95%CI 1.45-2.79 and aOR: 4.76 95%CI: 2.14-10.57); cross border travel in the prior 30 days (aOR: 10.55 95%CI 2.94-37.84); and outdoor agricultural work at night (aOR: 2.09 95%CI 1.12-3.87). Malaria preventive activities were all protective and included personal use of an insecticide treated net (ITN) (aOR: 0.61 95%CI 0.42-0.87), adequate household ITN coverage (aOR: 0.63 95%CI 0.42-0.94), and household indoor residual spraying (IRS) in the past year (versus never sprayed: (aOR: 0.63 95%CI 0.44-0.90). A number of environmental factors were associated with increased risk of malaria, including lower temperatures, higher rainfall and increased vegetation for the 30 days prior to diagnosis and residing more than 5 minutes from a health facility. LCA identified six classes of cases, with class membership strongly correlated with occupation, age and select behavioral risk factors. Use of ITNs and IRS coverage was similarly low across classes. For malaria elimination these high-risk groups will need targeted and tailored intervention strategies, for example, by implementing alternative delivery methods of interventions through schools and worksites, as well as the use of specific interventions that address outdoor transmission.

Community acceptance of reactive focal mass drug administration and reactive focal vector control using indoor residual spraying, a mixed-methods study in Zambezi region, Namibia.

BACKGROUND: In Namibia, as in many malaria elimination settings, reactive case detection (RACD), or malaria testing and treatment around index cases, is a standard intervention. Reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA), or treatment without testing, and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) in the form of indoor residual spraying, are alternative or adjunctive interventions, but there are limited data regarding their community acceptability. METHODS: A parent trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of rfMDA versus RACD, RAVC versus no RAVC, and rfMDA + RAVC versus RACD only. To assess acceptability of these interventions, a mixed-methods study was conducted using key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) in three rounds (pre-trial and in years 1 and 2 of the trial), and an endline survey. RESULTS: In total, 17 KIIs, 49 FGDs were conducted with 449 people over three annual rounds of qualitative data collection. Pre-trial, community members more accurately predicted the level of community acceptability than key stakeholders. Throughout the trial, key participant motivators included: malaria risk perception, access to free community-based healthcare and IRS, and community education by respectful study teams. RACD or rfMDA were offered to 1372 and 8948 individuals in years 1 and 2, respectively, and refusal rates were low (< 2%). RAVC was offered to few households (n = 72) in year 1. In year 2, RAVC was offered to more households (n = 944) and refusals were < 1%. In the endline survey, 94.3% of 2147 respondents said they would participate in the same intervention again. CONCLUSIONS: Communities found both reactive focal interventions and their combination highly acceptable. Engaging communities and centering and incorporating their perspectives and experiences during design, implementation, and evaluation of this community-based intervention was critical for optimizing study engagement.

Effectiveness of reactive focal mass drug administration and reactive focal vector control to reduce malaria transmission in the low malaria-endemic setting of Namibia: a cluster-randomised controlled, open-label, two-by-two factorial design trial.

BACKGROUND: In low malaria-endemic settings, screening and treatment of individuals in close proximity to index cases, also known as reactive case detection (RACD), is practised for surveillance and response. However, other approaches could be more effective for reducing transmission. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) in the low malaria-endemic setting of Zambezi (Namibia). METHODS: We did a cluster-randomised controlled, open-label trial using a two-by-two factorial design of 56 enumeration area clusters in the low malaria-endemic setting of Zambezi (Namibia). We randomly assigned these clusters using restricted randomisation to four groups: RACD only, rfMDA only, RAVC plus RACD, or rfMDA plus RAVC. RACD involved rapid diagnostic testing and treatment with artemether-lumefantrine and single-dose primaquine, rfMDA involved presumptive treatment with artemether-lumefantrine, and RAVC involved indoor residual spraying with pirimiphos-methyl. Interventions were administered within 500 m of index cases. To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions targeting the parasite reservoir in humans (rfMDA vs RACD), in mosquitoes (RAVC vs no RAVC), and in both humans and mosquitoes (rfMDA plus RAVC vs RACD only), an intention-to-treat analysis was done. For each of the three comparisons, the primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of locally acquired malaria cases. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02610400. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2017, and Dec 31, 2017, 55 enumeration area clusters had 1118 eligible index cases that led to 342 interventions covering 8948 individuals. The cumulative incidence of locally acquired malaria was 30·8 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 12·8-48·7) in the clusters that received rfMDA versus 38·3 per 1000 person-years (23·0-53·6) in the clusters that received RACD; 30·2 per 1000 person-years (15·0-45·5) in the clusters that received RAVC versus 38·9 per 1000 person-years (20·7-57·1) in the clusters that did not receive RAVC; and 25·0 per 1000 person-years (5·2-44·7) in the clusters that received rfMDA plus RAVC versus 41·4 per 1000 person-years (21·5-61·2) in the clusters that received RACD only. After adjusting for imbalances in baseline and implementation factors, the incidence of malaria was lower in clusters receiving rfMDA than in those receiving RACD (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0·52 [95% CI 0·16-0·88], p=0·009), lower in clusters receiving RAVC than in those that did not (0·48 [0·16-0·80], p=0·002), and lower in clusters that received rfMDA plus RAVC than in those receiving RACD only (0·26 [0·10-0·68], p=0·006). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: In a low malaria-endemic setting, rfMDA and RAVC, implemented alone and in combination, reduced malaria transmission and should be considered as alternatives to RACD for elimination of malaria. FUNDING: Novartis Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Horchow Family Fund.

Study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled factorial design trial to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of reactive focal mass drug administration and vector control to reduce malaria transmission in the low endemic setting of Namibia.

INTRODUCTION: To interrupt malaria transmission, strategies must target the parasite reservoir in both humans and mosquitos. Testing of community members linked to an index case, termed reactive case detection (RACD), is commonly implemented in low transmission areas, though its impact may be limited by the sensitivity of current diagnostics. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) before malaria season is a cornerstone of vector control efforts. Despite their implementation in Namibia, a country approaching elimination, these methods have been met with recent plateaus in transmission reduction. This study evaluates the effectiveness and feasibility of two new targeted strategies, reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) in Namibia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an open-label cluster randomised controlled trial with 2×2 factorial design. The interventions include: rfMDA (presumptive treatment with artemether-lumefantrine (AL)) versus RACD (rapid diagnostic testing and treatment using AL) and RAVC (IRS with Acellic 300CS) versus no RAVC. Factorial design also enables comparison of the combined rfMDA+RAVC intervention to RACD. Participants living in 56 enumeration areas will be randomised to one of four arms: rfMDA, rfMDA+RAVC, RACD or RACD+RAVC. These interventions, triggered by index cases detected at health facilities, will be targeted to individuals residing within 500 m of an index. The primary outcome is cumulative incidence of locally acquired malaria detected at health facilities over 1 year. Secondary outcomes include seroprevalence, infection prevalence, intervention coverage, safety, acceptability, adherence, cost and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Findings will be reported on clinicaltrials.gov, in peer-reviewed publications and through stakeholder meetings with MoHSS and community leaders in Namibia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02610400; Pre-results.

Tackling imported malaria: an elimination endgame.

As countries move toward malaria elimination, imported infections become increasingly significant as they often represent the majority of cases, can sustain transmission, cause resurgences, and lead to mortality. Here we review and critique current methods to prevent malaria importation in countries pursuing elimination and explore methods applied in other transmission settings and to other diseases that could be transferred to support malaria elimination. To improve intervention targeting we need a better understanding of the characteristics of populations importing infections and their patterns of migration, improved methods to reliably classify infections as imported or acquired locally, and ensure early and accurate diagnosis. The potential for onward transmission in the most receptive and vulnerable locations can be predicted through high-resolution risk mapping that can help malaria elimination or prevention of reintroduction programs target resources. Cross border and regional initiatives can be highly effective when based on an understanding of human and parasite movement. Ultimately, determining the optimal combinations of approaches to address malaria importation will require an evaluation of their impact, cost effectiveness, and operational feasibility.

Information systems to support surveillance for malaria elimination.

Robust and responsive surveillance systems are critical for malaria elimination. The ideal information system that supports malaria elimination includes: rapid and complete case reporting, incorporation of related data, such as census or health survey information, central data storage and management, automated and expert data analysis, and customized outputs and feedback that lead to timely and targeted responses. Spatial information enhances such a system, ensuring cases are tracked and mapped over time. Data sharing and coordination across borders are vital and new technologies can improve data speed, accuracy, and quality. Parts of this ideal information system exist and are in use, but have yet to be linked together coherently. Malaria elimination programs should support the implementation and refinement of information systems to support surveillance and response and ensure political and financial commitment to maintain the systems and the human resources needed to run them. National malaria programs should strive to improve the access and utility of these information systems and establish cross-border data sharing mechanisms through the use of standard indicators for malaria surveillance. Ultimately, investment in the information technologies that support a timely and targeted surveillance and response system is essential for malaria elimination.