Background
Reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA), or presumptive treatment without malaria testing of household members and neighbours of a passively identified malaria case, is currently being explored as a possible malaria elimination strategy in low transmission settings. One of the primary factors determining the effectiveness of rfMDA on reducing or interrupting transmission is achieving high coverage of the target population with drug administration. This study aims to explore the acceptability of rfMDA and identify facilitators and barriers to its potential implementation, as well as the community’s general knowledge, attitudes and beliefs with regard to malaria elimination.
Methods
A qualitative study was performed using focus group discussions (FGDs) among villagers that received rfMDA through the National Malaria Control Programme in the low transmission setting of Eswatini as part of a 2-year clinical trial. FGDs were audio-recorded, transcribed and translated into English. All transcripts were managed in Dedoose and underwent qualitative content analysis.
Results
The majority of participants perceived their community to be at high risk of malaria. Witnessing others in their community suffer from malaria, proximity to Mozambique, various ecological factors, and the presence of mosquitoes contributed to this perception. The greatest motivator of participation in rfMDA was witnessing someone else suffer from malaria, since most participants had not personally experienced malaria themselves. Participants valued the education on rfMDA and on malaria in general, particularly when communicated by nurses and other health workers from the Ministry of Health. Participants were overwhelmingly motivated to participate in rfMDA in order to obtain protection from malaria. Most participants did not understand the concept of sub-clinical infection and, therefore, did not perceive the anti-malarial medication given in rfMDA to be a treatment medication.
Conclusions
Perceived risk for malaria was a major driver of acceptability; therefore, future intervention campaigns could aim to better quantify risk to inform interventions and encourage uptake. There were misunderstandings about the asymptomatic reservoir of parasites in humans. Given that this phenomenon is the rationale for rfMDA, this misunderstanding could threaten the uptake of the intervention if it persists in the community. Using local authorities to deliver messaging, additional education on this concept with re-inforcement that risk of malaria is ongoing, even in the absence of frequent cases, may help to maximize and maintain acceptability.
IntroductionTo reduce malaria transmission in very low-endemic settings, screening and treatment near index cases (reactive case detection (RACD)), is widely practised, but the rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) used miss low-density infections. Reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) may be safe and more effective.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in Eswatini, a very low-endemic setting. 77 clusters were randomised to rfMDA using dihydroartemisin–piperaquine (DP) or RACD involving RDTs and artemether–lumefantrine. Interventions were delivered by the local programme. An intention-to-treat analysis was used to compare cluster-level cumulative confirmed malaria incidence among clusters with cases. Secondary outcomes included safety and adherence.ResultsFrom September 2015 to August 2017, 222 index cases from 47 clusters triggered 46 RACD events and 64 rfMDA events. RACD and rfMDA were delivered to 1455 and 1776 individuals, respectively. Index case coverage was 69.5% and 62.4% for RACD and rfMDA, respectively. Adherence to DP was 98.7%. No serious adverse events occurred. For rfMDA versus RACD, cumulative incidences (per 1000 person-years) of all malaria were 2.11 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.59) and 1.97 (95% CI 1.57 to 2.47), respectively; and of locally acquired malaria, they were 1.29 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.67) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.34), respectively. Adjusting for imbalance in baseline incidence, incidence rate ratio for rfMDA versus RACD was 0.95 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.65) for all malaria and 0.82 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.71) for locally acquired malaria. Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis that excluded clusters with <80% index case coverage.ConclusionIn a very low-endemic, real-world setting, rfMDA using DP was safe, but did not lower incidence compared with RACD, potentially due to insufficient coverage and/or power. To assess impact of interventions in very low-endemic settings, improved coverage, complementary interventions and adaptive ring trial designs may be needed.Trial registration numberNCT02315690.
Community case management by community health workers has substantially reduced malaria across the Greater Mekong Subregion and Central America. To sustain current and achieve further reductions in malaria, surveillance and delivery platforms must be redesigned to ensure their continued use by key populations.
Introduction
To reduce malaria transmission in very low-endemic settings, screening and treatment near index cases (reactive case detection (RACD)), is widely practiced, but the rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) used miss low-density infections. Presumptive treatment near index cases (reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA)) may be safe and more effective.
Methods
We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Eswatini, a very low-endemic setting. 77 clusters were randomised to rfMDA using dihydroartemisin-piperaquine (DP) or RACD involving RDTs and artemether lumefantrine (AL). Interventions were delivered by the local programme. An intention-to-treat analysis was used to compare cluster-level cumulative confirmed malaria incidence among clusters with cases. Secondary outcomes included safety and adherence.
Results
From Sept 2015-Aug 2017, 220 index cases from 47 clusters triggered 49 RACD events and 68 rfMDA events. RACD and rfMDA were delivered to 1696 and 1932 individuals, respectively. Index case and target population intervention coverages for both arms were 75.6%-81.4% and adherence to DP was 98.7%. For rfMDA versus RACD, cumulative incidences (per 1000 person-years) of all malaria were 2.11 (95% CI 1.73-2.59) and 1.97 (1.57-2.47), respectively; and of locally acquired malaria, they were 1.29 (95% CI 1.00-1.67) and 0.97 (0.71-1.34), respectively. Adjusting for imbalance in baseline incidence, incidence rate ratio (aIRR) for rfMDA versus RACD was 0.93 (95% CI 0.54-1.60) for all malaria and 0.77 (95% CI 0.38-1.56) for locally acquired malaria. No serious adverse events occurred.
Conclusion
In a very low-endemic, real-world setting, this trial is the first to evaluate rfMDA using DP. rfMDA was safe and resulted in lower cumulative incidence compared to RACD, but we were unable to confirm its effectiveness, potentially due to insufficient power. To assess impact of interventions in very low-endemic settings, multi-site, adaptive trials and use of complementary interventions may be needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.