Hans Van Remoortel1, Emmy De Buck1, Maneesh Singhal2, Philippe Vandekerckhove1,3,4, Satya P Agarwal5. 1. Belgian Red Cross-Flanders, Mechelen, Belgium. 2. Department of Trauma Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 3. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. 5. Indian Red Cross Society, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: India is the most malaria-endemic country in South-East Asia, resulting in a high socio-economic burden. Insecticide-treated or untreated nets are effective interventions to prevent malaria. As part of an Indian first-aid guideline project, we aimed to investigate the magnitude of this effect in India. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Central to systematically review Indian studies on the effectiveness of treated or untreated vs. no nets. Parasite prevalence and annual parasite incidence served as malaria outcomes. The overall effect was investigated by performing meta-analyses and calculating the pooled risk ratios (RR) and incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: Of 479 articles, we finally retained 16 Indian studies. Untreated nets decreased the risk of parasite prevalence compared to no nets [RR 0.69 (95% CI; 0.55, 0.87) in high-endemic areas, RR 0.49 (95% CI; 0.28, 0.84) in low-endemic areas], as was the case but more pronounced for treated nets [RR 0.35 (95% CI; 0.26, 0.47) in high-endemic areas, risk ratio 0.16 (95% CI; 0.06, 0.44) in low-endemic areas]. Incidence rate ratios showed a similar observation: a significantly reduced rate of parasites in the blood for untreated nets vs. no nets, which was more pronounced in low-endemic areas and for those who used treated nets. The average effect of treated nets (vs. no nets) on parasite prevalence was higher in Indian studies (RR 0.16-0.35) than in non-Indian studies (data derived from a Cochrane systematic review; RR 0.58-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Both treated and untreated nets have a clear protective effect against malaria in the Indian context. This effect is more pronounced there than in other countries.
OBJECTIVES: India is the most malaria-endemic country in South-East Asia, resulting in a high socio-economic burden. Insecticide-treated or untreated nets are effective interventions to prevent malaria. As part of an Indian first-aid guideline project, we aimed to investigate the magnitude of this effect in India. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Central to systematically review Indian studies on the effectiveness of treated or untreated vs. no nets. Parasite prevalence and annual parasite incidence served as malaria outcomes. The overall effect was investigated by performing meta-analyses and calculating the pooled risk ratios (RR) and incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: Of 479 articles, we finally retained 16 Indian studies. Untreated nets decreased the risk of parasite prevalence compared to no nets [RR 0.69 (95% CI; 0.55, 0.87) in high-endemic areas, RR 0.49 (95% CI; 0.28, 0.84) in low-endemic areas], as was the case but more pronounced for treated nets [RR 0.35 (95% CI; 0.26, 0.47) in high-endemic areas, risk ratio 0.16 (95% CI; 0.06, 0.44) in low-endemic areas]. Incidence rate ratios showed a similar observation: a significantly reduced rate of parasites in the blood for untreated nets vs. no nets, which was more pronounced in low-endemic areas and for those who used treated nets. The average effect of treated nets (vs. no nets) on parasite prevalence was higher in Indian studies (RR 0.16-0.35) than in non-Indian studies (data derived from a Cochrane systematic review; RR 0.58-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Both treated and untreated nets have a clear protective effect against malaria in the Indian context. This effect is more pronounced there than in other countries.
Authors: Jessica L Waite; Sunita Swain; Penelope A Lynch; S K Sharma; Mohammed Asrarul Haque; Jacqui Montgomery; Matthew B Thomas Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Mattimi Passah; Carinthia Balabet Nengnong; Mark L Wilson; Jane M Carlton; Larry Kharbamon; Sandra Albert Journal: Malar J Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Kinley Wangdi; Luis Furuya-Kanamori; Justin Clark; Jan J Barendregt; Michelle L Gatton; Cathy Banwell; Gerard C Kelly; Suhail A R Doi; Archie C A Clements Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Phoutnalong Vilay; Daisuke Nonaka; Phosadeth Senamonty; Malayvanh Lao; Moritoshi Iwagami; Jun Kobayashi; Paul Michael Hernandez; Ketkesone Phrasisombath; Sengchanh Kounnavong; Bouasy Hongvanthong; Paul T Brey; Shigeyuki Kano Journal: Trop Med Health Date: 2019-01-25