| Literature DB >> 27538889 |
Eline Korenromp1, Guy Mahiané2, Matthew Hamilton2, Carel Pretorius2, Richard Cibulskis3, Jeremy Lauer4, Thomas A Smith5,6, Olivier J T Briët5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scale-up of malaria prevention and treatment needs to continue to further important gains made in the past decade, but national strategies and budget allocations are not always evidence-based. Statistical models were developed summarizing dynamically simulated relations between increases in coverage and intervention impact, to inform a malaria module in the Spectrum health programme planning tool.Entities:
Keywords: Health impact; Indoor residual spraying; Insecticide-treated mosquito nets; Malaria; Modelling; Morbidity; Mortality; Prevention; Programme planning; Treatment; Vector control
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27538889 PMCID: PMC4991118 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-016-1461-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Design of simulations in OpenMalaria dynamic transmission model
| Parameter | Parameter values specifying simulations |
|---|---|
| Transmission seasonality | Low seasonal: 0.121 |
| Pre-intervention annual EIR (infectious bites per person per year) during simulation’s warm-up phase before IRS intervention starts | 1, 3, 10, 30, 100 and 300 |
| ITN coverage: people sleeping under ITN the previous night | Initial: 0, 30, 60 % |
| IRS coverage: people protected | Initial: 0, 80 % |
| Case management: uncomplicated cases treated effectively | Initial: 0, 30, 60 % |
| Seasonal malaria chemoprophylaxis: children 3–59 months old receiving three courses within a malaria season | Initial: 0 % |
Fig. 1Proportional reductions in malaria case incidence in 0–4-year-olds, 1–3 years after intervention scale-up. a ITNs, b IRS, c case management, d SMC. The four hypothetical provinces had seasonality values at the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of seasonality CVs across Admin1 units in sub-Saharan Africa [2, 28]; for each of these two seasonality CV values, selected PfPR values were the 10th and 90th percentile of distributions of simulated PfPR in 2–9 years averaged over 2000–2002 in the subset of OpenMalaria scenarios with 0 % initial coverage of all interventions: i.e. for a low seasonality CV of 0.2, PfPR values of 11 and 82 %; and for the high seasonality CV of 2.5, PfPR values of 0.3 and 71 %, respectively
Fig. 2Impact of up scaling coverage from 0 to 60 % for Admin1 units with a high; b low PfPR. Estimates from statistical models, as averages for a two Admin1 units with high (71 and 82 %) baseline PfPR in 2–9 years; b two Admin1 units with low (0.3 and 11 %) baseline in PfPR in 2–9 years
Fig. 3Proportional reductions in case incidence in 0–4-year-olds 8–10 years following ITN and/or CM scale-up. Estimated by statistical models, averaged over four hypothetical Admin1 units. Left ITN scale-up from 0 to 60 %, by level of target CM coverage; Right CM scale-up 0–60 %, by level of target ITN coverage; Top Average over two Admin1 units with high (71 and 82 %) baseline PfPR in 2–9 years; Bottom Average over two Admin1 units with low (0.3 and 11 %) baseline PfPR in 2–9 years
Fig. 4ITN impact on malaria outcomes: comparison between ITN trial observations and statistical model predictions. For calculation details and sources, see Additional file 3
Statistical performance of selected and alternative statistical impact prediction models
| Statistical model | Metric | Health burden outcome, and time period from intervention start | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case incidence 0–4 years, years 1–3 | Case incidence 0–4 years, years 4–6 | Malaria mortality 0–4 years, years 8–10 | Malaria mortality 15+ years, years 8–10 | ||
| Coefficient of variation, i.e. ratio of standard deviation of the simulated distribution to the mean (does not depend on the statistical model) | 125 % | 129 % | 138 % | 279 % | |
| Variance in simulated outcomes (does not depend on statistical model) | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.04e−4 | 3.1e−6 | |
| Selected (best) model: simulated 0 values imputed and remaining results re-scaled in the range 0–0.99 | MSE, from out-of-sample predictiona | 7.5 % | 17.0 % | 43.4 % | 73.3 % |
| Adjusted R2 | 96.5 % | 92.7 % | 90.3 % | 74.1 % | |
| MSE as % of simulated variance | 12.6 % | 17.9 % | 52.0 % | 73.9 % | |
| Simulated 0 values dropped and remaining results re-scaled in the range 0–0.99 | Adjusted R2 | 96.6 % | 92.2 % | 86.8 % | 70.1 % |
| MSE as % of simulated variance | 19.3 % | 28.4 % | 72.2 % | 75.0 % | |
| Dropping EIR and model variant (the two variables with no country data) | Adjusted R2 | 88.4 % | 80.4 % | 72.7 % | 42.6 % |
| MSE as % of simulated variance | 75.1 % | 406 % | 142 % | 89.8 % | |
| Log-transformation instead of logit-transformation of health outcomes | Adjusted R2 | 96.0 % | 93.0 % | 90.6 % | 77.1 % |
| MSE as % of simulated variance | 37.9 % | 324 % | 405 % | 75.3 % | |
aAverage of 25 simulations in which sub-samples of 100,000 simulations were randomly drawn to train and select the statistical model, and each time the remaining 65,888 simulations were used to assess its MSE