| Literature DB >> 27074734 |
Khodadad Sheikhzadeh1, Ali Akbar Haghdoost2, Abbas Bahrampour1, Farzaneh Zolala1, Ahmad Raeisi3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controlling and preventive measures considerably reduced malaria incidence in Iran over the past few years, which confined the endemic areas to some regions in the southeastern Iran. The National Malaria Elimination Programme commenced in 2010. With regard to the presumption that the elimination programme interventions have accelerated the declining trend of malaria incidence across the endemic areas of Iran, the present study attempted to assess the effectiveness of the elimination programme by reviewing malaria incidence status, over a 14-year period, and comparing the trend of malaria incidence across malaria-endemic areas between the control and pre-elimination phase, and the elimination phase.Entities:
Keywords: Iran; Malaria elimination; Multilevel; Poisson
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27074734 PMCID: PMC4831192 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-016-1267-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Area of the study
Fig. 2Trends in malaria cases in the endemic areas of Iran by parasite species (a), gender (b), nationality (c), age group (d) and 2001–2014
Fig. 3Malaria indices (%) in the endemic parts of Iran according to parasite species (a), transmission routes (b), nationality (c), sex (d) and age (e); (2001–2014)
The impact of elimination programme on malaria incidence in Iran; comparison of two time periods
| Pre-elimination phasea | Elimination phasea | Interactionc ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IRRb | CI |
| IRR | CI |
| ||||
| Total cases | 0.919 | 0.917 | 0.922 | 0.0001 | 0.738 | 0.727 | 0.750 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 |
|
| 0.938 | 0.936 | 0.940 | 0.0001 | 0.739 | 0.727 | 0.751 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 |
|
| 0.800 | 0.795 | 0.806 | 0.0001 | 0.735 | 0.708 | 0.764 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 |
| Autochthonousd | 0.924 | 0.922 | 0.927 | 0.0001 | 0.645 | 0.630 | 0.661 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 |
| Imported | 0.907 | 0.903 | 0.912 | 0.0001 | 0.817 | 0.800 | 0.833 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 |
| Iranian | 0.943 | 0.940 | 0.945 | 0.0001 | 0.734 | 0.719 | 0.749 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 |
| Non-Iranian | 0.823 | 0.818 | 0.827 | 0.0001 | 0.744 | 0.726 | 0.762 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 |
aPre-elimination phase: 2001–2009; Elimination phase: 2010–2015
bIncidence Rate Ratio for the linear effects of time (year), which indicates that how much malaria incidence of a certain year has changed compared to the previous year, on average. A value of 1 indicates that the incidence has remained roughly constant, and values less than 1 indicate a declining trend in the incidence; the more this value grows smaller, the higher will be the decline rate
cInteraction between phase and year; the small P-value (less than 0.05) of this coefficient indicates the significant difference of the risk ratio of annual incidence decline in the pre-elimination to the elimination phase, it can, therefore, be concluded that for all the compared groups, the speed of annual decline rate in the elimination phase was significantly higher than the previous phase
dLocal malaria transmission in the endemic counties
Fig. 4Comparison of geographical distribution of annual malaria incidence between 2009, before starting the elimination phase (the left column), and 2014 (the right column)
Comparison of different malaria indices (CI) between control and pre-elimination phase (CP) and elimination phase (EP) in endemic areas of Iran, by parasites species and transmission routes—2001–2014
| Parasite | Transmission | Nationality | Sex | Age over | Case detectionb
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CP | EP | CP | EP | CP | EP | CP | EP | ||
|
| A | 16.8 (8.7–24.9) | 4.9 (2.9–6.8) | 1.5 (1.4–1.6) | 2.3 (1.9–2.6) | 1.3 (1.1–1.4) | 2.5 (2.0–2.8) | 1.5 (1.2–1.7) | 1.1 (0.9–1.3) |
| I | 1.0 (0.8–1.1) | 0.8 (0.6–0.9) | 2.8 (2.4–3.2) | 4.4 (3.9–4.9) | 2.3 (1.8–2.8) | 4.0 (3.5–4.5) | 0.5 (0.4–0.5) | 0.7 (0.6–0.8) | |
| S | 5.9 (4.2–7.6) | 1.7 (1.2–2.0) | 1.6 (1.5–1.8) | 3.1 (2.7–3.5) | 1.4 (1.3–1.6) | 3.1 (2.8–3.5) | 1.2 (1.0–1.4) | 0.9 (0.8–1.0) | |
|
| A | 4.3 (1.0–7.6) | 3.1 (1.7–4.6) | 1.8 (1.4–2.3) | 3.0 (2.3–3.7) | 2.0 (1.5–2.5) | 3.9 (3.0–4.9) | 0.6 (0.5–0.8) | 0.8 (0.6–1.0) |
| I | 0.6 (0.4–0.7) | 0.7 (0.5–08) | 2.7 (2.0–3.4) | 5.8 (4.4–7.1) | 2.2 (1.2–3.1) | 5.0 (4.2–5.9) | 0.4 (0.3–0.5) | 0.6 (0.5–0.8) | |
| S | 1.5 (1.0–2.0) | 1.0 (0.8–1.2) | 2.2 (1.8–2.6) | 4.6 (4.0–5.2) | 2.0 (1.6–2.6) | 4.7 (4.0–5.3) | 0.5 (0.4–0.6) | 0.7 (0.6–0.8) | |
| Total | 4.6 (3.2–5.9) | 1.5 (1.2–1.8) | 1.7 (1.6–1.8) | 3.3 (3.0–3.6) | 1.5 (1.3–1.7) | 3.3 (3.0–3.6) | 1.1 (0.9–1.3) | 0.9 (0.8–0.9) | |
A autochthonous, I imported, S sum
aAll of the ratios examined statistically using multilevel Poisson regression with interaction terms for the phase (CP in compare to the EP). In all of the models, the interaction terms between the phase and the ratios were statistically significant except for the Iranian to non-Iranian ratio in imported vivax cases
bGiven the high coverage of malaria laboratories and their accessibility, Passive Case Detection (PCD) takes place in all endemic rural and urban areas by examining blood smears for all suspected cases who attend the health units. Active Case Detection (ACD) is carried out as a routine activity by health worker through household visits in all endemic rural areas but in the urban areas it is limited to the active foci