Since the year 2000, a concerted campaign against malaria has led to unprecedented levels of intervention coverage across sub-Saharan Africa. Understanding the effect of this control effort is vital to inform future control planning. However, the effect of malaria interventions across the varied epidemiological settings of Africa remains poorly understood owing to the absence of reliable surveillance data and the simplistic approaches underlying current disease estimates. Here we link a large database of malaria field surveys with detailed reconstructions of changing intervention coverage to directly evaluate trends from 2000 to 2015 and quantify the attributable effect of malaria disease control efforts. We found that Plasmodium falciparum infection prevalence in endemic Africa halved and the incidence of clinical disease fell by 40% between 2000 and 2015. We estimate that interventions have averted 663 (542–753 credible interval) million clinical cases since 2000. Insecticide-treated nets, the most widespread intervention, were by far the largest contributor (68% of cases averted). Although still below target levels, current malaria interventions have substantially reduced malaria disease incidence across the continent. Increasing access to these interventions, and maintaining their effectiveness in the face of insecticide and drug resistance, should form a cornerstone of post-2015 control strategies.

SummaryPresent elimination strategies are based on recommendations derived during the Global Malaria Eradication Program of the 1960s. However, many countries considering elimination nowadays have high intrinsic transmission potential and, without the support of a regional campaign, have to deal with the constant threat of imported cases of the disease, emphasising the need to revisit the strategies on which contemporary elimination programmes are based. To eliminate malaria, programmes need to concentrate on identification and elimination of foci of infections through both passive and active methods of case detection. This approach needs appropriate treatment of both clinical cases and asymptomatic infections, combined with targeted vector control. Draining of infectious pools entirely will not be sufficient since they could be replenished by imported malaria. Elimination will thus additionally need identification and treatment of incoming infections before they lead to transmission, or, more realistically, embarking on regional initiatives to dry up importation at its source.

BackgroundConsiderable declines in malaria have accompanied increased funding for control since the year 2000, but historical failures to maintain gains against the disease underscore the fragility of these successes. Although malaria transmission can be suppressed by effective control measures, in the absence of active intervention malaria will return to an intrinsic equilibrium determined by factors related to ecology, efficiency of mosquito vectors, and socioeconomic characteristics. Understanding where and why resurgence has occurred historically can help current and future malaria control programmes avoid the mistakes of the past.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify historical malaria resurgence events. All suggested causes of these events were categorized according to whether they were related to weakened malaria control programmes, increased potential for malaria transmission, or technical obstacles like resistance.ResultsThe review identified 75 resurgence events in 61 countries, occurring from the 1930s through the 2000s. Almost all resurgence events (68/75 = 91%) were attributed at least in part to the weakening of malaria control programmes for a variety of reasons, of which resource constraints were the most common (39/68 = 57%). Over half of the events (44/75 = 59%) were attributed in part to increases in the intrinsic potential for malaria transmission, while only 24/75 (32%) were attributed to vector or drug resistance.ConclusionsGiven that most malaria resurgences have been linked to weakening of control programmes, there is an urgent need to develop practical solutions to the financial and operational threats to effectively sustaining today’s successful malaria control programmes.

Hugh Sturrock and colleagues discuss the role of active case detection in low malaria transmission settings. They argue that the evidence for its effectiveness is sparse and that targeted mass drug administration should be evaluated as an alternative or addition to active case detection. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

The prevalence of Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Zanzibar has reached historic lows. Improving control requires quantifying malaria importation rates, identifying high-risk travelers, and assessing onwards transmission.Estimates of Zanzibar's importation rate were calculated through two independent methodologies. First, mobile phone usage data and ferry traffic between Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania were re-analyzed using a model of heterogeneous travel risk. Second, a dynamic mathematical model of importation and transmission rates was used.Zanzibar residents traveling to malaria endemic regions were estimated to contribute 1–15 times more imported cases than infected visitors. The malaria importation rate was estimated to be 1.6 incoming infections per 1,000 inhabitants per year. Local transmission was estimated too low to sustain transmission in most places.Malaria infections in Zanzibar largely result from imported malaria and subsequent transmission. Plasmodium falciparum malaria elimination appears feasible by implementing control measures based on detecting imported malaria cases and controlling onward transmission.

As countries move towards malaria elimination, methods to identify infections among populations who do not seek treatment are required. Reactive case detection, whereby individuals living in close proximity to passively detected cases are screened and treated, is one approach being used by a number of countries including Swaziland. An outstanding issue is establishing the epidemiologically and operationally optimal screening radius around each passively detected index case. Using data collected between December 2009 and June 2012 from reactive case detection (RACD) activities in Swaziland, we evaluated the effect of screening radius and other risk factors on the probability of detecting cases by reactive case detection. Using satellite imagery, we also evaluated the household coverage achieved during reactive case detection. Over the study period, 250 cases triggered RACD, which identified a further 74 cases, showing the value of RACD over passive surveillance alone. Results suggest that the odds of detecting a case within the household of the index case were significantly higher than in neighbouring households (odds ratio (OR) 13, 95% CI 3.1–54.4). Furthermore, cases were more likely to be detected when RACD was conducted within a week of the index presenting at a health facility (OR 8.7, 95% CI 1.1–66.4) and if the index household had not been sprayed with insecticide (OR sprayed vs not sprayed 0.11, 95% CI 0.03–0.46). The large number of households missed during RACD indicates that a 1 km screening radius may be impractical in such resource limited settings such as Swaziland. Future RACD in Swaziland could be made more effective by achieving high coverage amongst individuals located near to index cases and in areas where spraying has not been conducted. As well as allowing the programme to implement RACD more rapidly, this would help to more precisely define the optimal screening radius.

Decisions to eliminate malaria from all or part of a country involve a complex set of factors, and this complexity is compounded by ambiguity surrounding some of the key terminology, most notably "control" and "elimination." It is impossible to forecast resource and operational requirements accurately if endpoints have not been defined clearly, yet even during the Global Malaria Eradication Program, debate raged over the precise definition of "eradication." Analogous deliberations regarding the meaning of "elimination" and "control" are basically nonexistent today despite these terms' core importance to programme planning. To advance the contemporary debate about these issues, this paper presents a historical review of commonly used terms, including control, elimination, and eradication, to help contextualize current understanding of these concepts. The review has been supported by analysis of the underlying mathematical concepts on which these definitions are based through simple branching process models that describe the proliferation of malaria cases following importation. Through this analysis, the importance of pragmatic definitions that are useful for providing malaria control and elimination programmes with a practical set of strategic milestones is emphasized, and it is argued that current conceptions of elimination in particular fail to achieve these requirements. To provide all countries with precise targets, new conceptual definitions are suggested to more precisely describe the old goals of "control" - here more exactly named "controlled low-endemic malaria" - and "elimination." Additionally, it is argued that a third state, called "controlled non-endemic malaria," is required to describe the epidemiological condition in which endemic transmission has been interrupted, but malaria resulting from onwards transmission from imported infections continues to occur at a sufficiently high level that elimination has not been achieved. Finally, guidelines are discussed for deriving the separate operational definitions and metrics that will be required to make these concepts relevant, measurable, and achievable for a particular environment.

BackgroundAs successful malaria control programmes re-orientate towards elimination, the identification of transmission foci, targeting of attack measures to high-risk areas and management of importation risk become high priorities. When resources are limited and transmission is varying seasonally, approaches that can rapidly prioritize areas for surveillance and control can be valuable, and the most appropriate attack measure for a particular location is likely to differ depending on whether it exports or imports malaria infections.Methods/ResultsHere, using the example of Namibia, a method for targeting of interventions using surveillance data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone call records to support elimination planning is described. One year of aggregated movement patterns for over a million people across Namibia are analyzed, and linked with case-based risk maps built on satellite imagery. By combining case-data and movement, the way human population movements connect transmission risk areas is demonstrated. Communities that were strongly connected by relatively higher levels of movement were then identified, and net export and import of travellers and infection risks by region were quantified. These maps can aid the design of targeted interventions to maximally reduce the number of cases exported to other regions while employing appropriate interventions to manage risk in places that import them.ConclusionsThe approaches presented can be rapidly updated and used to identify where active surveillance for both local and imported cases should be increased, which regions would benefit from coordinating efforts, and how spatially progressive elimination plans can be designed. With improvements in surveillance systems linked to improved diagnosis of malaria, detailed satellite imagery being readily available and mobile phone usage data continually being collected by network providers, the potential exists to make operational use of such valuable, complimentary and contemporary datasets on an ongoing basis in infectious disease control and elimination.