Search

Basic science holds enormous power for revealing the biological mechanisms of disease and, in turn, paving the way toward new, effective interventions. Recognizing this power, the 2011 Research Agenda for Malaria Eradication included key priorities in fundamental research that, if attained, could help accelerate progress toward disease elimination and eradication. The Malaria Eradication Research Agenda (malERA) Consultative Panel on Basic Science and Enabling Technologies reviewed the progress, continuing challenges, and major opportunities for future research. The recommendations come from a literature of published and unpublished materials and the deliberations of the malERA Refresh Consultative Panel. These areas span multiple aspects of the Plasmodium life cycle in both the human host and the Anopheles vector and include critical, unanswered questions about parasite transmission, human infection in the liver, asexual-stage biology, and malaria persistence. We believe an integrated approach encompassing human immunology, parasitology, and entomology, and harnessing new and emerging biomedical technologies offers the best path toward addressing these questions and, ultimately, lowering the worldwide burden of malaria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resistance to first-line treatments for Plasmodium falciparum malaria and the insecticides used for Anopheles vector control are threatening malaria elimination efforts. Suboptimal responses to drugs and insecticides are both spreading geographically and emerging independently and are being seen at increasing intensities. Whilst resistance is unavoidable, its effects can be mitigated through resistance management practices, such as exposing the parasite or vector to more than one selective agent. Resistance contributed to the failure of the 20th century Global Malaria Eradication Programme, and yet the global response to this issue continues to be slow and poorly coordinated-too often, too little, too late. The Malaria Eradication Research Agenda (malERA) Refresh process convened a panel on resistance of both insecticides and antimalarial drugs. This paper outlines developments in the field over the past 5 years, highlights gaps in knowledge, and proposes a research agenda focused on managing resistance. A deeper understanding of the complex biological processes involved and how resistance is selected is needed, together with evidence of its public health impact. Resistance management will require improved use of entomological and parasitological data in decision making, and optimisation of the useful life of new and existing products through careful implementation, combination, and evaluation. A proactive, collaborative approach is needed from basic science and the development of new tools to programme and policy interventions that will ensure that the armamentarium of drugs and insecticides is sufficient to deal with the challenges of malaria control and its elimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Achieving a malaria-free world presents exciting scientific challenges as well as overwhelming health, equity, and economic benefits. WHO and countries are setting ambitious goals for reducing the burden and eliminating malaria through the "Global Technical Strategy" and 21 countries are aiming to eliminate malaria by 2020. The commitment to achieve these targets should be celebrated. However, the need for innovation to achieve these goals, sustain elimination, and free the world of malaria is greater than ever. Over 180 experts across multiple disciplines are engaged in the Malaria Eradication Research Agenda (malERA) Refresh process to address problems that need to be solved. The result is a research and development agenda to accelerate malaria elimination and, in the longer term, transform the malaria community's ability to eradicate it globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper summarises key advances and priorities since the 2011 presentation of the Malaria Eradication Research Agenda (malERA), with a focus on the combinations of intervention tools and strategies for elimination and their evaluation using modelling approaches. With an increasing number of countries embarking on malaria elimination programmes, national and local decisions to select combinations of tools and deployment strategies directed at malaria elimination must address rapidly changing transmission patterns across diverse geographic areas. However, not all of these approaches can be systematically evaluated in the field. Thus, there is potential for modelling to investigate appropriate 'packages' of combined interventions that include various forms of vector control, case management, surveillance, and population-based approaches for different settings, particularly at lower transmission levels. Modelling can help prioritise which intervention packages should be tested in field studies, suggest which intervention package should be used at a particular level or stratum of transmission intensity, estimate the risk of resurgence when scaling down specific interventions after local transmission is interrupted, and evaluate the risk and impact of parasite drug resistance and vector insecticide resistance. However, modelling intervention package deployment against a heterogeneous transmission background is a challenge. Further validation of malaria models should be pursued through an iterative process, whereby field data collected with the deployment of intervention packages is used to refine models and make them progressively more relevant for assessing and predicting elimination outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the turn of the century, a remarkable expansion has been achieved in the range and effectiveness of products and strategies available to prevent, treat, and control malaria, including advances in diagnostics, drugs, vaccines, and vector control. These advances have once again put malaria elimination on the agenda. However, it is clear that even with the means available today, malaria control and elimination pose a formidable challenge in many settings. Thus, currently available resources must be used more effectively, and new products and approaches likely to achieve these goals must be developed. This paper considers tools (both those available and others that may be required) to achieve and maintain malaria elimination. New diagnostics are needed to direct treatment and detect transmission potential; new drugs and vaccines to overcome existing resistance and protect against clinical and severe disease, as well as block transmission and prevent relapses; and new vector control measures to overcome insecticide resistance and more powerfully interrupt transmission. It is also essential that strategies for combining new and existing approaches are developed for different settings to maximise their longevity and effectiveness in areas with continuing transmission and receptivity. For areas where local elimination has been recently achieved, understanding which measures are needed to maintain elimination is necessary to prevent rebound and the reestablishment of transmission. This becomes increasingly important as more countries move towards elimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primaquine is the only licensed drug for eradicating Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites and, therefore, preventing relapses of vivax malaria. It is a vital component of global malaria elimination efforts. Primaquine is efficacious when supervised in clinical trials, but its effectiveness in real-world settings is unknown. We aimed to determine whether unsupervised primaquine was effective for preventing re-presentation to hospital with vivax malaria in southern Papua, Indonesia.Methods and Findings: Routinely-collected hospital surveillance data were used to undertake a pragmatic comparison of the risk of re-presentation to hospital with vivax malaria in patients prescribed dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP) combined with primaquine versus those patients prescribed DHP alone. The omission of primaquine was predominantly due to 3 stock outages. Individual clinical, pharmacy, and laboratory data were merged using individual hospital identification numbers and the date of presentation to hospital. Between April 2004 and December 2013, there were 86,797 documented episodes of vivax malaria, of which 62,492 (72.0%) were included in the analysis. The risk of re-presentation with vivax malaria within 1 year was 33.8% (95% confidence Interval [CI] 33.1%-34.5%) after initial monoinfection with P. vivax and 29.2% (95% CI 28.1%-30.4%) after mixed-species infection. The risk of re-presentation with P. vivax malaria was higher in children 1 to <5 years of age (49.6% [95% CI 48.4%-50.9%]) compared to patients 15 years of age or older (24.2% [95% CI 23.4-24.9%]); Adjusted Hazard Ratio (AHR) = 2.23 (95% CI 2.15-2.31), p < 0.001. Overall, the risk of re-presentation was 37.2% (95% CI 35.6%-38.8%) in patients who were prescribed no primaquine compared to 31.6% (95% CI 30.9%-32.3%) in those prescribed either a low (≥1.5 mg/kg and <5 mg/kg) or high (≥5 mg/kg) dose of primaquine (AHR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.86-0.95, p < 0.001]). Limiting the comparison to high dose versus no primaquine in the period during and 12 months before and after a large stock outage resulted in minimal change in the estimated clinical effectiveness of primaquine (AHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, p = 0.003). Our pragmatic study avoided the clinical influences associated with prospective study involvement but was subject to attrition bias caused by passive follow-up.Conclusions: Unsupervised primaquine for vivax malaria, prescribed according to the current World Health Organization guidelines, was associated with a minimal reduction in the risk of clinical recurrence within 1 year in Papua, Indonesia. New strategies for the effective radical cure of vivax malaria are needed in resource-poor settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent efforts in malaria control have resulted in great gains in reducing the burden of Plasmodium falciparum, but P. vivax has been more refractory. Its ability to form dormant liver stages confounds control and elimination efforts. To compare the efficacy and safety of primaquine regimens for radical cure, we undertook a randomized controlled trial in Ethiopia.Methods and Findings: Patients with normal glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase status with symptomatic P. vivax mono-infection were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either chloroquine (CQ) or artemether-lumefantrine (AL), alone or in combination with 14 d of semi-supervised primaquine (PQ) (3.5 mg/kg total). A total of 398 patients (n = 104 in the CQ arm, n = 100 in the AL arm, n = 102 in the CQ+PQ arm, and n = 92 in the AL+PQ arm) were followed for 1 y, and recurrent episodes were treated with the same treatment allocated at enrolment. The primary endpoints were the risk of P. vivax recurrence at day 28 and at day 42. The risk of recurrent P. vivax infection at day 28 was 4.0% (95% CI 1.5%-10.4%) after CQ treatment and 0% (95% CI 0%-4.0%) after CQ+PQ. The corresponding risks were 12.0% (95% CI 6.8%-20.6%) following AL alone and 2.3% (95% CI 0.6%-9.0%) following AL+PQ. On day 42, the risk was 18.7% (95% CI 12.2%-28.0%) after CQ, 1.2% (95% CI 0.2%-8.0%) after CQ+PQ, 29.9% (95% CI 21.6%-40.5%) after AL, and 5.9% (95% CI 2.4%-13.5%) after AL+PQ (overall p < 0.001). In those not prescribed PQ, the risk of recurrence by day 42 appeared greater following AL treatment than CQ treatment (HR = 1.8 [95% CI 1.0-3.2]; p = 0.059). At the end of follow-up, the incidence rate of P. vivax was 2.2 episodes/person-year for patients treated with CQ compared to 0.4 for patients treated with CQ+PQ (rate ratio: 5.1 [95% CI 2.9-9.1]; p < 0.001) and 2.3 episodes/person-year for AL compared to 0.5 for AL+PQ (rate ratio: 6.4 [95% CI 3.6-11.3]; p < 0.001). There was no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between treatment arms. The main limitations of the study were the early termination of the trial and the omission of haemoglobin measurement after day 42, resulting in an inability to estimate the cumulative risk of anaemia.Conclusions: Despite evidence of CQ-resistant P. vivax, the risk of recurrence in this study was greater following treatment with AL unless it was combined with a supervised course of PQ. PQ combined with either CQ or AL was well tolerated and reduced recurrence of vivax malaria by 5-fold at 1 y.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01680406. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study by P. G. T. Walker and colleagues which provided estimates of low birth weight (LBW) deliveries that would be averted if intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) sulphadoxine-pyrmethamine (SP) coverage to prevent malaria were to be increased in sub-Saharan Africa. Topics include concerns on IPTp in face of increasing drug resistance, barriers and challenges in IPTp delivery and implementation, and actions needed to improve coverage.

Background: In Africa, most plasmodium infections during pregnancy remain asymptomatic, yet are associated with maternal anemia and low birthweight. WHO recommends intermittent preventive therapy in pregnancy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP). However, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) efficacy is threatened by high-level parasite resistance. We conducted a trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of scheduled intermittent screening with malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and treatment of RDT-positive women with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) as an alternative strategy to IPTp-SP.Methods and Findings: This was an open-label, two-arm individually randomized superiority trial among HIV-seronegative women at three sites in Malawi with high SP resistance. The intervention consisted of three or four scheduled visits in the second and third trimester, 4 to 6 wk apart. Women in the IPTp-SP arm received SP at each visit. Women in the intermittent screening and treatment in pregnancy with DP (ISTp-DP) arm were screened for malaria at every visit and treated with DP if RDT-positive. The primary outcomes were adverse live birth outcome (composite of small for gestational age, low birthweight [<2,500 g], or preterm birth [<37 wk]) in paucigravidae (first or second pregnancy) and maternal or placental plasmodium infection at delivery in multigravidae (third pregnancy or higher). Analysis was by intention to treat. Between 21 July 2011 and 18 March 2013, 1,873 women were recruited (1,155 paucigravidae and 718 multigravidae). The prevalence of adverse live birth outcome was similar in the ISTp-DP (29.9%) and IPTp-SP (28.8%) arms (risk difference = 1.08% [95% CI -3.25% to 5.41%]; all women: relative risk [RR] = 1.04 [95% CI 0.90-1.20], p = 0.625; paucigravidae: RR = 1.10 [95% CI 0.92-1.31], p = 0.282; multigravidae: RR = 0.92 [95% CI 0.71-1.20], p = 0.543). The prevalence of malaria at delivery was higher in the ISTp-DP arm (48.7% versus 40.8%; risk difference = 7.85%, [95% CI 3.07%-12.63%]; all women: RR = 1.19 [95% CI 1.07-1.33], p = 0.007; paucigravidae: RR = 1.16 [95% CI 1.04-1.31], p = 0.011; multigravidae: RR = 1.29 [95% CI 1.02-1.63], p = 0.037). Fetal loss was more common with ISTp-DP (2.6% versus 1.3%; RR = 2.06 [95% CI 1.01-4.21], p = 0.046) and highest among non-DP-recipients (3.1%) in the ISTp-DP arm. Limitations included the open-label design.Conclusions: Scheduled screening for malaria parasites with the current generation of RDTs three to four times during pregnancy as part of focused antenatal care was not superior to IPTp-SP in this area with high malaria transmission and high SP resistance and was associated with higher fetal loss and more malaria at delivery.Trial Registration: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201103000280319; ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN69800930. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]