Dataset Information

Indoor residual spraying in combination with insecticide-treated nets compared to insecticide-treated nets alone for protection against malaria: a cluster randomised trial in Tanzania.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) of houses provide effective malaria transmission control. There is conflicting evidence about whether it is more beneficial to provide both interventions in combination. A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted to investigate whether the combination provides added protection compared to ITNs alone.

Methods and findings

In northwest Tanzania, 50 clusters (village areas) were randomly allocated to ITNs only or ITNs and IRS. Dwellings in the ITN+IRS arm were sprayed with two rounds of bendiocarb in 2012. Plasmodium falciparum prevalence rate (PfPR) in children 0.5-14 y old (primary outcome) and anaemia in children <5 y old (secondary outcome) were compared between study arms using three cross-sectional household surveys in 2012. Entomological inoculation rate (secondary outcome) was compared between study arms. IRS coverage was approximately 90%. ITN use ranged from 36% to 50%. In intention-to-treat analysis, mean PfPR was 13% in the ITN+IRS arm and 26% in the ITN only arm, odds ratio?=?0.43 (95% CI 0.19-0.97, n?=?13,146). The strongest effect was observed in the peak transmission season, 6 mo after the first IRS. Subgroup analysis showed that ITN users were additionally protected if their houses were sprayed. Mean monthly entomological inoculation rate was non-significantly lower in the ITN+IRS arm than in the ITN only arm, rate ratio?=?0.17 (95% CI 0.03-1.08).

Conclusions

This is the first randomised trial to our knowledge that reports significant added protection from combining IRS and ITNs compared to ITNs alone. The effect is likely to be attributable to IRS providing added protection to ITN users as well as compensating for inadequate ITN use. Policy makers should consider deploying IRS in combination with ITNs to control transmission if local ITN strategies on their own are insufficiently effective. Given the uncertain generalisability of these findings, it would be prudent for malaria control programmes to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of deploying the combination.

Trial registration

www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01697852 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

SUBMITTER: West PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3988001 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Indoor residual spraying in combination with insecticide-treated nets compared to insecticide-treated nets alone for protection against malaria: a cluster randomised trial in Tanzania.

West Philippa A PA Protopopoff Natacha N Wright Alexandra A Kivaju Zuhura Z Tigererwa Robinson R Mosha Franklin W FW Kisinza William W Rowland Mark M Kleinschmidt Immo I

PLoS medicine 20140415 4

<h4>Background</h4>Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) of houses provide effective malaria transmission control. There is conflicting evidence about whether it is more beneficial to provide both interventions in combination. A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted to investigate whether the combination provides added protection compared to ITNs alone.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>In northwest Tanzania, 50 clusters (village areas) were randomly allocated ...[more]

PMID: 24736370

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInsecticide treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are effective vector control tools that protect against malaria. There is conflicting evidence regarding whether using ITNs and IRS in combination provides additional benefit over using either of these methods alone. This study investigated factors that may modify the effect of the combined use of IRS and ITNs compared to using ITNs alone on malaria infection prevalence.MethodsSecondary analysis was carried out on data from a cluster randomised trial in north-west Tanzania. 50 clusters received ITNs from a universal coverage campaign; of these 25 were randomly allocated to additionally receive two rounds of IRS in 2012. In cross-sectional household surveys children 0.5-14 years old were tested for Plasmodium falciparum infections (PfPR) two, six and ten months after the first IRS round.ResultsIRS protected those sleeping under nets (OR = 0.38, 95%CI 0.26-0.57) and those who did not (OR = 0.43, 95%CI 0.29-0.63). The protective effect of IRS was not modified by community level ITN use (ITN use<50%, OR = 0.39, 95%CI 0.26-0.59; ITN use> = 50%, OR = 0.46, 95%CI 0.28-0.74). The additional protection from IRS was similar in low (<10% PfPR, OR = 0.38, 95%CI 0.19-0.75) and high transmission areas (≥10% PfPR, OR = 0.34, 95%CI 0.18-0.67). ITN use was protective at the individual-level regardless of whether the village had been sprayed (OR = 0.83, 95%CI 0.70-0.98). Living in a sprayed village was protective regardless of whether the individual slept under an ITN last night (OR = 0.41, 95%CI 0.29-0.58).InterpretationImplementing IRS in addition to ITNs was beneficial for individuals from villages with a wide range of transmission intensities and net utilisation levels. Net users received additional protection from IRS. ITNs were providing some individual protection, even in this area with high levels of pyrethroid insecticide resistance. These results demonstrate that there is a supplementary benefit of IRS even when ITNs are effective.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01697852.

Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and other tools, malaria caused 409,000 deaths worldwide in 2019. While indoor residual spraying (IRS) is an effective supplement, IRS is moderately expensive and logistically challenging. In endemic areas, IRS requires yearly application just before the main rainy season and potential interim reapplications. A new technology, insecticide-treated wall liner (ITWL), might overcome these challenges.MethodsWe conducted a 44-cluster two-arm randomized controlled trial in Muheza, Tanzania from 2015 to 2016 to evaluate the cost and efficacy of a non-pyrethroid ITWL to supplement LLINs, analyzing operational changes over three installation phases. The estimated efficacy (with 95% confidence intervals) of IRS as a supplement to LLINs came mainly from a published randomized trial in Muleba, Tanzania. We obtained financial costs of IRS from published reports and conducted a household survey of a similar IRS program near Muleba to determine household costs. The costs of ITWL were amortized over its 4-year expected lifetime and converted to 2019 US dollars using Tanzania's GDP deflator and market exchange rates.ResultsOperational improvements from phases 1 to 3 raised ITWL coverage from 35.1 to 67.1% of initially targeted households while reducing economic cost from $34.18 to $30.56 per person covered. However, 90 days after installing ITWL in 5666 households, the randomized trial was terminated prematurely because cone bioassay tests showed that ITWL no longer killed mosquitoes and therefore could not prevent malaria. The ITWL cost $10.11 per person per year compared to $5.69 for IRS. With an efficacy of 57% (3-81%), IRS averted 1162 (61-1651) disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 100,000 population yearly. Its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per DALY averted was $490 (45% of Tanzania's per capita gross national income).ConclusionsThese findings provide design specifications for future ITWL development and implementation. It would need to be efficacious and more effective and/or less costly than IRS, so more persons could be protected with a given budget. The durability of a previous ITWL, progress in non-pyrethroid tools, economies of scale and competition (as occurred with LLINs), strengthened community engagement, and more efficient installation and management procedures all offer promise of achieving these goals. Therefore, ITWLs merit ongoing study.First posted2015 ( NCT02533336 ).

Project description:The global implementation of malaria interventions has averted hundreds of millions of clinical malaria cases in the last decade. This study assesses predicted Anopheles mosquito distributions across the United Republic of Tanzania before large-scale insecticide-treated net (ITN) rollouts and indoor residual spraying (IRS) initiatives to determine whether mosquito net usage by children under the age of five and IRS are targeted to areas where historical evidence indicates mosquitoes thrive. Demographic and Health Surveys data from 2011-2012 and 2015-2016 include detailed measurements of mosquito net and IRS use across Tanzania. Anopheline data are far less intensively collected, but we constructed a Maxent-built baseline mosquito habitat suitability (MHS) map (AUC = 0.872) with Tanzanian Anopheles occurrence records from 1999-2003. This MHS model was tested against independently-observed georeferenced Plasmodium falciparum cases from the Malaria Atlas Project, with ~87% of cases from 1999-2003 (n = 107) and ~84% of cases from 1985-2012 (n = 919) occurring in areas of high predicted suitability for mosquitoes. We compared the validated MHS with subsequent malaria interventions using mixed effects logistic regression. Specifically, we assessed whether Anopheles habitat suitability related to the frequency that ?1 child in a household reportedly slept under a mosquito net when that intervention later became widely available, and whether IRS was reportedly applied to dwellings over a one-year period. There was no evidence that mosquito net use the night before the survey related to MHS from 2011-2012 and marginally significant evidence (p<0.05) from 2015-2016 (? = 1.466, 95% C.I. = 0.848-2.103, marginal R2 = 0.020, respectively). However, the likelihood of IRS treatments rose relatively strongly in the 12 months prior to both surveys (? = 13.466, 95% C.I. = 10.488-16.456, marginal R2 = 0.144, and ? = 6.817, 95% C.I. = 5.439-8.303, marginal R2 = 0.136, respectively). IRS treatments have therefore been targeted more effectively than mosquito nets toward areas where anopheline habitat suitability was previously found to be high.

Project description:Malaria control today is threatened by widespread insecticide resistance in vector populations. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of a mixture of unrelated insecticides for indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LNs) or as a combination of interventions for improved vector control and insecticide resistance management. Studies investigating the efficacy of these different strategies are necessary.The efficacy of Interceptor® G2 LN, a newly developed LN treated with a mixture of chlorfenapyr (a pyrrole) and alpha-cypermethrin (a pyrethroid), was compared to a combined chlorfenapyr IRS and Interceptor® LN (a standard alpha-cypermethrin LN) intervention in experimental huts in Cove Southern Benin, against wild, free-flying, pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l. A direct comparison was also made with a pyrethroid-only net (Interceptor® LN) alone and chorfenapyr IRS alone.WHO resistance bioassays performed during the trial demonstrated a pyrethroid resistance frequency of >90% in the wild An. gambiae s.l. from the Cove hut site. Mortality in the control (untreated net) hut was 5%. Mortality with Interceptor® LN (24%) was lower than with chlorfenapyr IRS alone (59%, P < 0.001). The combined Interceptor® LN and chlorfenapyr IRS intervention and the mixture net (Interceptor® G2 LN) provided significantly higher mortality rates (73 and 76%, respectively) and these did not differ significantly between both treatments (P = 0.15). Interceptor LN induced 46% blood-feeding inhibition compared to the control untreated net, while chlorfenapyr IRS alone provided none. Both mixture/combination strategies also induced substantial levels of blood-feeding inhibition (38% with combined interventions and 30% with Interceptor® G2 LN). A similar trend of improved mortality of pyrethroid-resistant An. gambiae s.l. from Cove was observed with Interceptor® G2 LN (79%) compared to Interceptor LN (42%, P < 0.001) in WHO tunnel tests.The use of chlorfenapyr and alpha-cypermethrin together as a mixture on nets (Interceptor® G2 LN) or a combined chlorfenapyr IRS and pyrethroid LN intervention provides improved control of pyrethroid-resistant malaria vectors by inducing significantly higher levels of mortality through the chlorfenapyr component and providing personal protection through the pyrethroid component. Both strategies are comparable in their potential to improve the control of malaria transmitted by pyrethroid resistant mosquito vectors.

Project description:BackgroundLong-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are commonly used together in the same households to improve malaria control despite inconsistent evidence on whether such combinations actually offer better protection than nets alone or IRS alone.MethodsComparative tests were conducted using experimental huts fitted with LLINs, untreated nets, IRS plus untreated nets, or combinations of LLINs and IRS, in an area where Anopheles arabiensis is the predominant malaria vector species. Three LLIN types, Olyset®, PermaNet 2.0® and Icon Life® nets and three IRS treatments, pirimiphos-methyl, DDT, and lambda cyhalothrin, were used singly or in combinations. We compared, number of mosquitoes entering huts, proportion and number killed, proportions prevented from blood-feeding, time when mosquitoes exited the huts, and proportions caught exiting. The tests were done for four months in dry season and another six months in wet season, each time using new intact nets.ResultsAll the net types, used with or without IRS, prevented >99% of indoor mosquito bites. Adding PermaNet 2.0® and Icon Life®, but not Olyset® nets into huts with any IRS increased mortality of malaria vectors relative to IRS alone. However, of all IRS treatments, only pirimiphos-methyl significantly increased vector mortality relative to LLINs alone, though this increase was modest. Overall, median mortality of An. arabiensis caught in huts with any of the treatments did not exceed 29%. No treatment reduced entry of the vectors into huts, except for marginal reductions due to PermaNet 2.0® nets and DDT. More than 95% of all mosquitoes were caught in exit traps rather than inside huts.ConclusionsWhere the main malaria vector is An. arabiensis, adding IRS into houses with intact pyrethroid LLINs does not enhance house-hold level protection except where the IRS employs non-pyrethroid insecticides such as pirimiphos-methyl, which can confer modest enhancements. In contrast, adding intact bednets onto IRS enhances protection by preventing mosquito blood-feeding (even if the nets are non-insecticidal) and by slightly increasing mosquito mortality (in case of LLINs). The primary mode of action of intact LLINs against An. arabiensis is clearly bite prevention rather than insecticidal activity. Therefore, where resources are limited, priority should be to ensure that everyone at risk consistently uses LLINs and that the nets are regularly replaced before being excessively torn. Measures that maximize bite prevention (e.g. proper net sizes to effectively cover sleeping spaces, stronger net fibres that resist tears and burns and net use practices that preserve net longevity), should be emphasized.

Project description:BackgroundMost of the reduction in malaria prevalence seen in Africa since 2000 has been attributed to vector control interventions. Yet increases in the distribution and intensity of insecticide resistance and higher costs of newer insecticides pose a challenge to sustaining these gains. Thus, endemic countries face challenging decisions regarding the choice of vector control interventions.MethodsA cluster randomised trial is being carried out in Mopeia District in the Zambezia Province of Mozambique, where malaria prevalence in children under 5 is high (68% in 2015), despite continuous and campaign distribution of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs). Study arm 1 will continue to use the standard, LLIN-based National Malaria Control Programme vector control strategy (LLINs only), while study arm 2 will receive indoor residual spraying (IRS) once a year for 2 years with a microencapsulated formulation of pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic 300 CS), in addition to the standard LLIN strategy (LLINs+IRS). Prior to the 2016 IRS implementation (the first of two IRS campaigns in this study), 146 clusters were defined and stratified per number of households. Clusters were then randomised 1:1 into the two study arms. The public health impact and cost-effectiveness of IRS intervention will be evaluated over 2 years using multiple methods: (1) monthly active malaria case detection in a cohort of 1548 total children aged 6-59 months; (2) enhanced passive surveillance at health facilities and with community health workers; (3) annual cross-sectional surveys; and (4) entomological surveillance. Prospective microcosting of the intervention and provider and societal costs will be conducted. Insecticide resistance status pattern and changes in local Anopheline populations will be included as important supportive outcomes.DiscussionBy evaluating the public health impact and cost-effectiveness of IRS with a non-pyrethroid insecticide in a high-transmission setting with high LLIN ownership, it is expected that this study will provide programmatic and policy-relevant data to guide national and global vector control strategies.Trial registration numberNCT02910934.

Dataset Information

Indoor residual spraying in combination with insecticide-treated nets compared to insecticide-treated nets alone for protection against malaria: a cluster randomised trial in Tanzania.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Indoor residual spraying in combination with insecticide-treated nets compared to insecticide-treated nets alone for protection against malaria: a cluster randomised trial in Tanzania.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets