Search

Background: Mass azithromycin distributions have been shown to reduce mortality in preschool children, although the factors mediating this mortality reduction are not clear. This study was performed to determine whether mass distribution of azithromycin, which has modest antimalarial activity, reduces the community burden of malaria.Methods and Findings: In a cluster-randomized trial conducted from 23 November 2014 until 31 July 2017, 30 rural communities in Niger were randomized to 2 years of biannual mass distributions of either azithromycin (20 mg/kg oral suspension) or placebo to children aged 1 to 59 months. Participants, field staff, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary malaria outcome was the community prevalence of parasitemia on thick blood smear, assessed in a random sample of children from each community at study visits 12 and 24 months after randomization. Analyses were performed in an intention-to-treat fashion. At the baseline visit, a total of 1,695 children were enumerated in the 15 azithromycin communities, and 3,029 children were enumerated in the 15 placebo communities. No communities were lost to follow-up. The mean prevalence of malaria parasitemia at baseline was 8.9% (95% CI 5.1%-15.7%; 52 of 552 children across all communities) in the azithromycin-treated group and 6.7% (95% CI 4.0%-12.6%; 36 of 542 children across all communities) in the placebo-treated group. In the prespecified primary analysis, parasitemia was lower in the azithromycin-treated group at month 12 (mean prevalence 8.8%, 95% CI 5.1%-14.3%; 51 of 551 children across all communities) and month 24 (mean 3.5%, 95% CI 1.9%-5.5%; 21 of 567 children across all communities) than it was in the placebo-treated group at month 12 (mean 15.3%, 95% CI 10.8%-20.6%; 81 of 548 children across all communities) and month 24 (mean 4.8%, 95% CI 3.3%-6.4%; 28 of 592 children across all communities) (P = 0.02). Communities treated with azithromycin had approximately half the odds of parasitemia compared to those treated with placebo (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.97). Parasite density was lower in the azithromycin group than the placebo group at 12 and 24 months (square root-transformed outcome; density estimates were 7,540 parasites/μl lower [95% CI -350 to -12,550 parasites/μl; P = 0.02] at a mean parasite density of 17,000, as was observed in the placebo arm). No significant difference in hemoglobin was observed between the 2 treatment groups at 12 and 24 months (mean 0.34 g/dL higher in the azithromycin arm, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.75 g/dL; P = 0.10). No serious adverse events were reported in either group, and among children aged 1 to 5 months, the most commonly reported nonserious adverse events (i.e., diarrhea, vomiting, and rash) were less common in the azithromycin-treated communities. Limitations of the trial include the timing of the treatments and monitoring visits, both of which took place before the peak malaria season, as well as the uncertain generalizability to areas with different malaria transmission dynamics.Conclusions: Mass azithromycin distributions were associated with a reduced prevalence of malaria parasitemia in this trial, suggesting one possible mechanism for the mortality benefit observed with this intervention.Trial Registration: The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02048007). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]