This is a cluster randomised controlled trial with factorial study design comparing the impact of reactive community-based malaria interventions: 1) presumptive treatment (or rfMDA, reactive focal mass drug administration) versus reactive case detection (RACD), and 2) reactive IRS (indoor residual spraying) versus control on the incidence of malaria in Namibia.
In recent years, many countries, including Namibia, have experienced reductions in malaria transmission in association with the scale-up of effective interventions and are now moving towards malaria elimination. In malaria control, the goal is to reduce the clinical burden of malaria. In malaria elimination, the aim is to interrupt transmission, and it becomes necessary to address not only symptomatic malaria, but also asymptomatic infections that contribute to transmission. Since malaria transmission is highly geographically heterogeneous, elimination activities should target hot spots, or areas where the risk of future infection is highest. Hence, in the transition from control to elimination, enhanced surveillance and response is necessary to target hot spots with interventions to interrupt transmission. Reactive case detection (RACD), active surveillance in communities around passively detected cases, is a recommended elimination strategy to identify secondary cases and hot spots. However, RACD can be labour-, time-, and cost- intensive, and misses people who are absent during screening or refuse to have their blood drawn. Furthermore, both microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) utilized in RACD have shortcomings, for instance, the suboptimal sensitivity of RDTs for low parasite density and non-falciparum infections. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) offers markedly improved sensitivity over RDTs but requires hours of processing time, sophisticated technical skills, and expensive equipment. Given these limitations, presumptive treatment may be a more feasible and effective strategy to reduce and interrupt transmission. Reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA), a form of presumptive treatment, has been used successfully in China to overcome some of the weaknesses of RACD. rfMDA targets remaining reservoirs of infection in low endemic settings by treating everyone at high risk (subjects residing around an index case), rather than rely on RDT results, which have been shown to miss infections. In a low transmission setting such as Namibia, only a small proportion of the populations is at high risk of infection, therefore, only a small number of people need to be targeted (perhaps 20-50 people). Additional indoor residual spraying (IRS) targeted to homes in high risk locations can also be implemented. rfMDA is a promising strategy, but evidence does not yet exist to prove its efficacy in Africa. Questions remain about where to target rfMDA, what drugs to use, and whether drugs should be used alone or in combination with additional vector control. For rfMDA to be most successful, it is necessary to kill parasites in the human as well as the vector population of the target area. However, one challenge of pre-transmission season IRS is that it is difficult to predict where future infections will occur. A reactive approach, in conjunction with the pre-transmission approach, will ensure coverage of effective vector control in the highest risk areas. Further, if there is unknown resistance to the insecticide used during pre-transmission season, the subsequent reactive use of a different, and presumably effective insecticide, will provide better protection. In this study the investigators will utilise a cluster randomized controlled study design to evaluate rfMDA in response to a passively identified index case and compare it to RACD. The investigators will study each intervention (rfMDA, RACD) both with and without additional focal insecticide spraying. 56 enumeration areas (EAs) within catchment areas of 11 study health facilities will be randomized to one of four intervention arms: 1. RACD only 2. RACD with RAVC 3. rfMDA only 4. rfMDA with RAVC A rapid reporting surveillance system will capture confirmed, passively identified cases at all study health facilities, and those cases will trigger an intervention by the study team if located in one of the study EAs.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
9,845
Active malaria surveillance using rapid diagnostic test in households around passively-detected index case. RDT-positive subjects are treated per national policy, under which combination medication artemether-lumefantrine is first-line, using dosing (mg artemether / mg lumefantrine): (i) 5-14kg patient: 20/120mg twice (8 hr apart) on day 1, 20/120mg twice (12 hr apart) on each of days 2 and 3 then stop (ii) 15-24kg patient: 40/240mg twice (8 hrs apart) on day 1, 40/240mg twice (12 hrs apart) on each of days 2 and 3 then stop (iii) 25-34kg patient: 60/360mg twice (8 hrs apart) on day 1, 60/360mg twice (12 hrs apart) on each of days 2 and 3 then stop (iv) \> 34kg patient: 80/480mg twice (8 hrs apart) on day 1, 80/480mg twice (12 hrs apart) on each of days 2 and 3, then stop
Focal, targeted indoor spraying with long-lasting insecticide pirimiphos-methyl or Actellic 300 CS, a World Health Organization (WHO)-approved organophosphate. Safety measures: (i) seeking advance permission to spray; (ii) temporarily removing items (utensils, water, food, pets) from the building during spray; (iii) covering all unremovable items; (iv) asking inhabitants to temporarily relocate outdoors during spray; (v) advising children remain outdoors until floors washed; and (vi) avoiding of spraying of any rooms that contain inhabitants, animals, or incorrectly removed/covered items. Actellic will be applied according to National Vector-borne Disease Control Program (NVDCP) indoor residual spraying (IRS) guidelines, using a Hudson X-pert sprayer (Hudson Manufacturing Co., Chicago, USA) at 40 mL/m-sq.
University of Namibia Multidisciplinary Research Centre
Windhoek, Namibia
Incidence
Incidence of confirmed, passively identified malaria cases
Time frame: Up to 12 months
All-age infection prevalence
The investigators will determine all-age infection prevalence using loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) during the cross-sectional household survey. This survey will be administered to a sample of residents of all intervention Enumeration Areas in the Study Area at study conclusion.
Time frame: Up to 12 months
All-age seroprevalence
The investigators will determine all-age seroprevalence using ELISA during the cross-sectional household survey. This survey will be administered to a sample of residents of all intervention EAs in the Study Area at study conclusion.
Time frame: Up to 12 months
Feasibility of attaining coverage
The investigators will compare coverage of each intervention package and determine the feasibility of reaching 80% coverage for each intervention package. For RACD intervention, this equates to the proportion of the population living in the Target Area that receives a finger prick to test for malaria. For TPE intervention, coverage equates to the proportion that receive an initial dose of antimalarial drug (intention to treat analysis). For RAVC intervention, coverage is defined as the proportion of houses in the Target Area that receive reactive Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS).
Time frame: Up to 12 months
Safety: Serious adverse events (SAEs)
The investigators will compare the count of serious adverse events (SAEs) relative to the total number of participants receiving an Intervention, across interventions.
Time frame: Up to 12 months
Acceptability
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Presumptive treatment, using the medication A-L, of the inhabitants of households surrounding a passively-detected index case, without incorporating a diagnostic test step. The investigators will administer A-L with dosing as follows (mg artemether / mg lumefantrine): (i) 5-14kg patient: 20/120mg twice (8 hours apart) on day 1, 20/120mg twice (12 hours apart) on each of days 2 and 3, then stop (ii) 15-24kg patient: 40/240mg twice (8 hours apart) on day 1, 40/240mg twice (12 hours apart) on each of days 2 and 3, then stop (iii) 25-34kg patient: 60/360mg twice (8 hours apart) on day 1, 60/360mg twice (12 hours apart) on each of days 2 and 3, then stop (iv) \> 34kg patient: 80/480mg twice (8 hours apart) on day 1, 80/480mg twice (12 hours apart) on each of days 2 and 3, then stop
Using focus group discussions (FGDs), the investigators will ask two questions: "Was this intervention acceptable to \[participant\]?" and "Would \[participant\] participate in this intervention again if given the opportunity?". The investigators will compare the % of "yes" responses to each of these questions, in the TPE versus the RACD arms.
Time frame: Up to 12 months
Refusal rates
Refusal rates for each intervention
Time frame: Up to 12 months
Cost of intervention
The investigators will collect detailed expenditure data on costs of delivery of the TPE and RACD interventions. Calculations will include costs for all consumables, as well as staff time, which will be prospectively collected every 10th TPE or RACD event. The investigators will compare TPE versus RACD in terms of cost per intervention event as well as cost per population intervened upon.
Time frame: Up to 12 months
Medication adherence
The investigators will measure medication adherence in both TPE and RACD by scheduled pill counts in a random subset of subjects receiving each of those interventions.
Time frame: Up to 12 months