Literature DB >> 30500927

Contribution of Asymptomatic Plasmodium Infections to the Transmission of Malaria in Kayin State, Myanmar.

Victor Chaumeau1,2,3,4, Ladda Kajeechiwa3, Bénédicte Fustec2, Jordi Landier3,5, Saw Naw Nyo3, Saw Nay Hsel3, Phabele Phatharakokordbun3, Prapan Kittiphanakun3, Suphak Nosten3, May Myo Thwin3, Saw Win Tun3, Jacher Wiladphaingern3, Gilles Cottrell6, Daniel M Parker7, Myo Chit Minh3, Nittpha Kwansomboon8, Selma Metaane2, Céline Montazeau2, Kitti Kunjanwong8, Sunisa Sawasdichai3, Chiara Andolina3,4, Clare Ling3,4, Warat Haohankhunnatham3, Peter Christiensen3, Sunaree Wanyatip3, Kamonchanok Konghahong3, Dominique Cerqueira8, Mallika Imwong9,10, Arjen M Dondorp4,10, Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap7, Nicholas J White4,10, François H Nosten3,4, Vincent Corbel2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of mass antimalarial drug administration (MDA) is to eliminate malaria rapidly by eliminating the asymptomatic malaria parasite reservoirs and interrupting transmission. In the Greater Mekong Subregion, where artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum is now widespread, MDA has been proposed as an elimination accelerator, but the contribution of asymptomatic infections to malaria transmission has been questioned. The impact of MDA on entomological indices has not been characterized previously.
METHODS: MDA was conducted in 4 villages in Kayin State (Myanmar). Malaria mosquito vectors were captured 3 months before, during, and 3 months after MDA, and their Plasmodium infections were detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. The relationship between the entomological inoculation rate, the malaria prevalence in humans determined by ultrasensitive PCR, and MDA was characterized by generalized estimating equation regression.
RESULTS: Asymptomatic P. falciparum and Plasmodium vivax infections were cleared by MDA. The P. vivax entomological inoculation rate was reduced by 12.5-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-100-fold), but the reservoir of asymptomatic P. vivax infections was reconstituted within 3 months, presumably because of relapses. This was coincident with a 5.3-fold (95% CI, 4.8-6.0-fold) increase in the vector infection rate.
CONCLUSION: Asymptomatic infections are a major source of malaria transmission in Southeast Asia.
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Entities:  

Keywords:  zzm321990 Plasmodium falciparumzzm321990 ; zzm321990 Plasmodium vivaxzzm321990 ; Mass drug administration; Southeast Asia; artemisinin resistance; elimination; entomological inoculation rate; malaria; primaquine

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30500927      PMCID: PMC6467188          DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiy686

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Infect Dis        ISSN: 0022-1899            Impact factor:   5.226


Artemisinin resistance in Plasmodium falciparum has emerged and spread in the Greater Mekong Subregion [1], leading to the failure of several artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) [2]. Multidrug-resistant parasites spreading from western Cambodia are responsible for a recent resurgence of the disease across the eastern part of the Greater Mekong Subregion [3]. Meanwhile in Myanmar (in the western Greater Mekong Subregion), the incidence of clinical malaria cases has declined [4]. In this area, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and artemether-lumefantrine remain effective against P. falciparum. It is therefore urgent to eliminate falciparum malaria in Myanmar, the main gateway to India and Bangladesh, before parasites also develop resistance to these 2 ACTs. Community-wide access to early diagnosis and treatment with an effective ACT is the most effective strategy to reduce the transmission of falciparum malaria [5]. In this region, insecticide-impregnated bed nets have only a marginal effect on the relevant anopheline mosquito vectors [6]. Early diagnosis and treatment limit the transmission that occurs from symptomatic individuals. However, prevalence surveys conducted with ultrasensitive diagnostic tools have revealed that infection with Plasmodium parasites is frequently asymptomatic in the Greater Mekong Subregion [7]. Thus, in this area of low endemicity and unstable transmission, healthy residents commonly harbor malaria parasites at low densities, below the detection threshold of microscopy or rapid diagnostic tests [8]. Over time, waves of higher density (although still asymptomatic) parasitemia occur with the sequential emergence of new antigenic variants, generating potentially transmissible densities of gametocytes [9]. Numerous studies have demonstrated the infectivity of low-density Plasmodium infections to mosquitoes in areas of low endemicity [10-15]. The probability that a mosquito will become infected when feeding on a human host depends on the prevalence and density of mature-gametocyte carriage [16-19]. Although gametocyte densities are low in asymptomatic carriers, the prevalence of asymptomatic infection is substantially higher than that in individuals with high gametocyte densities (10%–50% vs 0%–2%) [7]. In addition, the duration of infection in asymptomatic carriers is substantially longer than that in symptomatic individuals, who usually seek antimalarial treatment [9, 20]. The contribution of these protracted low-density infections to malaria transmission remains unresolved. According to a recent report from the World Health Organization Evidence Review Group on Low-Density Malaria Infections, “current evidence is insufficient for understanding the contribution of low-density [Plasmodium] falciparum or [Plasmodium] vivax infections to onward transmission to human populations. Intervention trials to directly assess the effect of identifying and treating low-density infections are warranted” [21p16]. We have shown previously that mass drug administration (MDA) with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine is effective in clearing the malaria parasite reservoirs in asymptomatic individuals, even in areas with low-level piperaquine resistance among P. falciparum parasites [9], and that this effect is sustained over time [22, 23]. However, for P. vivax infections, the effect on prevalence was only transient: the asymptomatic reservoir reconstituted within 3 months of the intervention, presumably because of relapses from persistent liver stages of the parasite (ie, hypnozoites) [22]. Primaquine given for 7–14 days is the only drug effective against hypnozoites (radical cure is achieved). However, its routine use is difficult because of the hemolytic risk in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. Although rapid diagnostic tests to detect G6PD deficiency are available, they cannot detect deficiency in heterozygous female patients with intermediate G6PD activity, and they have not been distributed widely. Entomological data characterizing the contribution of asymptomatic carriers to malaria transmission in Southeast Asia are lacking, and there have been no assessments of the impact of MDA on entomological indices. These uncertainties may have contributed to unclear policies for malaria elimination in the Greater Mekong Subregion [21]. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between asymptomatic malaria parasite reservoirs and corresponding entomological indices and to assess the impact of MDA on malaria transmission.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study Design

Study Sites

The study was conducted in Kayin State, Myanmar, from 2013 to 2015. Four villages, namely A1-KNH, A2-TOT, B1-TPN, and B2-HKT, were selected because they had high prevalences of malaria parasite infection (all species), as determined by high-volume ultrasensitive polymerase chain reaction (uPCR) analysis [22].

Intervention

A malaria post was set up in each village to provide community-wide access to early diagnosis and treatment, and long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets were provided to all villagers. Three rounds of MDA (1 dose of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine given on 3 consecutive days and 1 low dose of primaquine given on day 1 or day 3) conducted at 1-month intervals eliminated asymptomatic malaria parasite carriage. MDA was administered sequentially, from months 0 to 2 in group A villages (A1-KNH and A2-TOT) and from months 9 to 11 in group B villages (B1-TPN and B2-HKT).

Follow-up

The study period started 80 days before the beginning of MDA campaigns and ended 130 days after they ended (ie, there were 90 days of follow-up before MDA and 90 days of follow-up after MDA). This took into account the approximately 30-day posttreatment prophylactic effect of piperaquine and the approximately 10-day duration of Plasmodium sporogony in the anopheline vector [24, 25] (Figure 1). Global positioning system coordinates of households were recorded, and population movement in and out of the villages was monitored through home visits every 2 weeks. Exhaustive cross-sectional surveys were conducted at 3-month intervals, and infection with Plasmodium parasites was determined by uPCR (detection threshold, 22 Plasmodium genome equivalents/mL blood) [26]. Clinical cases of malaria were diagnosed using the Pf/Pv SD Bioline rapid diagnostic test. P. falciparum infections were treated with artemether-lumefantrine and infections with other malaria species were treated with chloroquine, according to standard protocols and Myanmar national policy [27]. Details were recorded at the malaria post. The protocols used to collect mosquitoes and process entomological samples have been described in detail previously [28]. Briefly, entomological surveys were conducted at 1-month intervals in each village, using the indoor and outdoor human-landing catch collection method (there were 50 person-nights of collection per survey). Anopheles organisms were identified on the basis of morphologic characteristics, and malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were analyzed by real-time quantitative PCR, to determine Plasmodium infection rates (detection thresholds, 6 and 3.6 sporozoites/mosquito for P. falciparum and P. vivax, respectively) [29]. The dates of entomological surveys, prevalence surveys, and MDA campaigns are presented in . This study is part of a multicenter study conducted in several sites in the Greater Mekong Subregion and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01872702).
Figure 1.

Methods used for the analysis of longitudinal data collected at different time steps in the context of mass antimalarial drug administration. A, Matching of the follow-up period with entomological surveys (Si: entomological survey at month i). The follow-up was divided into 3 categories: before, during, and after MDA campaigns. Entomological surveys potentially impacted by the intervention were assigned to the during-MDA category. The window of MDA impact was defined by taking into account the estimated average durations of Plasmodium sporogony in the mosquito vector (Sp; approximately 10 days) and posttreatment prophylactic effects of piperaquine (PTPE; approximately 30 days). Surveys conducted ≥10 days after the beginning of a MDA campaign and ≤40 days after the end of a MDA campaign were assigned to the during-MDA category. Surveys conducted <10 days after the beginning of a MDA campaign and >40 days after the end of a MDA campaign were assigned to before-MDA and after-MDA categories, respectively. B, Matching of the cross-sectional prevalence data with entomological surveys. Cross-sectional surveys conducted immediately after the end of a MDA campaign reflect the impact of MDA on malaria prevalence (month 3 for villages A1-KNH and A2-TOT and month 12 for villages B1-TPN and B2-HKT). Entomological surveys assigned to the during-MDA category were matched to the prevalence determined immediately after the end of a MDA campaign. Entomological surveys assigned to the before-MDA and after-MDA categories were matched with the nearest prevalence survey. C, Matching of clinical incidence data with entomological surveys. Clinical malaria incidence was aggregated over the month prior to the corresponding entomological survey.

Methods used for the analysis of longitudinal data collected at different time steps in the context of mass antimalarial drug administration. A, Matching of the follow-up period with entomological surveys (Si: entomological survey at month i). The follow-up was divided into 3 categories: before, during, and after MDA campaigns. Entomological surveys potentially impacted by the intervention were assigned to the during-MDA category. The window of MDA impact was defined by taking into account the estimated average durations of Plasmodium sporogony in the mosquito vector (Sp; approximately 10 days) and posttreatment prophylactic effects of piperaquine (PTPE; approximately 30 days). Surveys conducted ≥10 days after the beginning of a MDA campaign and ≤40 days after the end of a MDA campaign were assigned to the during-MDA category. Surveys conducted <10 days after the beginning of a MDA campaign and >40 days after the end of a MDA campaign were assigned to before-MDA and after-MDA categories, respectively. B, Matching of the cross-sectional prevalence data with entomological surveys. Cross-sectional surveys conducted immediately after the end of a MDA campaign reflect the impact of MDA on malaria prevalence (month 3 for villages A1-KNH and A2-TOT and month 12 for villages B1-TPN and B2-HKT). Entomological surveys assigned to the during-MDA category were matched to the prevalence determined immediately after the end of a MDA campaign. Entomological surveys assigned to the before-MDA and after-MDA categories were matched with the nearest prevalence survey. C, Matching of clinical incidence data with entomological surveys. Clinical malaria incidence was aggregated over the month prior to the corresponding entomological survey.

Variables

Entomological Indices

The human-biting rate (HBR) was defined as the number of mosquitoes collected, divided by the corresponding number of person-nights of collection. P. falciparum and P. vivax sporozoite indices (SIs) were defined as the number of mosquitoes testing positive for P. falciparum and P. vivax, respectively, by PCR, divided by the total number of specimens analyzed. The entomological inoculation rates (EIRs) for P. falciparum and P. vivax were defined as the number of mosquitoes testing positive for P. falciparum and P. vivax, respectively, by PCR, divided by the corresponding number of person-nights of collection [30].

Timelines

The follow-up period was divided into 3 categories: before, during, and after MDA campaigns. Entomological surveys potentially impacted by the intervention were assigned to the during-MDA category. The window of MDA impact was defined by taking into account the estimated average duration of Plasmodium sporogony in the mosquito vector and the posttreatment prophylactic effects of piperaquine. Therefore, entomological surveys conducted ≥10 days after the beginning of a MDA campaign and ≤40 days after the end of a MDA campaign were assigned to the during-MDA category. Entomological surveys conducted <10 days after the beginning of a MDA campaign or >40 days after the end of a MDA campaign were assigned to the before-MDA and after-MDA categories, respectively (Figure 1).

Prevalence

Malaria prevalence was defined as the number of individuals positive by uPCR, divided by the total number screened. Prevalence data were aggregated in a 100-m radius around each collection site and matched to entomological data. Cross-sectional surveys conducted immediately after the end of a MDA campaign (ie, at month 3 for villages A1-KNH and A2-TOT and at month 12 for villages B1-TPN and B2-HKT) reflect the impact of MDA on malaria prevalence. Therefore, entomological surveys assigned to the during-MDA category were matched to the prevalence determined immediately after the end of a MDA campaign. Entomological surveys assigned to the before-MDA and after-MDA categories were matched with the nearest prevalence survey (Figure 1). The 100-m radius was selected arbitrarily. Values of 60, 160, and 200 m were also tested but did not change the outcome of the model.

Incidence

Clinical cases were defined as individuals with fever (aural temperature, ≥37.5°C) or a history of fever in the past 2 days, and malaria parasite infection was confirmed by a rapid diagnostic test or microscopy. The incidence of clinical malaria was calculated for each catching site by aggregating data from all individuals living in households located within a buffer zone (radius, 100 m) around the catching site. For each entomological survey, the incidence was aggregated over the month before the entomological survey (Figure 1). For each entomological survey and each catching site, the incidence was defined as the sum of all clinical cases occurring during the 1-month period in households within the buffer zone, divided by the sum of individual follow-ups accumulated over the 1-month period for persons living in households within the buffer.

Season

In this area, the rainy season usually starts in May and ends in November.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 3.3.2. Exact Poisson confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for count data (HBR, EIR, and incidence), and exact binomial CIs were estimated for proportions (SI and prevalence). Estimated EIRs were modeled using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) framework with a negative-binomial link to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs), an exchangeable correlation structure, and robust standard errors to account for overdispersion and repeated individual-level measurements. HBR, prevalence, and incidence data were divided into quartiles and introduced as categorical variables, to avoid bias from nonlinear relationships between EIR and these covariates. The results of univariable analyses are presented in Supplementary Tables 4 and 5.

Ethics Approval

This study protocol was reviewed and approved by OxTREC (reference 1017–13 and 1015–13); by the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Subjects, Health Science Group, Chulalongkorn University (COA 154/2014); by the Tak Community Advisory Board; and by village committees. All participants provided their written consent to participate in this study.

RESULTS

Baseline Transmission Settings

At baseline, the mean HBR of malaria vectors was 210 bites/person/month (range, 44–241 bites/person/month), and the mean P. vivax SI was 2.9 events/1000 mosquitoes (range, 0.0–5.0 events/1000 mosquitoes), yielding an average P. vivax EIR of 0.61 infective bites/person/month (range, 0.00–1.21 infective bites/person/month; Table 1). No P. falciparum–infected anopheline mosquitoes were identified at baseline, precluding estimations of the P. falciparum SI and EIR (Table 2). The baseline incidence of clinical malaria ranged from 0.0 to 1.0 falciparum malaria cases/1000 persons/month and from 6.1 to 8.7 vivax malaria cases/1000 persons/month. The baseline prevalence of P. falciparum infection determined by uPCR was high in villages A1-KNH and A2-TOT (23% and 15%, respectively) and low in villages B1-TPN and B2-HKT (0.7% and 1.5%, respectively). In contrast, the baseline prevalence of P. vivax infection ranged from 12% in village B1-TPN to 31% in village A2-TOT. Among these infections, individuals in only 15% had an elevated aural temperature (ie, were potentially symptomatic malaria cases). The geometric mean parasitemia levels observed in afebrile and febrile individuals infected with P. falciparum were 5950 Plasmodium genome equivalents/mL (95% CI, 2110–15 760) and 34 360 Plasmodium genome equivalents/mL (95% CI, 990–960 090), respectively. The corresponding figures for P. vivax infections were 7110 Plasmodium genome equivalents/mL (95% CI, 4570–10 770) and 10 170 Plasmodium genome equivalents/mL (95% CI, 2910–38 270), respectively (Figure 2).
Table 1.

Evolution of the Parasitological and Entomological Indices of Vivax Malaria in the Context of Mass Antimalarial Drug Administration (MAD), Overall and by Village

Village, Index Before MDA During MDA After MDA
Raw calculation Value, Mean (95% CI) Raw calculation Value, Mean (95% CI) Raw calculation Value, Mean (95% CI)
A1-KNH
 Prevalencea52/28118.5 (14.1–23.5)2/2680.7 (.1–2.7)35/25413.8 (9.8–18.6)
 IncidencebNANA2/1.061.89 (.23–6.83)10/1.039.72 (4.66–17.87)
 HBRc402/1.67241 (218; 266)1352/6.67203 (192; 214)742/5148 (138; 159)
P. vivax SId2/3985 (0.6; 18)0/13360 (0; 2.8)5/7306.8 (2.2; 15.9)
P. vivax EIRe2/1.651.21 (0.15; 4.38)0/6.590 (0; 0.56)5/4.921.02 (0.33; 2.37)
A2-TOT
 Prevalencea126/41030.7 (26.3; 35.4)3/2841.1 (0.2; 3.1)32/17018.8 (13.2; 25.5)
 IncidencebNANA4/2.11.9 (0.52; 4.87)9/1.814.97 (2.27; 9.43)
 HBRc74/1.6744 (35; 56)3044/5609 (587; 631)2744/5549 (528; 570)
P. vivax SId0/730 (0; 49.3)2/30120.7 (0.1; 2.4)0/27270 (0; 1.4)
P. vivax EIRe0/1.640 (0; 2.24)2/4.950.4 (0.05; 1.46)0/4.970 (0; 0.74)
B1-TPN
 Prevalencea35/29911.7 (8.3; 15.9)2/2560.8 (0.1; 2.8)5/2252.2 (0.7; 5.1)
 Incidenceb9/1.038.7 (3.98; 16.51)1/0.891.12 (0.03; 6.25)2/0.892.25 (0.27; 8.14)
 HBRc1521/6.67228 (217; 240)353/3.33106 (95; 118)618/5124 (114; 134)
P. vivax SId4/14932.7 (0.7; 6.8)0/3520 (0; 10.4)0/6090 (0; 6)
P. vivax EIRe4/6.540.61 (0.17; 1.57)0/3.320 (0; 1.11)0/4.930 (0; 0.75)
B2-HKT
 Prevalencea80/45317.7 (14.3; 21.5)8/5011.6 (0.7; 3.1)53/50010.6 (8; 13.6)
 Incidenceb12/2.414.99 (2.58; 8.71)18/2.926.16 (3.65; 9.73)17/2.646.44 (3.75; 10.31)
 HBRc1511/6.67227 (215; 238)3903/5781 (756; 805)2103/5421 (403; 439)
P. vivax SId4/14712.7 (0.7; 6.9)1/38840.3 (0; 1.4)15/20937.2 (4; 11.8)
P. vivax EIRe4/6.490.62 (0.17; 1.58)1/4.980.2 (0.01; 1.12)15/4.983.01 (1.69; 4.97)
Overall
 Prevalencea293/144320.3 (18.3; 22.5)15/13091.1 (0.6; 1.9)125/114910.9 (9.1; 12.8)
 Incidenceb21/3.446.1 (3.78; 9.33)25/6.973.59 (2.32; 5.29)38/6.375.97 (4.22; 8.19)
 HBRc3508/16.67210 (204; 218)8652/20433 (424; 442)6207/20310 (303; 318)
P. vivax SId10/34352.9 (1.4; 5.3)3/85840.3 (0.1; 1)20/61593.2 (2; 5)
P. vivax EIRe10/16.320.61 (0.29; 1.13)3/19.840.15 (0.03; 0.44)20/19.851.01 (0.62; 1.56)

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; P. vivax, Plasmodium vivax; qPCR, quantitative polymerase chain reaction; uPCR, ultrasensitive polymerase chain reaction.

aThe prevalence is calculated as the no. of persons positive for P. vivax by uPCR / total no. of persons analyzed. The prevalence is specified as the proportion × 100.

bThe incidence is calculated as the no. of clinical vivax malaria cases / person-time of follow-up. The incidence is specified as the no. of cases / 1000 persons / mo.

cThe human-biting rate (HBR) is calculated as the no. of mosquitoes collected (as a proxy for the no. of bites) / corresponding no. of person-nights of collection (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The HBR is specified as the no. of bites / person / mo.

dThe sporozoite index (SI) is calculated as the no. of mosquitoes positive by Plasmodium real-time qPCR / total no. of mosquitoes analyzed (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The SI is specified as the no. of mosquitoes positive by real-time qPCR / 1000 mosquitoes analyzed.

eThe entomological inoculation rate (EIR) is calculated the no. of mosquitoes positive by Plasmodium real-time qPCR / corresponding no. of person-nights of collection adjusted by the proportion of specimens analyzed by Plasmodium real-time qPCR (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The EIR is specified as the no. of infective bites / person / mo.

Table 2.

Evolution of the Parasitological and Entomological Indices of Falciparum Malaria in the Context of Mass Antimalarial Drug Administration, Overall and by Village

Village, Index Before MDA During MDA After MDA
Proportion Mean (95% CI) Proportion Mean (95% CI) Proportion Mean (95% CI)
A1-KNH
 Prevalencea65/281a23.1 (18.3–28.5)0/2680 (0–1.4)2/2540.8 (.1–2.8)
 IncidencebNA bNA1/1.060.95 (.02–5.27)2/1.031.94 (.24–7.02)
 HBRc402/1.67 c241 (218; 266)1352/6.67203 (192; 214)742/5148 (138; 159)
P. falciparum SId0/398 d0 (0; 9.2)3/13362.2 (0.5; 6.5)0/7300 (0; 5)
P. falciparum EIRe0/1.65 e0 (0; 2.24)3/6.590.46 (0.09; 1.33)0/4.920 (0; 0.75)
A2-TOT
 Prevalencea62/41015.1 (11.8; 19)1/2840.4 (0; 1.9)2/1701.2 (0.1; 4.2)
 IncidencebNANA0/2.10 (0; 1.76)2/1.811.1 (0.13; 3.99)
 HBRc74/1.6744 (35; 56)3044/5609 (587; 631)2744/5549 (528; 570)
P. falciparum SId0/730 (0; 49.3)3/30121 (0.2; 2.9)0/27270 (0; 1.4)
P. falciparum EIRe0/1.640 (0; 2.24)3/4.950.61 (0.13; 1.77)0/4.970 (0; 0.74)
B1-TPN
 Prevalencea2/2990.7 (0.1; 2.4)0/2560 (0; 1.4)2/2250.9 (0.1; 3.2)
 Incidenceb1/1.030.97 (0.02; 5.38)0/0.890 (0; 4.14)2/0.892.25 (0.27; 8.14)
 HBRc1521/6.67228 (217; 240)353/3.33106 (95; 118)618/5124 (114; 134)
P. falciparum SId0/14930 (0; 2.5)0/3520 (0; 10.4)0/6090 (0; 6)
P. falciparum EIRe0/6.540 (0; 0.56)0/3.320 (0; 1.11)0/4.930 (0; 0.75)
B2-HKT
 Prevalencea7/4531.5 (0.6; 3.2)0/5010 (0; 0.7)1/5000.2 (0; 1.1)
 Incidenceb0/2.410 (0; 1.53)0/2.920 (0; 1.26)0/2.640 (0; 1.4)
 HBRc1511/6.67227 (215; 238)3903/5781 (756; 805)2103/5421 (403; 439)
P. falciparum SId0/14710 (0; 2.5)0/38840 (0; 0.9)0/20930 (0; 1.8)
P. falciparum EIRe0/6.490 (0; 0.57)0/4.980 (0; 0.74)0/4.980 (0; 0.74)
Overall
 Prevalencea136/14439.4 (8; 11.1)1/13090.1 (0; 0.4)7/11490.6 (0.2; 1.3)
 Incidenceb1/3.440.29 (0.01; 1.62)1/6.970.14 (0; 0.8)6/6.370.94 (0.35; 2.05)
 HBRc3508/16.67210 (204; 218)8652/20433 (424; 442)6207/20310 (303; 318)
P. falciparum SId0/34350 (0; 1.1)6/85840.7 (0.3; 1.5)0/61590 (0; 0.6)
P. falciparum EIRe0/16.320 (0; 0.23)6/19.840.3 (0.11; 0.66)0/19.850 (0; 0.19)

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; P. falciparum, Plasmodium falciparum; qPCR, quantitative polymerase chain reaction; uPCR, ultrasensitive polymerase chain reaction.

aThe proportion is calculated as the no. of persons positive for P. falciparum by uPCR / total no. of persons analyzed. The prevalence is specified as the proportion × 100.

bThe proportion is calculated as the no. of clinical falciparum malaria cases / person-time of follow-up. The incidence is specified as the no. of cases / 1000 persons / mo.

cThe proportion is calculated as the no. of mosquitoes collected (as a proxy for the no. of bites) / corresponding no. of person-nights of collection (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The human-biting rate (HBR) is specified as the no. of bites / person / mo.

dThe proportion is calculated as the no. of mosquitoes positive by Plasmodium real-time qPCR / total no. of mosquitoes analyzed (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The sporozoite index (SI) is specified as the no. of mosquitoes positive by real-time qPCR / 1000 mosquitoes analyzed.

eThe proportion is calculated the no. of mosquitoes positive by Plasmodium real-time qPCR / corresponding no. of person-nights of collection adjusted by the proportion of specimens analyzed by Plasmodium real-time qPCR (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The entomological inoculation rate (EIR) is specified as the no. of infective bites / person / mo.

Figure 2.

Frequency distribution of malaria parasitemia levels in febrile and afebrile patients in the baseline survey. A, Plasmodium falciparum infections. B, Plasmodium vivax infections. Dashed lines indicate geometric mean parasitemia levels.

Evolution of the Parasitological and Entomological Indices of Vivax Malaria in the Context of Mass Antimalarial Drug Administration (MAD), Overall and by Village Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; P. vivax, Plasmodium vivax; qPCR, quantitative polymerase chain reaction; uPCR, ultrasensitive polymerase chain reaction. aThe prevalence is calculated as the no. of persons positive for P. vivax by uPCR / total no. of persons analyzed. The prevalence is specified as the proportion × 100. bThe incidence is calculated as the no. of clinical vivax malaria cases / person-time of follow-up. The incidence is specified as the no. of cases / 1000 persons / mo. cThe human-biting rate (HBR) is calculated as the no. of mosquitoes collected (as a proxy for the no. of bites) / corresponding no. of person-nights of collection (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The HBR is specified as the no. of bites / person / mo. dThe sporozoite index (SI) is calculated as the no. of mosquitoes positive by Plasmodium real-time qPCR / total no. of mosquitoes analyzed (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The SI is specified as the no. of mosquitoes positive by real-time qPCR / 1000 mosquitoes analyzed. eThe entomological inoculation rate (EIR) is calculated the no. of mosquitoes positive by Plasmodium real-time qPCR / corresponding no. of person-nights of collection adjusted by the proportion of specimens analyzed by Plasmodium real-time qPCR (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The EIR is specified as the no. of infective bites / person / mo. Evolution of the Parasitological and Entomological Indices of Falciparum Malaria in the Context of Mass Antimalarial Drug Administration, Overall and by Village Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; P. falciparum, Plasmodium falciparum; qPCR, quantitative polymerase chain reaction; uPCR, ultrasensitive polymerase chain reaction. aThe proportion is calculated as the no. of persons positive for P. falciparum by uPCR / total no. of persons analyzed. The prevalence is specified as the proportion × 100. bThe proportion is calculated as the no. of clinical falciparum malaria cases / person-time of follow-up. The incidence is specified as the no. of cases / 1000 persons / mo. cThe proportion is calculated as the no. of mosquitoes collected (as a proxy for the no. of bites) / corresponding no. of person-nights of collection (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The human-biting rate (HBR) is specified as the no. of bites / person / mo. dThe proportion is calculated as the no. of mosquitoes positive by Plasmodium real-time qPCR / total no. of mosquitoes analyzed (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The sporozoite index (SI) is specified as the no. of mosquitoes positive by real-time qPCR / 1000 mosquitoes analyzed. eThe proportion is calculated the no. of mosquitoes positive by Plasmodium real-time qPCR / corresponding no. of person-nights of collection adjusted by the proportion of specimens analyzed by Plasmodium real-time qPCR (only malaria vectors from the Funestus, Maculatus, and Leucosphyrus groups were included in the analysis). The entomological inoculation rate (EIR) is specified as the no. of infective bites / person / mo. Frequency distribution of malaria parasitemia levels in febrile and afebrile patients in the baseline survey. A, Plasmodium falciparum infections. B, Plasmodium vivax infections. Dashed lines indicate geometric mean parasitemia levels.

Drivers of Malaria Transmission Intensity

The P. vivax EIR was associated positively with the prevalence of asymptomatic malaria and the HBR of mosquito vectors. There was no association between the P. vivax EIR and the incidence of symptomatic vivax malaria (Table 3). It was not possible to estimate model coefficients for the P. falciparum EIR because there were too few P. falciparum–infected mosquitoes in this study. When taking into account the entire 24-month follow-up period described in Chaumeau et al [28] and Landier et al [22], the P. falciparum EIR was seasonal and positively associated with the prevalence of mainly asymptomatic malaria and the HBR of mosquito vectors ().
Table 3.

Generalized Estimating Equation Model Output for the Multivariable Analysis of the Plasmodium vivax Entomological Inoculation Rate, Including Village, Season, Malaria Vector Human-Biting Rate (HBR), Prevalence, and Incidence Predictors

Variable, Category IRR (95% CI) P
Village
A2-TOT1 (reference)
 B1-TPN4.35 (.57–32.91).155
 A1-KNH6.59 (1.48–29.32).013
 B2-HKT10.82 (2.03–57.53).005
Season
 Dry1 (reference)
 Rainy2.75 (0.52–14.55).233
Prevalence, %a
 0–2.51 (reference)
 2.5–1020.45 (2.6–160.51).004
 10–1519.11 (4.4–82.95)<.001
 ≥ 1533.15 (4.86–226.19)<.001
Incidence, cases/1000 persons/mo
 0–11 (reference)
 1–101.02 (0.1–10.18).99
 >101.29 (0.24–6.91).767
HBR, bites/person/mo
 0–601 (reference)
 60–1600.47 (0.04–5.42).547
 160–3503.92 (0.91–16.82).066
 ≥ 35014.62 (2.51–85.1).003

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

aBy ultrasensitive polymerase chain reaction.

Generalized Estimating Equation Model Output for the Multivariable Analysis of the Plasmodium vivax Entomological Inoculation Rate, Including Village, Season, Malaria Vector Human-Biting Rate (HBR), Prevalence, and Incidence Predictors Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio. aBy ultrasensitive polymerase chain reaction.

Impact of MDA on the EIR

The prevalence of asymptomatic falciparum malaria dropped to 0 during MDA and remained below 1% for the 3 months after intervention. Taking into account the 24-month follow-up period, the multivariable GEE model output showed 2-fold and 6-fold reductions in the P. falciparum EIR during and after MDA, respectively, but these did not reach statistical significance (). The prevalence of asymptomatic vivax malaria ranged from 12% to 31% before MDA and dropped to <1.6% in all villages during MDA. Based on the GEE model, MDA was associated with a 12.5-fold decrease (95% CI, 1.6–100) in the P. vivax EIR when adjusted for village, season, and HBR covariates (Table 4). The reservoir of asymptomatic vivax infections reconstituted in the 3 months following MDA, presumably because of relapse from hypnozoites. This was coincident with a 5.5-fold increase (95% CI, 4.0–6.3) in P. vivax–infected vectors. The prevalence of vivax malaria in village B1-TPN remained lower after MDA intervention when compared to baseline values (2% vs 14%). In this village, the HBR was also lower after MDA than during baseline surveys (124 vs 228 bites/person/months). In all villages, the rise in symptomatic malaria cases after MDA preceded or coincided with the rise in infected vectors, suggesting a causal association (Figure 3). This demonstrates the contribution of asymptomatic parasites reservoirs to malaria transmission and suggests that relapse, rather than external reintroduction of infected vectors, was the main source of reinfection.
Table 4.

Generalized Estimating Equations Model Output for the Multivariable Analysis of Plasmodium vivax Entomological Inoculation Rate, Including Village, Season, Malaria Vector Human-Biting Rate, and Mass Antimalarial Drug Administration (MDA) Predictors

Variable, Category IRR (95% CI) P
Village
 A2-TOT1 (reference)
 B1-TPN1.77 (.27–11.76).553
 A1-KNH3.3 (.42–26.04).258
 B2-HKT4.6 (0.64–33.08).129
Season
 Dry1 (reference)
 Rainy2.98 (0.25–35.15).385
MDA intervention
 Before1 (reference)
 During0.08 (0.01–0.63).016
 After0.42 (0.06–3.01).389
HBR, bites/person/mo
 0–601 (reference)
 60–1600.41 (0.03–6.53).525
 160–3502.85 (0.44–18.4).272
 ≥ 35011.8 (1.75–79.36).011

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

Figure 3.

Cumulative number of symptomatic malaria cases and mosquitoes infected with Plasmodium falciparum or Plasmodium vivax sporozoites after mass antimalarial drug administrations (MDAs), by village. For example, 6 P. vivax–infected mosquitoes were detected during the 90-day follow-up after an MDA at A1-KNH (2 were detected on 24 November 2013, 3 were detected on 28 November 2013, and 1 was detected on 25 December 2013. The cumulative number of P. vivax infected mosquitoes is 2, 5, and 6 on days 52, 56, and 86, respectively.

Generalized Estimating Equations Model Output for the Multivariable Analysis of Plasmodium vivax Entomological Inoculation Rate, Including Village, Season, Malaria Vector Human-Biting Rate, and Mass Antimalarial Drug Administration (MDA) Predictors Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio. Cumulative number of symptomatic malaria cases and mosquitoes infected with Plasmodium falciparum or Plasmodium vivax sporozoites after mass antimalarial drug administrations (MDAs), by village. For example, 6 P. vivax–infected mosquitoes were detected during the 90-day follow-up after an MDA at A1-KNH (2 were detected on 24 November 2013, 3 were detected on 28 November 2013, and 1 was detected on 25 December 2013. The cumulative number of P. vivax infected mosquitoes is 2, 5, and 6 on days 52, 56, and 86, respectively.

DISCUSSION

In malaria-endemic settings, it is usually not possible to ascribe causal relationships between vector carriage and human infections. An argument against the use of MDA as an elimination accelerator has been that submicroscopic parasite densities do not transmit malaria. This study describes a unique opportunity to assess the contribution of asymptomatic malaria parasite infections to the vectorial transmission of malaria in a low-transmission setting of Southeast Asia. Three rounds of MDA with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and a single low dose of primaquine rapidly interrupted malaria transmission in villages where the prevalence of submicroscopic carriage of Plasmodium was high. This led to a sustained reduction in the incidence and prevalence of P. falciparum malaria but only a transient reduction in the incidence and prevalence of vivax malaria [22]. The timing of the return in P. vivax preceding or coinciding with an increase in the prevalence of infected vectors but without concomitant return of P. falciparum strongly suggests that relapse, rather than external reintroduction of infected vectors, was the main source of reinfection. The main limitation of this study is the very low level of endemicity of falciparum malaria, which prevented accurate characterization of P. falciparum vector infection. In the study area, the prevalence, incidence, and number of P. falciparum–infected mosquitoes were too low to use P. falciparum EIR as a primary outcome measure. The intensity of vivax malaria transmission in the study area was much higher than that of falciparum malaria [28], providing sufficient P. vivax–infected vectors to assess the contribution of asymptomatic infections to transmission and the impact of MDA. Vantaux et al have suggested that asymptomatic carriage contributes to the transmission of P. vivax but not P. falciparum [14]. They attributed the lack of infectivity of blood sampled from asymptomatic carriers infected with P. falciparum to the low densities of gametocytemia, but the sample was small (60 participants), and the follow-up was only 2 months. In low-transmission settings of Southeast Asia, malaria parasite densities measured by uPCR in asymptomatic individuals fluctuate over 6 orders of magnitude, and carriage may persist for many months [8, 9]. Successive waves of higher asexual parasitemia levels are likely to be followed by peaks of higher transmissibility. The prevalence of gametocyte carriage is high in populations with asymptomatic infections [14], and gametocytes compose a significant proportion of the parasites detected in the blood of asymptomatic individuals [8]. This confirms extensive and detailed prospective studies in volunteers and observations in malaria therapy studies, of the infectiousness to anopheline mosquitoes of asymptomatic P. falciparum and P. vivax infections [15]. It seems very unlikely therefore that asymptomatic infections with P. vivax are transmissible, but not those with P. falciparum. We did not conduct entomological investigations in potential sites of transmission outside the villages (eg, farm huts and forest). In this area, a history of travel outside the village and being a young male are the major risk factors for falciparum malaria [22, 31]. These observations suggest that efficient transmission occurs outside the villages. Malaria vectors in the Thailand-Myanmar borderland belong to the Minimus and Dirus Complexes and to the Maculatus Group [28, 32, 33]. Anopheles minimus sensu stricto and Anopheles maculatus sensu lato were the most abundant species collected inside the study villages [28]. Highly effective vectors from the Dirus complex are likely to be important contributors to malaria transmission in and around the forest [34] and may have been underestimated in the present study. Somboon et al conducted entomological investigations in Karen villages located in the forest fringe on the Thai side of the Thailand-Myanmar border [32]. They have shown that the biodiversity of Anopheles mosquitoes is similar in farm huts located outside the villages and in residential households located inside the villages and that infected malaria vectors could be collected at both sites. In the absence of an animal reservoir of human malaria parasites [35], MDA campaigns probably reduce the transmission cycle of Plasmodium outside the village if the coverage of MDA intervention is sufficient. The carriage of malaria parasites by malaria vectors was associated positively with the prevalence of human malaria parasite infections determined by uPCR. We specifically detected Plasmodium sporozoites in the salivary glands, so mosquito infections were relatively old. By multivariable GEE analysis, we estimated that MDA was associated with a 12.5-fold decrease (95% CI, 1.6–100) in the P. vivax EIR. The exception was village A2-TOT, in which the response to MDA was much worse than elsewhere and the P. vivax EIR increased during MDA. It was not possible to estimate the P. vivax EIR accurately during the baseline survey in A2-TOT, because the sample size was small (only 73 malaria vectors were analyzed by Plasmodium PCR). MDA participation was poor in this village [22], and the intensity of human-vector contact was higher during and after MDA when compared to that in other villages. These factors probably explained why MDA failed to interrupt malaria in A2-TOT. In another village (B1-TPN), in which the submicroscopic reservoir of P. vivax remained low after MDA, the HBR was significantly lower after MDA than before. This suggests that human-vector contact, as well as relapse, contributes to the submicroscopic carriage of P. vivax. By contrast, P. falciparum does not relapse and so is not expected to rebound following effective MDA campaigns, provided that community-wide access to early diagnosis and treatment prevents reestablishment of local transmission from imported cases. The impact of MDA on the entomological indices is explained by the pharmacology of the antimalarial drugs used. The posttreatment prophylactic effects of a treatment regimen of piperaquine lasts approximately 30 days [25]. Participants who receive the full 3 rounds of the MDA regimen at 1-month intervals are protected for at least 90 days from reinfection and symptomatic relapse. This 90-day window corresponds to 3–9 generations of malaria parasite vectors, given an estimated longevity of 10–30 days [36-38], during which human-vector transmission of the parasite is also interrupted. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine eliminates the asexual stages of all malaria species, as well as P. vivax gametocytes and young gametocytes of P. falciparum [39], and primaquine kills the mature gametocytes of P. falciparum, sterilizing transmissible infections within hours [40, 41]. Mature gametocytes accumulate during submicroscopic infections because of their slower clearance than asexual stages [8, 14], so gametocytocidal doses of primaquine may be more important in asymptomatic carriers than in symptomatic carriers, particularly if a rapid effect is needed. However, in a relatively high-transmission location (Comoros), Deng et al [42] found that addition of a single low dose of primaquine to MDA did not accelerate the decline of symptomatic falciparum malaria. There were no data on submicroscopic carriage. In low-transmission settings of Southeast Asia, asymptomatic parasite reservoirs contribute to the transmission of malaria and its persistence in affected communities. Three monthly rounds of MDA with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and a single low dose of primaquine is an effective intervention that interrupts the transmission cycle of malaria rapidly in these areas, where the prevalence of infection is relatively high and where artemisinin-resistance in P. falciparum is established. Without primaquine radical cure, vivax malaria rapidly returns because of relapse.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary materials are available at The Journal of Infectious Diseases online. Consisting of data provided by the authors to benefit the reader, the posted materials are not copyedited and are the sole responsibility of the authors, so questions or comments should be addressed to the corresponding author. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file.
  39 in total

1.  The epidemiology of malaria in a Karen population on the western border of Thailand.

Authors:  C Luxemburger; K L Thwai; N J White; H K Webster; D E Kyle; L Maelankirri; T Chongsuphajaisiddhi; F Nosten
Journal:  Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg       Date:  1996 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.184

2.  Forest malaria in Bangladesh. II. Transmission by Anopheles dirus.

Authors:  R Rosenberg; N P Maheswary
Journal:  Am J Trop Med Hyg       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 2.345

3.  Bionomics of Anopheles minimus and its role in malaria transmission in Thailand.

Authors:  S Ratanatham; E S Upatham; C Prasittisuk; W Rojanasunan; N Theerasilp; A Tremongkol; V Viyanant
Journal:  Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 0.267

4.  Primaquine to prevent transmission of falciparum malaria.

Authors:  Nicholas J White
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2012-11-23       Impact factor: 25.071

5.  Deployment of early diagnosis and mefloquine-artesunate treatment of falciparum malaria in Thailand: the Tak Malaria Initiative.

Authors:  Verena Ilona Carrara; Supakit Sirilak; Janjira Thonglairuam; Chaiporn Rojanawatsirivet; Stephane Proux; Valery Gilbos; Al Brockman; Elizabeth A Ashley; Rose McGready; Srivicha Krudsood; Somjai Leemingsawat; Sornchai Looareesuwan; Pratap Singhasivanon; Nicholas White; François Nosten
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 11.069

6.  The epidemiology of subclinical malaria infections in South-East Asia: findings from cross-sectional surveys in Thailand-Myanmar border areas, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

Authors:  Mallika Imwong; Thuy Nhien Nguyen; Rupam Tripura; Tom J Peto; Sue J Lee; Khin Maung Lwin; Preyanan Suangkanarat; Atthanee Jeeyapant; Benchawan Vihokhern; Klanarong Wongsaen; Dao Van Hue; Le Thanh Dong; Tam-Uyen Nguyen; Yoel Lubell; Lorenz von Seidlein; Mehul Dhorda; Cholrawee Promnarate; Georges Snounou; Benoit Malleret; Laurent Rénia; Lilly Keereecharoen; Pratap Singhasivanon; Pasathorn Sirithiranont; Jem Chalk; Chea Nguon; Tran Tinh Hien; Nicholas Day; Nicholas J White; Arjen Dondorp; Francois Nosten
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 2.979

7.  High-throughput ultrasensitive molecular techniques for quantifying low-density malaria parasitemias.

Authors:  Mallika Imwong; Sarun Hanchana; Benoit Malleret; Laurent Rénia; Nicholas P J Day; Arjen Dondorp; Francois Nosten; Georges Snounou; Nicholas J White
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Global, regional, and national incidence and mortality for HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria during 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013.

Authors:  Christopher J L Murray; Katrina F Ortblad; Caterina Guinovart; Stephen S Lim; Timothy M Wolock; D Allen Roberts; Emily A Dansereau; Nicholas Graetz; Ryan M Barber; Jonathan C Brown; Haidong Wang; Herbert C Duber; Mohsen Naghavi; Daniel Dicker; Lalit Dandona; Joshua A Salomon; Kyle R Heuton; Kyle Foreman; David E Phillips; Thomas D Fleming; Abraham D Flaxman; Bryan K Phillips; Elizabeth K Johnson; Megan S Coggeshall; Foad Abd-Allah; Semaw Ferede Abera; Jerry P Abraham; Ibrahim Abubakar; Laith J Abu-Raddad; Niveen Me Abu-Rmeileh; Tom Achoki; Austine Olufemi Adeyemo; Arsène Kouablan Adou; José C Adsuar; Emilie Elisabet Agardh; Dickens Akena; Mazin J Al Kahbouri; Deena Alasfoor; Mohammed I Albittar; Gabriel Alcalá-Cerra; Miguel Angel Alegretti; Zewdie Aderaw Alemu; Rafael Alfonso-Cristancho; Samia Alhabib; Raghib Ali; Francois Alla; Peter J Allen; Ubai Alsharif; Elena Alvarez; Nelson Alvis-Guzman; Adansi A Amankwaa; Azmeraw T Amare; Hassan Amini; Walid Ammar; Benjamin O Anderson; Carl Abelardo T Antonio; Palwasha Anwari; Johan Arnlöv; Valentina S Arsic Arsenijevic; Ali Artaman; Rana J Asghar; Reza Assadi; Lydia S Atkins; Alaa Badawi; Kalpana Balakrishnan; Amitava Banerjee; Sanjay Basu; Justin Beardsley; Tolesa Bekele; Michelle L Bell; Eduardo Bernabe; Tariku Jibat Beyene; Neeraj Bhala; Ashish Bhalla; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Aref Bin Abdulhak; Agnes Binagwaho; Jed D Blore; Berrak Bora Basara; Dipan Bose; Michael Brainin; Nicholas Breitborde; Carlos A Castañeda-Orjuela; Ferrán Catalá-López; Vineet K Chadha; Jung-Chen Chang; Peggy Pei-Chia Chiang; Ting-Wu Chuang; Mercedes Colomar; Leslie Trumbull Cooper; Cyrus Cooper; Karen J Courville; Benjamin C Cowie; Michael H Criqui; Rakhi Dandona; Anand Dayama; Diego De Leo; Louisa Degenhardt; Borja Del Pozo-Cruz; Kebede Deribe; Don C Des Jarlais; Muluken Dessalegn; Samath D Dharmaratne; Uğur Dilmen; Eric L Ding; Tim R Driscoll; Adnan M Durrani; Richard G Ellenbogen; Sergey Petrovich Ermakov; Alireza Esteghamati; Emerito Jose A Faraon; Farshad Farzadfar; Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad; Daniel Obadare Fijabi; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Urbano Fra Paleo; Lynne Gaffikin; Amiran Gamkrelidze; Fortuné Gbètoho Gankpé; Johanna M Geleijnse; Bradford D Gessner; Katherine B Gibney; Ibrahim Abdelmageem Mohamed Ginawi; Elizabeth L Glaser; Philimon Gona; Atsushi Goto; Hebe N Gouda; Harish Chander Gugnani; Rajeev Gupta; Rahul Gupta; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; Randah Ribhi Hamadeh; Mouhanad Hammami; Graeme J Hankey; Hilda L Harb; Josep Maria Haro; Rasmus Havmoeller; Simon I Hay; Mohammad T Hedayati; Ileana B Heredia Pi; Hans W Hoek; John C Hornberger; H Dean Hosgood; Peter J Hotez; Damian G Hoy; John J Huang; Kim M Iburg; Bulat T Idrisov; Kaire Innos; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Panniyammakal Jeemon; Paul N Jensen; Vivekanand Jha; Guohong Jiang; Jost B Jonas; Knud Juel; Haidong Kan; Ida Kankindi; Nadim E Karam; André Karch; Corine Kakizi Karema; Anil Kaul; Norito Kawakami; Dhruv S Kazi; Andrew H Kemp; Andre Pascal Kengne; Andre Keren; Maia Kereselidze; Yousef Saleh Khader; Shams Eldin Ali Hassan Khalifa; Ejaz Ahmed Khan; Young-Ho Khang; Irma Khonelidze; Yohannes Kinfu; Jonas M Kinge; Luke Knibbs; Yoshihiro Kokubo; S Kosen; Barthelemy Kuate Defo; Veena S Kulkarni; Chanda Kulkarni; Kaushalendra Kumar; Ravi B Kumar; G Anil Kumar; Gene F Kwan; Taavi Lai; Arjun Lakshmana Balaji; Hilton Lam; Qing Lan; Van C Lansingh; Heidi J Larson; Anders Larsson; Jong-Tae Lee; James Leigh; Mall Leinsalu; Ricky Leung; Yichong Li; Yongmei Li; Graça Maria Ferreira De Lima; Hsien-Ho Lin; Steven E Lipshultz; Shiwei Liu; Yang Liu; Belinda K Lloyd; Paulo A Lotufo; Vasco Manuel Pedro Machado; Jennifer H Maclachlan; Carlos Magis-Rodriguez; Marek Majdan; Christopher Chabila Mapoma; Wagner Marcenes; Melvin Barrientos Marzan; Joseph R Masci; Mohammad Taufiq Mashal; Amanda J Mason-Jones; Bongani M Mayosi; Tasara T Mazorodze; Abigail Cecilia Mckay; Peter A Meaney; Man Mohan Mehndiratta; Fabiola Mejia-Rodriguez; Yohannes Adama Melaku; Ziad A Memish; Walter Mendoza; Ted R Miller; Edward J Mills; Karzan Abdulmuhsin Mohammad; Ali H Mokdad; Glen Liddell Mola; Lorenzo Monasta; Marcella Montico; Ami R Moore; Rintaro Mori; Wilkister Nyaora Moturi; Mitsuru Mukaigawara; Kinnari S Murthy; Aliya Naheed; Kovin S Naidoo; Luigi Naldi; Vinay Nangia; K M Venkat Narayan; Denis Nash; Chakib Nejjari; Robert G Nelson; Sudan Prasad Neupane; Charles R Newton; Marie Ng; Muhammad Imran Nisar; Sandra Nolte; Ole F Norheim; Vincent Nowaseb; Luke Nyakarahuka; In-Hwan Oh; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Bolajoko O Olusanya; Saad B Omer; John Nelson Opio; Orish Ebere Orisakwe; Jeyaraj D Pandian; Christina Papachristou; Angel J Paternina Caicedo; Scott B Patten; Vinod K Paul; Boris Igor Pavlin; Neil Pearce; David M Pereira; Aslam Pervaiz; Konrad Pesudovs; Max Petzold; Farshad Pourmalek; Dima Qato; Amado D Quezada; D Alex Quistberg; Anwar Rafay; Kazem Rahimi; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Sajjad Ur Rahman; Murugesan Raju; Saleem M Rana; Homie Razavi; Robert Quentin Reilly; Giuseppe Remuzzi; Jan Hendrik Richardus; Luca Ronfani; Nobhojit Roy; Nsanzimana Sabin; Mohammad Yahya Saeedi; Mohammad Ali Sahraian; Genesis May J Samonte; Monika Sawhney; Ione J C Schneider; David C Schwebel; Soraya Seedat; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Edson E Servan-Mori; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Kenji Shibuya; Hwashin Hyun Shin; Ivy Shiue; Rupak Shivakoti; Inga Dora Sigfusdottir; Donald H Silberberg; Andrea P Silva; Edgar P Simard; Jasvinder A Singh; Vegard Skirbekk; Karen Sliwa; Samir Soneji; Sergey S Soshnikov; Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy; Vasiliki Kalliopi Stathopoulou; Konstantinos Stroumpoulis; Soumya Swaminathan; Bryan L Sykes; Karen M Tabb; Roberto Tchio Talongwa; Eric Yeboah Tenkorang; Abdullah Sulieman Terkawi; Alan J Thomson; Andrew L Thorne-Lyman; Jeffrey A Towbin; Jefferson Traebert; Bach X Tran; Zacharie Tsala Dimbuene; Miltiadis Tsilimbaris; Uche S Uchendu; Kingsley N Ukwaja; Selen Begüm Uzun; Andrew J Vallely; Tommi J Vasankari; N Venketasubramanian; Francesco S Violante; Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov; Stein Emil Vollset; Stephen Waller; Mitchell T Wallin; Linhong Wang; XiaoRong Wang; Yanping Wang; Scott Weichenthal; Elisabete Weiderpass; Robert G Weintraub; Ronny Westerman; Richard A White; James D Wilkinson; Thomas Neil Williams; Solomon Meseret Woldeyohannes; John Q Wong; Gelin Xu; Yang C Yang; Yuichiro Yano; Gokalp Kadri Yentur; Paul Yip; Naohiro Yonemoto; Seok-Jun Yoon; Mustafa Younis; Chuanhua Yu; Kim Yun Jin; Maysaa El Sayed Zaki; Yong Zhao; Yingfeng Zheng; Maigeng Zhou; Jun Zhu; Xiao Nong Zou; Alan D Lopez; Theo Vos
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Comparison of the Performances of Five Primer Sets for the Detection and Quantification of Plasmodium in Anopheline Vectors by Real-Time PCR.

Authors:  V Chaumeau; C Andolina; B Fustec; N Tuikue Ndam; C Brengues; S Herder; D Cerqueira; T Chareonviriyaphap; F Nosten; V Corbel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The persistence and oscillations of submicroscopic Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax infections over time in Vietnam: an open cohort study.

Authors:  Thuy-Nhien Nguyen; Lorenz von Seidlein; Tuong-Vy Nguyen; Phuc-Nhi Truong; Son Do Hung; Huong-Thu Pham; Tam-Uyen Nguyen; Thanh Dong Le; Van Hue Dao; Mavuto Mukaka; Nicholas Pj Day; Nicholas J White; Arjen M Dondorp; Guy E Thwaites; Tran Tinh Hien
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 71.421

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  Systems biology of malaria explored with nonhuman primates.

Authors:  Mary R Galinski
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  The relative impact of interventions on sympatric Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum malaria: A systematic review.

Authors:  Melanie Loeffel; Amanda Ross
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2022-06-29

3.  Heterogeneity in prevalence of subclinical Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax infections but no parasite genomic clustering in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh.

Authors:  Tiffany Huwe; Mohammad Golam Kibria; Fatema Tuj Johora; Ching Swe Phru; Nusrat Jahan; Mohammad Sharif Hossain; Wasif Ali Khan; Ric N Price; Benedikt Ley; Mohammad Shafiul Alam; Cristian Koepfli
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2022-07-14       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Entomological determinants of malaria transmission in Kayin state, Eastern Myanmar: A 24-month longitudinal study in four villages.

Authors:  Victor Chaumeau; Bénédicte Fustec; Saw Nay Hsel; Céline Montazeau; Saw Naw Nyo; Selma Metaane; Sunisa Sawasdichai; Prapan Kittiphanakun; Phabele Phatharakokordbun; Nittipha Kwansomboon; Chiara Andolina; Dominique Cerqueira; Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap; François H Nosten; Vincent Corbel
Journal:  Wellcome Open Res       Date:  2019-06-17

5.  The temporal dynamics and infectiousness of subpatent Plasmodium falciparum infections in relation to parasite density.

Authors:  Hannah C Slater; Amanda Ross; Ingrid Felger; Natalie E Hofmann; Leanne Robinson; Jackie Cook; Bronner P Gonçalves; Anders Björkman; Andre Lin Ouedraogo; Ulrika Morris; Mwinyi Msellem; Cristian Koepfli; Ivo Mueller; Fitsum Tadesse; Endalamaw Gadisa; Smita Das; Gonzalo Domingo; Melissa Kapulu; Janet Midega; Seth Owusu-Agyei; Cécile Nabet; Renaud Piarroux; Ogobara Doumbo; Safiatou Niare Doumbo; Kwadwo Koram; Naomi Lucchi; Venkatachalam Udhayakumar; Jacklin Mosha; Alfred Tiono; Daniel Chandramohan; Roly Gosling; Felista Mwingira; Robert Sauerwein; Richard Paul; Eleanor M Riley; Nicholas J White; Francois Nosten; Mallika Imwong; Teun Bousema; Chris Drakeley; Lucy C Okell
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  The impact of targeted malaria elimination with mass drug administrations on falciparum malaria in Southeast Asia: A cluster randomised trial.

Authors:  Lorenz von Seidlein; Thomas J Peto; Jordi Landier; Thuy-Nhien Nguyen; Rupam Tripura; Koukeo Phommasone; Tiengkham Pongvongsa; Khin Maung Lwin; Lilly Keereecharoen; Ladda Kajeechiwa; May Myo Thwin; Daniel M Parker; Jacher Wiladphaingern; Suphak Nosten; Stephane Proux; Vincent Corbel; Nguyen Tuong-Vy; Truong Le Phuc-Nhi; Do Hung Son; Pham Nguyen Huong-Thu; Nguyen Thi Kim Tuyen; Nguyen Thanh Tien; Le Thanh Dong; Dao Van Hue; Huynh Hong Quang; Chea Nguon; Chan Davoeung; Huy Rekol; Bipin Adhikari; Gisela Henriques; Panom Phongmany; Preyanan Suangkanarat; Atthanee Jeeyapant; Benchawan Vihokhern; Rob W van der Pluijm; Yoel Lubell; Lisa J White; Ricardo Aguas; Cholrawee Promnarate; Pasathorn Sirithiranont; Benoit Malleret; Laurent Rénia; Carl Onsjö; Xin Hui Chan; Jeremy Chalk; Olivo Miotto; Krittaya Patumrat; Kesinee Chotivanich; Borimas Hanboonkunupakarn; Podjanee Jittmala; Nils Kaehler; Phaik Yeong Cheah; Christopher Pell; Mehul Dhorda; Mallika Imwong; Georges Snounou; Mavuto Mukaka; Pimnara Peerawaranun; Sue J Lee; Julie A Simpson; Sasithon Pukrittayakamee; Pratap Singhasivanon; Martin P Grobusch; Frank Cobelens; Frank Smithuis; Paul N Newton; Guy E Thwaites; Nicholas P J Day; Mayfong Mayxay; Tran Tinh Hien; Francois H Nosten; Arjen M Dondorp; Nicholas J White
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 11.069

7.  Mass drug administrations with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and single low dose primaquine to eliminate Plasmodium falciparum have only a transient impact on Plasmodium vivax: Findings from randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Koukeo Phommasone; Frank van Leth; Thomas J Peto; Jordi Landier; Thuy-Nhien Nguyen; Rupam Tripura; Tiengkham Pongvongsa; Khin Maung Lwin; Ladda Kajeechiwa; May Myo Thwin; Daniel M Parker; Jacher Wiladphaingern; Suphak Nosten; Stephane Proux; Chea Nguon; Chan Davoeung; Huy Rekol; Bipin Adhikari; Cholrawee Promnarate; Kesinee Chotivanich; Borimas Hanboonkunupakarn; Podjanee Jittmala; Phaik Yeong Cheah; Mehul Dhorda; Mallika Imwong; Mavuto Mukaka; Pimnara Peerawaranun; Sasithon Pukrittayakamee; Paul N Newton; Guy E Thwaites; Nicholas P J Day; Mayfong Mayxay; Tran Tinh Hien; Francois H Nosten; Frank Cobelens; Arjen M Dondorp; Nicholas J White; Lorenz von Seidlein
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Study protocol: an open-label individually randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine prophylaxis for malaria among forest goers in Cambodia.

Authors:  Richard James Maude; Rupam Tripura; Mom Ean; Meas Sokha; Thomas Julian Peto; James John Callery; Mallika Imwong; Ranitha Vongpromek; Joel Tarning; Mavuto Mukaka; Naomi Waithira; Oung Soviet; Lorenz von Seidlein; Siv Sovannaroth
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Occurrence and Distribution of Nonfalciparum Malaria Parasite Species Among Adolescents and Adults in Malawi.

Authors:  Austin Gumbo; Hillary M Topazian; Alexis Mwanza; Cedar L Mitchell; Sydney Puerto-Meredith; Ruth Njiko; Michael Kayange; David Mwalilino; Bernard Mvula; Gerald Tegha; Tisungane Mvalo; Irving Hoffman; Jonathan J Juliano
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 7.759

10.  Utility of Plasmodium falciparum DNA from rapid diagnostic test kits for molecular analysis and whole genome amplification.

Authors:  Suttipat Srisutham; Kanokon Suwannasin; Vivek Bhakta Mathema; Kanlaya Sriprawat; Frank M Smithuis; Francois Nosten; Nicholas J White; Arjen M Dondorp; Mallika Imwong
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 2.979

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.