The effectiveness of older insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) to prevent malaria infection in an area of moderate pyrethroid resistance: results from a cohort study in Malawi.
Holes
Insecticide resistance
Insecticide-treated bed nets
Malaria
Prevention
Vector control
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jan 2020
15 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
17
10
2019
accepted:
07
01
2020
entrez:
17
1
2020
pubmed:
17
1
2020
medline:
18
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A previous cohort study in Malawi showed that users of new insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) were significantly protected against malaria compared to non-users, despite moderate levels of pyrethroid resistance among the primary mosquito vectors. The present study investigated whether ITNs that were 1-2 years old continued to protect users in the same area with moderate pyrethroid resistance. One year following a baseline cross-sectional malaria parasitaemia prevalence survey and universal distribution of deltamethrin ITNs (May 2012), a fixed cohort of 1223 children aged 6-59 months was enrolled (April 2013). Children were tested for parasitaemia at monthly scheduled visits and at unscheduled sick visits from May to December 2013 using rapid diagnostic tests. ITN use the prior night and the condition of ITNs (based on presence of holes) was assessed by caregiver self-report. The incidence rate ratio (RR) comparing malaria infection among users and non-users of ITNs was modelled using generalized estimating equations adjusting for potential confounders and accounting for repeated measures on each child. The protective efficacy (PE) of ITN use was calculated as 1 - RR. In this cohort, self-reported ITN use remained consistently high (> 95%) over the study period. Although users of ITNs were slightly more protected compared to non-users of ITNs, the difference in incidence of infection was not statistically significant (RR 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.27). Among ITN users, malaria incidence was significantly lower in users of ITNs with no holes (of any size) compared to users of ITNs with ≥ 1 hole (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.98). There was no significant PE of using 1-2 year-old ITNs on the incidence of malaria in children in an area of moderate pyrethroid resistance, but among ITN users, the authors found increased protection by ITNs with no holes compared to ITNs with holes. Given the moderate levels of pyrethroid resistance in the primary malaria vector and recent evidence of added benefits of ITNs with synergists or non-pyrethroid insecticides, next-generation ITNs may be a useful strategy to address pyrethroid resistance and should be further explored in Malawi.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A previous cohort study in Malawi showed that users of new insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) were significantly protected against malaria compared to non-users, despite moderate levels of pyrethroid resistance among the primary mosquito vectors. The present study investigated whether ITNs that were 1-2 years old continued to protect users in the same area with moderate pyrethroid resistance.
METHODS
METHODS
One year following a baseline cross-sectional malaria parasitaemia prevalence survey and universal distribution of deltamethrin ITNs (May 2012), a fixed cohort of 1223 children aged 6-59 months was enrolled (April 2013). Children were tested for parasitaemia at monthly scheduled visits and at unscheduled sick visits from May to December 2013 using rapid diagnostic tests. ITN use the prior night and the condition of ITNs (based on presence of holes) was assessed by caregiver self-report. The incidence rate ratio (RR) comparing malaria infection among users and non-users of ITNs was modelled using generalized estimating equations adjusting for potential confounders and accounting for repeated measures on each child. The protective efficacy (PE) of ITN use was calculated as 1 - RR.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In this cohort, self-reported ITN use remained consistently high (> 95%) over the study period. Although users of ITNs were slightly more protected compared to non-users of ITNs, the difference in incidence of infection was not statistically significant (RR 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.27). Among ITN users, malaria incidence was significantly lower in users of ITNs with no holes (of any size) compared to users of ITNs with ≥ 1 hole (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.98).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There was no significant PE of using 1-2 year-old ITNs on the incidence of malaria in children in an area of moderate pyrethroid resistance, but among ITN users, the authors found increased protection by ITNs with no holes compared to ITNs with holes. Given the moderate levels of pyrethroid resistance in the primary malaria vector and recent evidence of added benefits of ITNs with synergists or non-pyrethroid insecticides, next-generation ITNs may be a useful strategy to address pyrethroid resistance and should be further explored in Malawi.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31941502
doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-3106-2
pii: 10.1186/s12936-020-3106-2
pmc: PMC6964029
doi:
Substances chimiques
Insecticides
0
Pyrethrins
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
24Références
Emerg Infect Dis. 2017 May;23(5):758-764
pubmed: 28418293
Acta Paediatr Suppl. 2006 Apr;450:76-85
pubmed: 16817681
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Apr;92(4):825-7
pubmed: 25667055
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jan 2;110(1):252-7
pubmed: 23248325
Epidemiology. 2010 Jul;21(4):467-74
pubmed: 20220526
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 14;10(7):e0132778
pubmed: 26171962
Nature. 2015 Oct 8;526(7572):207-211
pubmed: 26375008
Malar J. 2015 Nov 17;14:457
pubmed: 26577571
Malar J. 2017 May 26;16(1):225
pubmed: 28549431
Emerg Infect Dis. 2007 Feb;13(2):199-206
pubmed: 17479880
Malar J. 2011 Nov 16;10:343
pubmed: 22087506
J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Dec;55(12):1196-200
pubmed: 12547449
Biometrics. 1986 Mar;42(1):121-30
pubmed: 3719049
Malar J. 2016 Nov 22;15(1):563
pubmed: 27876046
Malar J. 2017 Jan 17;16(1):32
pubmed: 28095916
Malar J. 2012 Mar 19;11:74
pubmed: 22423618
Parasit Vectors. 2008 Jun 18;1(1):17
pubmed: 18564409
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2000 Jul-Aug;94(4):357-60
pubmed: 11127232
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005 Nov;73(5):859-64
pubmed: 16282294
Malar J. 2013 May 10;12:158
pubmed: 23663421
Stat Med. 1998 Jul 30;17(14):1643-58
pubmed: 9699236
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 16;11(11):e0165925
pubmed: 27851828
Malar J. 2017 Oct 10;16(1):405
pubmed: 29017537
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 05;10(6):e0128499
pubmed: 26047494
PLoS One. 2011 Apr 29;6(4):e19205
pubmed: 21559436
Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):175-80
pubmed: 11914317
Elife. 2016 Aug 22;5:
pubmed: 27547988
Lancet. 2018 Aug 18;392(10147):569-580
pubmed: 30104047
Malar J. 2013 Oct 24;12:368
pubmed: 24156715
Malar J. 2016 Oct 4;15(1):496
pubmed: 27716244
Demography. 2001 Feb;38(1):115-32
pubmed: 11227840
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD000363
pubmed: 15106149
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000 Mar;44(3):697-704
pubmed: 10681341
Malar J. 2010 Dec 31;9:380
pubmed: 21194470
Lancet. 2018 Apr 21;391(10130):1577-1588
pubmed: 29655496
Malar J. 2015 Jan 28;14:31
pubmed: 25627987
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003 Apr;68(4 Suppl):121-7
pubmed: 12749495
PLoS Med. 2014 Mar 18;11(3):e1001619
pubmed: 24642791
J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 2;220(3):467-475
pubmed: 30923819
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jun;18(6):640-649
pubmed: 29650424
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Aug 9;113(32):8975-80
pubmed: 27402740
Malar J. 2017 Oct 2;16(1):394
pubmed: 28969632