Effectiveness of seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) treatments when SMC is implemented at scale: Case-control studies in 5 countries.
Africa, Western
/ epidemiology
Age Factors
Amodiaquine
/ adverse effects
Antimalarials
/ adverse effects
Case-Control Studies
Child, Preschool
Communicable Disease Control
Drug Combinations
Female
Humans
Incidence
Infant
Malaria, Falciparum
/ diagnosis
Male
Parasite Load
Plasmodium falciparum
/ drug effects
Program Evaluation
Pyrimethamine
/ adverse effects
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Seasons
Sulfadoxine
/ adverse effects
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Journal
PLoS medicine
ISSN: 1549-1676
Titre abrégé: PLoS Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
received:
25
09
2020
accepted:
12
07
2021
revised:
22
09
2021
pubmed:
9
9
2021
medline:
1
12
2021
entrez:
8
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) has shown high protective efficacy against clinical malaria and severe malaria in a series of clinical trials. We evaluated the effectiveness of SMC treatments against clinical malaria when delivered at scale through national malaria control programmes in 2015 and 2016. Case-control studies were carried out in Mali and The Gambia in 2015, and in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Nigeria, and The Gambia in 2016. Children aged 3-59 months presenting at selected health facilities with microscopically confirmed clinical malaria were recruited as cases. Two controls per case were recruited concurrently (on or shortly after the day the case was detected) from the neighbourhood in which the case lived. The primary exposure was the time since the most recent course of SMC treatment, determined from SMC recipient cards, caregiver recall, and administrative records. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) associated with receipt of SMC within the previous 28 days, and SMC 29 to 42 days ago, compared with no SMC in the past 42 days. These ORs, which are equivalent to incidence rate ratios, were used to calculate the percentage reduction in clinical malaria incidence in the corresponding time periods. Results from individual countries were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. In total, 2,126 cases and 4,252 controls were included in the analysis. Across the 7 studies, the mean age ranged from 1.7 to 2.4 years and from 2.1 to 2.8 years among controls and cases, respectively; 42.2%-50.9% and 38.9%-46.9% of controls and cases, respectively, were male. In all 7 individual case-control studies, a high degree of personal protection from SMC against clinical malaria was observed, ranging from 73% in Mali in 2016 to 98% in Mali in 2015. The overall OR for SMC within 28 days was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.21; p < 0.001), indicating a protective effectiveness of 88% (95% CI: 79%, 94%). Effectiveness against clinical malaria for SMC 29-42 days ago was 61% (95% CI: 47%, 72%). Similar results were obtained when the analysis was restricted to cases with parasite density in excess of 5,000 parasites per microlitre: Protective effectiveness 90% (95% CI: 79%, 96%; P<0.001), and 59% (95% CI: 34%, 74%; P<0.001) for SMC 0-28 days and 29-42 days ago, respectively. Potential limitations include the possibility of residual confounding due to an association between exposure to malaria and access to SMC, or differences in access to SMC between patients attending a clinic and community controls; however, neighbourhood matching of cases and controls, and covariate adjustment, attempted to control for these aspects, and the observed decline in protection over time, consistent with expected trends, argues against a major bias from these sources. SMC administered as part of routine national malaria control activities provided a very high level of personal protection against clinical malaria over 28 days post-treatment, similar to the efficacy observed in clinical trials. The case-control design used in this study can be used at intervals to ensure SMC treatments remain effective.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) has shown high protective efficacy against clinical malaria and severe malaria in a series of clinical trials. We evaluated the effectiveness of SMC treatments against clinical malaria when delivered at scale through national malaria control programmes in 2015 and 2016.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Case-control studies were carried out in Mali and The Gambia in 2015, and in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Nigeria, and The Gambia in 2016. Children aged 3-59 months presenting at selected health facilities with microscopically confirmed clinical malaria were recruited as cases. Two controls per case were recruited concurrently (on or shortly after the day the case was detected) from the neighbourhood in which the case lived. The primary exposure was the time since the most recent course of SMC treatment, determined from SMC recipient cards, caregiver recall, and administrative records. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) associated with receipt of SMC within the previous 28 days, and SMC 29 to 42 days ago, compared with no SMC in the past 42 days. These ORs, which are equivalent to incidence rate ratios, were used to calculate the percentage reduction in clinical malaria incidence in the corresponding time periods. Results from individual countries were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. In total, 2,126 cases and 4,252 controls were included in the analysis. Across the 7 studies, the mean age ranged from 1.7 to 2.4 years and from 2.1 to 2.8 years among controls and cases, respectively; 42.2%-50.9% and 38.9%-46.9% of controls and cases, respectively, were male. In all 7 individual case-control studies, a high degree of personal protection from SMC against clinical malaria was observed, ranging from 73% in Mali in 2016 to 98% in Mali in 2015. The overall OR for SMC within 28 days was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.21; p < 0.001), indicating a protective effectiveness of 88% (95% CI: 79%, 94%). Effectiveness against clinical malaria for SMC 29-42 days ago was 61% (95% CI: 47%, 72%). Similar results were obtained when the analysis was restricted to cases with parasite density in excess of 5,000 parasites per microlitre: Protective effectiveness 90% (95% CI: 79%, 96%; P<0.001), and 59% (95% CI: 34%, 74%; P<0.001) for SMC 0-28 days and 29-42 days ago, respectively. Potential limitations include the possibility of residual confounding due to an association between exposure to malaria and access to SMC, or differences in access to SMC between patients attending a clinic and community controls; however, neighbourhood matching of cases and controls, and covariate adjustment, attempted to control for these aspects, and the observed decline in protection over time, consistent with expected trends, argues against a major bias from these sources.
CONCLUSIONS
SMC administered as part of routine national malaria control activities provided a very high level of personal protection against clinical malaria over 28 days post-treatment, similar to the efficacy observed in clinical trials. The case-control design used in this study can be used at intervals to ensure SMC treatments remain effective.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34495978
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003727
pii: PMEDICINE-D-20-04686
pmc: PMC8457484
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antimalarials
0
Drug Combinations
0
Amodiaquine
220236ED28
fanasil, pyrimethamine drug combination
37338-39-9
Sulfadoxine
88463U4SM5
Pyrimethamine
Z3614QOX8W
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1003727Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UP_A900_1118
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R010161/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 11;17(18):
pubmed: 32932990
Vaccine. 2017 Jun 5;35(25):3295-3302
pubmed: 28442231
Int J Epidemiol. 1990 Mar;19(1):205-13
pubmed: 2190942
PLoS Med. 2011 Feb 01;8(2):e1000408
pubmed: 21304925
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Feb 1;62(3):323-333
pubmed: 26486699
Malar J. 2018 Jun 8;17(1):228
pubmed: 29884184
Malar J. 2017 Aug 10;16(1):325
pubmed: 28797263
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015 Aug;59(8):4387-96
pubmed: 25918149
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;(2):CD003756
pubmed: 22336792
PLoS One. 2010 Sep 07;5(9):e12618
pubmed: 20838642
PLoS Med. 2011 Feb 01;8(2):e1000407
pubmed: 21304923
Int J Epidemiol. 1993 Aug;22(4):742-6
pubmed: 8225751
Lancet. 2020 Dec 5;396(10265):1829-1840
pubmed: 33278936
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1997 Nov-Dec;91(6):638-42
pubmed: 9509168
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018 Feb;98(2):524-533
pubmed: 29260654
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005 Jul;73(1):140-8
pubmed: 16014849
Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Jun 1;155(11):1066-73
pubmed: 12034586
Am J Epidemiol. 1982 Sep;116(3):547-53
pubmed: 7124721