Dataset Information

Effectiveness of spatially targeted interventions for control of HIV, tuberculosis, leprosy and malaria: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As infectious diseases approach global elimination targets, spatial targeting is increasingly important to identify community hotspots of transmission and effectively target interventions. We aimed to synthesise relevant evidence to define best practice approaches and identify policy and research gaps.

Objective

To systematically appraise evidence for the effectiveness of spatially targeted community public health interventions for HIV, tuberculosis (TB), leprosy and malaria.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, Web of Science and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 1 January 1993 and 22 March 2021.

Study selection

The studies had to include HIV or TB or leprosy or malaria and spatial hotspot definition, and community interventions.

Data extraction and synthesis

A data extraction tool was used. For each study, we summarised approaches to identifying hotpots, intervention design and effectiveness of the intervention.

Results

Ten studies, including one cluster randomised trial and nine with alternative designs (before-after, comparator area), satisfied our inclusion criteria. Spatially targeted interventions for HIV (one USA study), TB (three USA) and leprosy (two Brazil, one Federated States of Micronesia) each used household location and disease density to define hotspots followed by community-based screening. Malaria studies (one each from India, Indonesia and Kenya) used household location and disease density for hotspot identification followed by complex interventions typically combining community screening, larviciding of stagnant water bodies, indoor residual spraying and mass drug administration. Evidence of effect was mixed.

Conclusions

Studies investigating spatially targeted interventions were few in number, and mostly underpowered or otherwise limited methodologically, affecting interpretation of intervention impact. Applying advanced epidemiological methodologies supporting more robust hotspot identification and larger or more intensive interventions would strengthen the evidence-base for this increasingly important approach.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019130133.

SUBMITTER: Khundi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8278879 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe control and elimination of malaria requires expanded coverage of and access to effective malaria control interventions such as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), indoor residual spraying (IRS), intermittent preventive treatment (IPT), diagnostic testing and appropriate treatment. Decisions on how to scale up the coverage of these interventions need to be based on evidence of programme effectiveness, equity and cost-effectiveness.MethodsA systematic review of the published literature on the costs and cost-effectiveness of malaria interventions was undertaken. All costs and cost-effectiveness ratios were inflated to 2009 USD to allow comparison of the costs and benefits of several different interventions through various delivery channels, across different geographical regions and from varying costing perspectives.ResultsFifty-five studies of the costs and forty three studies of the cost-effectiveness of malaria interventions were identified, 78% of which were undertaken in sub-Saharan Africa, 18% in Asia and 4% in South America. The median financial cost of protecting one person for one year was $2.20 (range $0.88-$9.54) for ITNs, $6.70 (range $2.22-$12.85) for IRS, $0.60 (range $0.48-$1.08) for IPT in infants, $4.03 (range $1.25-$11.80) for IPT in children, and $2.06 (range $0.47-$3.36) for IPT in pregnant women. The median financial cost of diagnosing a case of malaria was $4.32 (range $0.34-$9.34). The median financial cost of treating an episode of uncomplicated malaria was $5.84 (range $2.36-$23.65) and the median financial cost of treating an episode of severe malaria was $30.26 (range $15.64-$137.87). Economies of scale were observed in the implementation of ITNs, IRS and IPT, with lower unit costs reported in studies with larger numbers of beneficiaries. From a provider perspective, the median incremental cost effectiveness ratio per disability adjusted life year averted was $27 (range $8.15-$110) for ITNs, $143 (range $135-$150) for IRS, and $24 (range $1.08-$44.24) for IPT.ConclusionsA transparent evidence base on the costs and cost-effectiveness of malaria control interventions is provided to inform rational resource allocation by donors and domestic health budgets and the selection of optimal packages of interventions by malaria control programmes.

Project description:IntroductionTools that allow for in silico optimization of available malaria control strategies can assist the decision-making process for prioritizing interventions. The OpenMalaria stochastic simulation modeling platform can be applied to simulate the impact of interventions singly and in combination as implemented in Rachuonyo South District, western Kenya, to support this goal.MethodsCombinations of malaria interventions were simulated using a previously-published, validated model of malaria epidemiology and control in the study area. An economic model of the costs of case management and malaria control interventions in Kenya was applied to simulation results and cost-effectiveness of each intervention combination compared to the corresponding simulated outputs of a scenario without interventions. Uncertainty was evaluated by varying health system and intervention delivery parameters.ResultsThe intervention strategy with the greatest simulated health impact employed long lasting insecticide treated net (LLIN) use by 80% of the population, 90% of households covered by indoor residual spraying (IRS) with deployment starting in April, and intermittent screen and treat (IST) of school children using Artemether lumefantrine (AL) with 80% coverage twice per term. However, the current malaria control strategy in the study area including LLIN use of 56% and IRS coverage of 70% was the most cost effective at reducing disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over a five year period.ConclusionsAll the simulated intervention combinations can be considered cost effective in the context of available resources for health in Kenya. Increasing coverage of vector control interventions has a larger simulated impact compared to adding IST to the current implementation strategy, suggesting that transmission in the study area is not at a level to warrant replacing vector control to a school-based screen and treat program. These results have the potential to assist malaria control program managers in the study area in adding new or changing implementation of current interventions.

Project description:BackgroundThis paper forms part of an update of the World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE) programmes. It provides an assessment of global health system performance during the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010) with respect to allocative efficiency in HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria control, thereby shining a spotlight on programme development and scale up in these Millennium Development Goal (MDG) priority areas; and examining the cost-effectiveness of selected best-practice interventions and intervention packages commonly in use during that period.MethodsGeneralized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) was used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the selected interventions. Impact modelling was performed using the OpenMalaria platform for malaria and using the Goals and TIME (TB Impact Model and Estimates) models in Spectrum for HIV and TB. All health system costs, regardless of payer, were included and reported in international dollars. Health outcomes are estimated and reported as the gain in healthy life years (HLYs) due to the specific intervention or combination. Analysis was restricted to eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia.ResultsAt the reference year of 2010, commonly used interventions for HIV, TB and malaria were cost-effective, with cost-effectiveness ratios less than I$ 100/HLY saved for virtually all interventions included. HIV, TB and malaria prevention and treatment interventions are highly cost-effective and can be implemented through a phased approach to full coverage to achieve maximum health benefits and contribute to the progressive elimination of these diseases.ConclusionDuring the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010), the global community has done well overall for HIV, TB, and malaria programmes as regards both economic efficiency and programmatic selection criteria. The role of international assistance, financial and technical, arguably was critical to these successes. As the global community now tackles the challenge of universal health coverage, this analysis can reinforce commitment to Sustainable Development Goal targets but also the importance of continued focus on these critical programme areas.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Because clustering of Plasmodium falciparum infection had been noted previously, the clustering of infection was examined at four field sites in West Africa: Dangassa and Dioro in Mali, Gambissara in The Gambia and Madina Fall in Senegal. METHODS:Clustering of infection was defined by the percent of persons with positive slides for asexual P. falciparum sleeping in a house which had been geopositioned. Data from each site were then tested for spatial, temporal and spatio-temporal clustering in relation to the prevalence of infection from smear surveys. RESULTS:These studies suggest that clustering of P. falciparum infection also affects the effectiveness of control interventions. For example, the clustering of infection in Madina Fall disappeared in 2014-2016 after vector control eliminated the only breeding site in 2013. In contrast, the temporal clustering of infection in Dioro (rainy season of 2014, dry season of 2015) was consistent with the loss of funding for Dioro in the second quarter of 2014 and disappeared when funds again became available in late 2015. The clustering of infection in rural (western) areas of Gambissara was consistent with known rural-urban differences in the prevalence of infection and with the thatched roofs, open eaves and mud walls of houses in rural Gambissara. In contrast, the most intense transmission was in Dangassa, where the only encouraging observation was a lower prevalence of infection in the dry season. Taken together, these results suggest: (a) the transmission of infection was stopped in Madina Fall by eliminating the only known breeding site, (b) the prevalence of infection was reduced in Dioro after financial support became available again for malaria control in the second half of 2015, (c) improvements in housing should improve malaria control by reducing the number of vectors in rural communities such as western Gambissara, and (d) beginning malaria control during the dry season may reduce transmission in hyperendemic areas such as Dangassa. CONCLUSIONS:From a conceptual perspective, testing for spatial, temporal and spatio-temporal clustering based on epidemiologic data permits the generation of hypotheses for the clustering observed and the testing of candidate interventions to confirm or refute those hypotheses.