Bottlenecks and Solutions During Implementation of the DREAMS Program for Adolescent Girls and Young Women in Namibia.

BACKGROUND: We synthesize implementation bottlenecks experienced while implementing the DREAMS (Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored, and Safe) program, an HIV prevention intervention for adolescent girls and young women (AGYW), in Namibia from 2017 to 2019. Bottlenecks were organized into the following 4 AGYW program components. PROGRAM ACCESS: Enrollment was slowed by the time-intensive nature of screening and other baseline data collection requirements, delays in acquiring parental consent, and limited time for after-school activities. Solutions included obtaining advance consent and providing 1-stop service delivery and transportation assistance. HEALTH EDUCATION: We experienced difficulty identifying safe spaces for AGYW to meet. A lack of tailored curricula also impeded activities. Governments, stakeholders, and partners can plan ahead to help DREAMS identify appropriate safe spaces. Curricula should be identified and adapted before implementation. HEALTH SERVICES: Uneven availability of government-provided commodities (e.g., condoms, preexposure prophylaxis [PrEP], family planning products) and lack of AGYW-centered PrEP delivery approaches impacted services. Better forecasting of commodity needs and government commitment to supply chain strengthening will help ensure adequate program stock. SOCIAL SERVICES: The availability of only centralized care following gender-based violence (GBV) and the limited number of government social workers to manage GBV cases constrained service provision. Triaging GBV cases-i.e., referring high-risk cases to government social workers and providing DREAMS-specific social services for other cases-can ensure proper caseload management. CONCLUSION: These bottlenecks highlight practical implementation issues and higher-level considerations for AGYW-centered HIV prevention programs. The critical need for multilayered programming for HIV/GBV prevention in AGYW cannot be addressed simply with additional funds but requires multilevel collaboration and forecasting. The urgency to achieve results must be balanced with the need for adequate implementation preparedness.

Cost and cost effectiveness of reactive case detection (RACD), reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) to reduce malaria in the low endemic setting of Namibia: an analysis alongside a 2×2 factorial design cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost and cost effectiveness of reactive case detection (RACD), reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) to reduce malaria in a low endemic setting. SETTING: The study was part of a 2×2 factorial design cluster randomised controlled trial within the catchment area of 11 primary health facilities in Zambezi, Namibia. PARTICIPANTS: Cost and outcome data were collected from the trial, which included 8948 community members that received interventions due to their residence within 500 m of malaria index cases. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per in incident case averted. ICER per prevalent case and per disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted were secondary outcomes, as were per unit interventions costs and personnel time. Outcomes were compared as: (1) rfMDA versus RACD, (2) RAVC versus no RAVC and (3) rfMDA+RAVC versus RACD only. RESULTS: rfMDA cost 1.1× more than RACD, and RAVC cost 1.7× more than no RAVC. Relative to RACD only, the cost of rfMDA+RAVC was double ($3082 vs $1553 per event). The ICERs for rfMDA versus RACD, RAVC versus no RAVC and rfMDA+RAVC versus RACD only were $114, $1472 and $842, per incident case averted, respectively. Using prevalent infections and DALYs as outcomes, trends were similar. The median personnel time to implement rfMDA was 20% lower than for RACD (30 vs 38 min per person). The median personnel time for RAVC was 34 min per structure sprayed. CONCLUSION: Implemented alone or in combination, rfMDA and RAVC were cost effective in reducing malaria incidence and prevalence despite higher implementation costs in the intervention compared with control arms. Compared with RACD, rfMDA was time saving. Cost and time requirements for the combined intervention could be decreased by implementing rfMDA and RAVC simultaneously by a single team. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02610400; Post-results.

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.