| Literature DB >> 32950056 |
Joseph Wagman1, Idrissa Cissé2, Diakalkia Kone2, Seydou Fomba2, Erin Eckert3, Jules Mihigo4, Elie Bankineza5, Mamadou Bah5, Diadier Diallo6, Christelle Gogue7, Kenzie Tynuv7, Andrew Saibu8, Jason H Richardson9, Christen Fornadel9, Laurence Slutsker7, Molly Robertson7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The National Malaria Control Programme (NMCP) of Mali has had recent success decreasing malaria transmission using 3rd generation indoor residual spraying (IRS) products in areas with pyrethroid resistance, primarily in Ségou and Koulikoro Regions. In 2015, national survey data showed that Mopti Region had the highest under 5-year-old (u5) malaria prevalence at 54%-nearly twice the national average-despite having high access to long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC). Accordingly, in 2016 the NMCP and other stakeholders shifted IRS activities from Ségou to Mopti. Here, the results of a series of observational analyses utilizing routine malaria indicators to evaluate the impact of this switch are presented.Entities:
Keywords: Indoor residual spraying; Malaria incidence; Next-generation IRS; Observational impact analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32950056 PMCID: PMC7501620 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-020-03414-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1The location of the study districts, with intervention status indicated. After the 2016 indoor residual spraying (IRS) campaign, spray operations were shifted from Barouéli District in Ségou Region (dark green) to the districts of Mopti, Bandiagara, Bankass, and Djenné in Mopti Region (light green)
Summary of the malaria control landscape in the study districts
| Region | District | 2016 | 2017 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IRS | IRS | ||||||||||||||
| AI | Number of Structures Sprayed | Acceptance Ratea | No. of HFCA Targeted (%)b | Population Protectedc | LLINs Distributed | SMCd | AI | Number of Structures Sprayed | Acceptance Ratea | No. of HFCA Targeted (%)b | Population Protectedc | LLINs Distributed | SMCd | ||
| Ségou | Barouéli | Actellic | 71,333 | 97% | 19/19 (100%) | 279,135 | ANC/EPI | 68% | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | > 80% |
| Bla | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 99% | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | > 80% | |
| Macina | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 100% | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | > 80% | |
| Segou | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 87% | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | > 80% | |
| Niono | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 93% | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | > 80% | |
| San | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 81% | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | > 80% | |
| Tominian | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 97% | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | > 80% | |
| Mopti | Bandiagara | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 99% | Actellic | 91,291 | 95% | 17/24 (70%) | 302,671 | Universal | > 80% |
| Bankass | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 100% | Actellic | 25,917 | 96% | 6/24 (23%) | 84,929 | Universal | > 80% | |
| Djenné | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 83% | Actellic | 35,173 | 97% | 7/17 (41%) | 138,447 | Universal | > 80% | |
| Douentza | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 60% | None | – | – | – | – | Universal | > 80% | |
| Koro | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 100% | None | – | – | – | – | Universal | > 80% | |
| Mopti | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 80% | Actellic | 75,265 | 93% | 19/26 (74%) | 297,154 | Universal | > 80% | |
| Ténenkou | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 100% | None | – | – | – | – | Universal | > 80% | |
| Youwarou | None | – | – | – | – | ANC/EPI | 100% | None | – | – | – | – | Universal | > 80% | |
AI Active ingredient, ANC antenatal clinic, EPI expanded program on immunization, HFCA health facility catchment area, IRS indoor residual spray, LLIN long lasting insecticidal nets, SMC seasonal malaria chemoprevention, SP + AQ sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine + amodiaquine
a % of structures targeted for IRS that were sprayed
bNumber of health facility catchment areas that received IRS. In Barouéli in 2016 a blanket spraying approach targeted all houses in each HFCA
in Mopti in 2017 a more focal spraying approach targeted all houses in select HFCAs
cTotal number of residents of houses that were sprayed
d % of target population receiving at least 4 courses of SMC with SP + AQ; 2017 data awaiting final validation
Fig. 2General trends in monthly confirmed case incidence rates. a Ségou and b Mopti regions of Mali, 2016–2017. Illustrated are direct comparisons of the incidence rates observed at health facilities whose populations benefited from indoor residual spraying (IRS) in either year (green incidence curves) versus incidence rates observed at comparator non-IRS health facilities from the same region
Fig. 3Results of the difference-in-differences analyses. a How peak (September–February) malaria case incidence rates changed from 2016 to 2017 at the health facility level in districts where indoor residual spraying (IRS) was removed (dotted line border), districts where IRS was introduced (solid green border), and the remaining comparator districts where there was no IRS in either year. At each health facility, blue indicates a drop in malaria incidence and red indicates an increase, and the intensity of the colour represents the magnitude of the change. b The results of Student’s t-tests comparing the rates of changing incidence across the two IRS scenarios