Search

Background: The East African highlands are fringe regions between stable and unstable malaria transmission. What factors contribute to the heterogeneity of malaria exposure on different spatial scales within larger foci has not been extensively studied. In a comprehensive, community-based cross-sectional survey an attempt was made to identify factors that drive the macro- and micro epidemiology of malaria in a fringe region using parasitological and serological outcomes. Methods: A large cross-sectional survey including 17,503 individuals was conducted across all age groups in a 100 km2 area in the Western Kenyan highlands of Rachuonyo South district. Households were geo-located and prevalence of malaria parasites and malaria-specific antibodies were determined by PCR and ELISA. Household and individual risk-factors were recorded. Geographical characteristics of the study area were digitally derived using high-resolution satellite images. Results: Malaria antibody prevalence strongly related to altitude (1350-1600 m, p < 0.001). A strong negative association with increasing altitude and PCR parasite prevalence was found. Parasite carriage was detected at all altitudes and in all age groups; 93.2 % (2481/2663) of malaria infections were apparently asymptomatic. Malaria parasite prevalence was associated with age, bed net use, house construction features, altitude and topographical wetness index. Antibody prevalence was associated with all these factors and distance to the nearest water body. Conclusion: Altitude was a major driver of malaria transmission in this study area, even across narrow altitude bands. The large proportion of asymptomatic parasite carriers at all altitudes and the age-dependent acquisition of malaria antibodies indicate stable malaria transmission; the strong correlation between current parasite carriage and serological markers of malaria exposure indicate temporal stability of spatially heterogeneous transmission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Malaria transmission is highly heterogeneous, generating malaria hotspots that can fuel malaria transmission across a wider area. Targeting hotspots may represent an efficacious strategy for reducing malaria transmission. We determined the impact of interventions targeted to serologically defined malaria hotspots on malaria transmission both inside hotspots and in surrounding communities.Methods and Findings: Twenty-seven serologically defined malaria hotspots were detected in a survey conducted from 24 June to 31 July 2011 that included 17,503 individuals from 3,213 compounds in a 100-km2 area in Rachuonyo South District, Kenya. In a cluster-randomized trial from 22 March to 15 April 2012, we randomly allocated five clusters to hotspot-targeted interventions with larviciding, distribution of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets, indoor residual spraying, and focal mass drug administration (2,082 individuals in 432 compounds); five control clusters received malaria control following Kenyan national policy (2,468 individuals in 512 compounds). Our primary outcome measure was parasite prevalence in evaluation zones up to 500 m outside hotspots, determined by nested PCR (nPCR) at baseline and 8 wk (16 June-6 July 2012) and 16 wk (21 August-10 September 2012) post-intervention by technicians blinded to the intervention arm. Secondary outcome measures were parasite prevalence inside hotpots, parasite prevalence in the evaluation zone as a function of distance from the hotspot boundary, Anopheles mosquito density, mosquito breeding site productivity, malaria incidence by passive case detection, and the safety and acceptability of the interventions. Intervention coverage exceeded 87% for all interventions. Hotspot-targeted interventions did not result in a change in nPCR parasite prevalence outside hotspot boundaries (p ≥ 0.187). We observed an average reduction in nPCR parasite prevalence of 10.2% (95% CI -1.3 to 21.7%) inside hotspots 8 wk post-intervention that was statistically significant after adjustment for covariates (p = 0.024), but not 16 wk post-intervention (p = 0.265). We observed no statistically significant trend in the effect of the intervention on nPCR parasite prevalence in the evaluation zone in relation to distance from the hotspot boundary 8 wk (p = 0.27) or 16 wk post-intervention (p = 0.75). Thirty-six patients with clinical malaria confirmed by rapid diagnostic test could be located to intervention or control clusters, with no apparent difference between the study arms. In intervention clusters we caught an average of 1.14 female anophelines inside hotspots and 0.47 in evaluation zones; in control clusters we caught an average of 0.90 female anophelines inside hotspots and 0.50 in evaluation zones, with no apparent difference between study arms. Our trial was not powered to detect subtle effects of hotspot-targeted interventions nor designed to detect effects of interventions over multiple transmission seasons.Conclusions: Despite high coverage, the impact of interventions targeting malaria vectors and human infections on nPCR parasite prevalence was modest, transient, and restricted to the targeted hotspot areas. Our findings suggest that transmission may not primarily occur from hotspots to the surrounding areas and that areas with highly heterogeneous but widespread malaria transmission may currently benefit most from an untargeted community-wide approach. Hotspot-targeted approaches may have more validity in settings where human settlement is more nuclear.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01575613. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Informing and evaluating malaria control efforts relies on knowledge of local transmission dynamics. Serological and molecular tools have demonstrated great sensitivity to quantify transmission intensity in low endemic settings where the sensitivity of traditional methods is limited. Filter paper blood spots are commonly used a source of both DNA and antibodies. To enhance the operational practicability of malaria surveys, a method is presented for combined DNA extraction and antibody elution. Methods: Filter paper blood spots were collected as part of a large cross-sectional survey in the Kenyan highlands. DNA was extracted using a saponin/chelex method. The eluate of the first wash during the DNA extraction process was used for antibody detection and compared with previously validated antibody elution procedures. Antibody elution efficiency was assessed by total IgG ELISA for malaria antigens apical membrane antigen-1 (AMA-1) and merozoite-surface protein-1 (MSP-142). The sensitivity of nested 18S rRNA and cytochrome b PCR assays and the impact of doubling filter paper material for PCR sensitivity were determined. The distribution of cell material and antibodies throughout filter paper blood spots were examined using luminescent and fluorescent reporter assays. Results: Antibody levels measured after the combined antibody/DNA extraction technique were strongly correlated to those measured after standard antibody elution (p < 0.0001). Antibody levels for both AMA-1 and MSP-142 were generally slightly lower (11.3-21.4%) but age-seroprevalence patterns were indistinguishable. The proportion of parasite positive samples ranged from 12.9% to 19.2% in the different PCR assays. Despite strong agreement between outcomes of different PCR assays, none of the assays detected all parasite-positive individuals. For all assays doubling filter paper material for DNA extraction increased sensitivity. The concentration of cell and antibody material was not homogenously distributed throughout blood spots. Conclusion: Combined DNA extraction and antibody elution is an operationally attractive approach for high throughput assessment of cumulative malaria exposure and current infection prevalence in endemic settings. Estimates of antibody prevalence are unaffected by the combined extraction and elution procedure. The choice of target gene and the amount and source of filter paper material for DNA extraction can have a marked impact on PCR sensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Malaria transmission is highly heterogeneous in most settings, resulting in the formation of recognizable malaria hotspots. Targeting these hotspots might represent a highly efficacious way of controlling or eliminating malaria if the hotspots fuel malaria transmission to the wider community. Methods/design: Hotspots of malaria will be determined based on spatial patterns in age-adjusted prevalence and density of antibodies against malaria antigens apical membrane antigen-1 and merozoite surface protein-1. The community effect of interventions targeted at these hotspots will be determined. The intervention will comprise larviciding, focal screening and treatment of the human population, distribution of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying. The impact of the intervention will be determined inside and up to 500 m outside the targeted hotspots by PCR-based parasite prevalence in cross-sectional surveys, malaria morbidity by passive case detection in selected facilities and entomological monitoring of larval and adult Anopheles populations. Discussion: This study aims to provide direct evidence for a community effect of hotspot-targeted interventions. The trial is powered to detect large effects on malaria transmission in the context of ongoing malaria interventions. Follow-up studies will be needed to determine the effect of individual components of the interventions and the cost-effectiveness of a hotspot-targeted approach, where savings made by reducing the number of compounds that need to receive interventions should outweigh the costs of hotspot-detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]