Search

In the past several years, as worldwide morbidity and mortality due to malaria have continued to decrease, the global malaria community has grown increasingly supportive of the idea of malaria eradication. In 2015, three noteworthy global documents were released-the WHO's Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016-2030, the Roll Back Malaria Partnership's Action and Investment to defeat Malaria 2016-2030, and From Aspiration to Action: What Will It Take to End Malaria?-that collectively advocate for malaria elimination and eradication and outline key operational, technical, and financial strategies to achieve progress toward malaria eradication. In light of this remarkable change in global attitudes toward malaria elimination and eradication, and as the malaria community debates how and when to embark on this ambitious goal, it is important to assess current progress along the path to eradication. Although low-income, high-burden countries are often the focus when discussing the substantial challenges of eradication, the progress toward elimination in middle-income, low-burden countries is a major driver of global progress and deserves better recognition. Additionally, although global support and guidance is essential for success, malaria elimination and eradication efforts will ultimately be driven at the country level and achieved in a collaborative manner, region by region. In this Review, we examine the present status of the 35 malaria-eliminating countries, summarise existing national and regional elimination goals and the regional frameworks that support them, and identify the most crucial enabling factors and potential barriers to achieving eradication by a theoretical end date of 2040., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Countries in the Asia Pacific region are making substantial progress toward eliminating malaria, but their success stories are rarely heard by a global audience. "Malaria 2012: Saving Lives in the Asia-Pacific," a conference hosted by the Australian Government in Sydney, Australia from October 31 to November 2, 2012, will provide a unique opportunity to showcase the region's work in driving down malaria transmission. One of the features of Malaria 2012 will be the Asia Pacific Malaria Elimination Network (APMEN), which has focused on harnessing the collective experiences of 13 countries through regional political and technical collaboration since its inception in 2009. Run by country partners, APMEN unites a range of partners - from national malaria programmes and academic institutions to global and regional policymaking bodies - to support each country's malaria elimination goals through knowledge sharing, capacity building, operational research and advocacy.

Background: Policy makers have speculated that one of the economic benefits of malaria elimination includes increases in foreign direct investment, particularly tourism., Methods: This study examines the empirical relationship between the demand for travel and malaria cases in two countries with large tourism industries around the time in which they carried out malaria-elimination campaigns. In Mauritius, this analysis examines historical, yearly tourist arrivals and malaria cases from 1978-1999, accounting for the background secular trend of increasing international travel. In Dominican Republic, a country embarking upon malaria elimination, it employs a time-series analysis of the monthly, international tourist arrivals from 1998-2010 to determine whether the timing of significant deviations in tourist arrivals coincides with malaria outbreaks., Results: While naïve relationships exist in both cases, the results show that the relationships between tourist arrivals and malaria cases are relatively weak and statistically insignificant once secular confounders are accounted for., Conclusions: This suggests that any economic benefits from tourism that may be derived from actively pursuing elimination in countries that have high tourism potential are likely to be small when measured at a national level. Rather, tourism benefits are likely to be experienced with greater impact in more concentrated tourist areas within countries, and future studies should seek to assess these relationships at a regional or local level.

Background: Sri Lanka has a long history of malaria control, and over the past decade has had dramatic declines in cases amid a national conflict. A case study of Sri Lanka's malaria programme was conducted to characterize the programme and explain recent progress., Methods: The case study employed qualitative and quantitative methods. Data were collected from published and grey literature, district-level and national records, and thirty-three key informant interviews. Expenditures in two districts for two years--2004 and 2009--were compiled., Findings: Malaria incidence in Sri Lanka has declined by 99.9% since 1999. During this time, there were increases in the proportion of malaria infections due to Plasmodium vivax, and the proportion of infections occurring in adult males. Indoor residual spraying and distribution of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets have likely contributed to the low transmission. Entomological surveillance was maintained. A strong passive case detection system captures infections and active case detection was introduced. When comparing conflict and non-conflict districts, vector control and surveillance measures were maintained in conflict areas, often with higher coverage reported in conflict districts. One of two districts in the study reported a 48% decline in malaria programme expenditure per person at risk from 2004 to 2009. The other district had stable malaria spending., Conclusions/significance: Malaria is now at low levels in Sri Lanka--124 indigenous cases were found in 2011. The majority of infections occur in adult males and are due to P. vivax. Evidence-driven policy and an ability to adapt to new circumstances contributed to this decline. Malaria interventions were maintained in the conflict districts despite an ongoing war. Sri Lanka has set a goal of eliminating malaria by the end of 2014. Early identification and treatment of infections, especially imported ones, together with effective surveillance and response, will be critical to achieving this goal.

In the past 150 years, roughly half of the countries in the world eliminated malaria. Nowadays, there are 99 endemic countries-67 are controlling malaria and 32 are pursuing an elimination strategy. This four-part Series presents evidence about the technical, operational, and financial dimensions of malaria elimination. The first paper in this Series reviews definitions of elimination and the state that precedes it: controlled low-endemic malaria. Feasibility assessments are described as a crucial step for a country transitioning from controlled low-endemic malaria to elimination. Characteristics of the 32 malaria-eliminating countries are presented, and contrasted with countries that pursued elimination in the past. Challenges and risks of elimination are presented, including Plasmodium vivax, resistance in the parasite and mosquito populations, and potential resurgence if investment and vigilance decrease. The benefits of elimination are outlined, specifically elimination as a regional and global public good. Priorities for the next decade are described., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The marginal costs and benefits of converting malaria programmes from a control to an elimination goal are central to strategic decisions, but empirical evidence is scarce. We present a conceptual framework to assess the economics of elimination and analyse a central component of that framework-potential short-term to medium-term financial savings. After a review that showed a dearth of existing evidence, the net present value of elimination in five sites was calculated and compared with effective control. The probability that elimination would be cost-saving over 50 years ranged from 0% to 42%, with only one site achieving cost-savings in the base case. These findings show that financial savings should not be a primary rationale for elimination, but that elimination might still be a worthy investment if total benefits are sufficient to outweigh marginal costs. Robust research into these elimination benefits is urgently needed., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)