Yasmin A Williams1, Lucy S Tusting2, Sophia Hocini2, Patricia M Graves3, Gerry F Killeen4, Immo Kleinschmidt5, Fredros O Okumu6, Richard G A Feachem7, Allison Tatarsky7, Roly D Gosling7. 1. Malaria Elimination Initiative, Global Health Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States. Electronic address: yasmin.williams@ucsf.edu. 2. Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 3. College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences and Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia. 4. Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania; Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom. 5. MRC Tropical Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; Elimination 8, Windhoek, Namibia. 6. Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania. 7. Malaria Elimination Initiative, Global Health Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Additional vector control tools (VCTs) are needed to supplement insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) to achieve malaria elimination in many settings. To identify options for expanding the malaria vector control toolbox, we conducted a systematic review of the availability and quality of the evidence for 21 malaria VCTs, excluding ITNs and IRS. METHODS: Six electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched from January 1, 1980 to September 28, 2015 to identify systematic reviews, Phase I-IV studies, and observational studies that measured the effect of malaria VCTs on epidemiological or entomological outcomes across any age groups in all malaria-endemic settings. Eligible studies were summarized qualitatively, with quality and risk of bias assessments undertaken where possible. Of 17,912 studies screened, 155 were eligible for inclusion and were included in a qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: Across the 21 VCTs, we found considerable heterogeneity in the volume and quality of evidence, with 7 VCTs currently supported by at least one Phase III community-level evaluation measuring parasitologically confirmed malaria incidence or infection prevalence (insecticide-treated clothing and blankets, insecticide-treated hammocks, insecticide-treated livestock, larval source management (LSM), mosquito-proofed housing, spatial repellents, and topical repellents). The remaining VCTs were supported by one or more Phase II (n=13) or Phase I evaluation (n=1). Overall the quality of the evidence base remains greatest for LSM and topical repellents, relative to the other VCTs evaluated, although existing evidence indicates that topical repellents are unlikely to provide effective population-level protection against malaria. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial gaps in the supporting evidence, several VCTs may be promising supplements to ITNs and IRS in appropriate settings. Strengthening operational capacity and research to implement underutilized VCTs, such as LSM and mosquito-proofed housing, using an adaptive, learning-by-doing approach, while expanding the evidence base for promising supplementary VCTs that are locally tailored, should be considered central to global malaria elimination efforts.
BACKGROUND: Additional vector control tools (VCTs) are needed to supplement insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) to achieve malaria elimination in many settings. To identify options for expanding the malaria vector control toolbox, we conducted a systematic review of the availability and quality of the evidence for 21 malaria VCTs, excluding ITNs and IRS. METHODS: Six electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched from January 1, 1980 to September 28, 2015 to identify systematic reviews, Phase I-IV studies, and observational studies that measured the effect of malaria VCTs on epidemiological or entomological outcomes across any age groups in all malaria-endemic settings. Eligible studies were summarized qualitatively, with quality and risk of bias assessments undertaken where possible. Of 17,912 studies screened, 155 were eligible for inclusion and were included in a qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: Across the 21 VCTs, we found considerable heterogeneity in the volume and quality of evidence, with 7 VCTs currently supported by at least one Phase III community-level evaluation measuring parasitologically confirmed malaria incidence or infection prevalence (insecticide-treated clothing and blankets, insecticide-treated hammocks, insecticide-treated livestock, larval source management (LSM), mosquito-proofed housing, spatial repellents, and topical repellents). The remaining VCTs were supported by one or more Phase II (n=13) or Phase I evaluation (n=1). Overall the quality of the evidence base remains greatest for LSM and topical repellents, relative to the other VCTs evaluated, although existing evidence indicates that topical repellents are unlikely to provide effective population-level protection against malaria. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial gaps in the supporting evidence, several VCTs may be promising supplements to ITNs and IRS in appropriate settings. Strengthening operational capacity and research to implement underutilized VCTs, such as LSM and mosquito-proofed housing, using an adaptive, learning-by-doing approach, while expanding the evidence base for promising supplementary VCTs that are locally tailored, should be considered central to global malaria elimination efforts.
Authors: Keith J Fraser; Lazaro Mwandigha; Sekou F Traore; Mohamed M Traore; Seydou Doumbia; Amy Junnila; Edita Revay; John C Beier; John M Marshall; Azra C Ghani; Gunter Müller Journal: Malar J Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Jeremy Burrows; Hannah Slater; Fiona Macintyre; Sarah Rees; Anna Thomas; Fredros Okumu; Rob Hooft van Huijsduijnen; Stephan Duparc; Timothy N C Wells Journal: Malar J Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Catharine Prussing; Marlon P Saavedra; Sara A Bickersmith; Freddy Alava; Mitchel Guzmán; Edgar Manrique; Gabriel Carrasco-Escobar; Marta Moreno; Dionicia Gamboa; Joseph M Vinetz; Jan E Conn Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2019-05-15
Authors: Mphatso Dennis Phiri; Robert S McCann; Alinune Nathanael Kabaghe; Henk van den Berg; Tumaini Malenga; Steven Gowelo; Tinashe Tizifa; Willem Takken; Michèle van Vugt; Kamija S Phiri; Dianne J Terlouw; Eve Worrall Journal: Malar J Date: 2021-06-13 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Guofa Zhou; Ming-Chieh Lee; Harrysone E Atieli; John I Githure; Andrew K Githeko; James W Kazura; Guiyun Yan Journal: Trials Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: John P Masalu; Marceline Finda; Gerry F Killeen; Halfan S Ngowo; Polius G Pinda; Fredros O Okumu Journal: Malar J Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Johnson K Swai; Arnold S Mmbando; Halfan S Ngowo; Olukayode G Odufuwa; Marceline F Finda; Winifrida Mponzi; Anna P Nyoni; Deogratius Kazimbaya; Alex J Limwagu; Rukiyah M Njalambaha; Saidi Abbasi; Sarah J Moore; Joanna Schellenberg; Lena M Lorenz; Fredros O Okumu Journal: Malar J Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 2.979