37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The past, present and future use of epidemiological intelligence to plan malaria vector control and parasite prevention in Uganda

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          An important prelude to developing strategies to control infectious diseases is a detailed epidemiological evidence platform to target cost-effective interventions and define resource needs.

          Methods

          A review of published and un-published reports of malaria vector control and parasite prevention in Uganda was conducted for the period 1900–2013. The objective was to provide a perspective as to how epidemiological intelligence was used to design malaria control before and during the global malaria eradication programme (GMEP) and to contrast this with the evidence generated in support of the Roll Back Malaria (RBM) initiative from 1998 to date.

          Results

          During the GMEP era, comprehensive investigations were undertaken on the effectiveness of vector and parasite control such as indoor residual house-spraying (IRS) and mass drug administration (MDA) at different sites in Uganda. Nationwide malariometric surveys were undertaken between 1964 and 1967 to provide a profile of risk, epidemiology and seasonality leading to an evidence-based national cartography of risk to characterize the diversity of malaria transmission in Uganda. At the launch of the RBM initiative in the late 1990s, an equivalent level of evidence was lacking. There was no contemporary national evidence-base for the likely impact of insecticide-treated nets (ITN), no new malariometric data, no new national cartography of malaria risk or any evidence of tailored intervention delivery based on variations in the ecology of malaria risk in Uganda.

          Discussion

          Despite millions of dollars of overseas development assistance over the last ten years in ITN, and more recently the resurrection of the use of IRS, the epidemiological impact of vector control remains uncertain due to an absence of nationwide basic parasite and vector-based field studies.

          Conclusion

          Readily available epidemiological data should become the future business model to maximize malaria funding from 2015. Over the next five to ten years, accountability, impact analysis, financial business cases supported by a culture of data use should become the new paradigm by which malaria programmes, governments and their development partners operate.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Variation in malaria transmission intensity in seven sites throughout Uganda.

          Knowledge of the baseline malaria transmission in a given environment is important to guide malaria control interventions. However, in Uganda, recent information on malaria transmission intensity is lacking. Therefore, a 1-year entomological study was conducted in seven ecologically different sites throughout the country to assess spatial and temporal patterns in malaria transmission intensity. Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto was the main vector in five of the seven study sites, and An. funestus was the most important vector in the two other sites. In a peri-urban village, An. arabiensis contributed substantially to malaria transmission. Clear differences in annual entomological inoculation rates (AEIR) were observed between the study sites, ranging from 4 infective bites per person per year in the southwestern part of the country to >1,500 infective bites per person per year in a swampy area near the Nile River. Between villages with parasite prevalences of >or= 80% in children between 1 and 9 years old, a 4-fold difference in AEIR was observed. Based on the observed behavior of the vectors, insecticide-treated bed nets will be highly effective in controlling malaria. However, in the high transmission areas, additional measures will be needed to reduce the malaria burden to acceptable levels.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Insecticide-treated net coverage in Africa: mapping progress in 2000-07.

            Insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) provide a means to improve child survival across Africa. Sales figures of these nets and survey coverage data presented nationally mask inequities in populations at biological and economic risk, and do not allow for precision in the estimation of unmet commodity needs. We gathered subnational ITN coverage sample survey data from 40 malaria-endemic countries in Africa between 2000 and 2007. We computed the projected ITN coverage among children aged less than 5 years for age-adjusted population data that were stratified according to malaria transmission risks, proximate determinants of poverty, and methods of ITN delivery. In 2000, only 1.7 million (1.8%) African children living in stable malaria-endemic conditions were protected by an ITN and the number increased to 20.3 million (18.5%) by 2007 leaving 89.6 million children unprotected. Of these, 30 million were living in some of the poorest areas of Africa: 54% were living in only seven countries and 25% in Nigeria alone. Overall, 33 (83%) countries were estimated to have ITN coverage of less than 40% in 2007. On average, we noted a greater increase in ITN coverage in areas where free distribution had operated between survey periods. By mapping the distribution of populations in relation to malaria risk and intervention coverage, we provide a means to track the future requirements for scaling up essential disease-prevention strategies. The present coverage of ITN in Africa remains inadequate and a focused effort to improve distribution in selected areas would have a substantial effect on the continent's malaria burden.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Combining indoor residual spraying and insecticide-treated nets for malaria control in Africa: a review of possible outcomes and an outline of suggestions for the future

              Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are currently the preferred methods of malaria vector control. In many cases, these methods are used together in the same households, especially to suppress transmission in holoendemic and hyperendemic scenarios. Though widespread, there has been limited evidence suggesting that such co-application confers greater protective benefits than either ITNs or IRS when used alone. Since both methods are insecticide-based and intradomicilliary, this article hypothesises that outcomes of their combination would depend on effects of the candidate active ingredients on mosquitoes that enter or those that attempt to enter houses. It is suggested here that enhanced household level protection can be achieved if the ITNs and IRS have divergent yet complementary properties, e.g. highly deterrent IRS compounds coupled with highly toxic ITNs. To ensure that the problem of insecticide resistance is avoided, the ITNs and IRS products should preferably be of different insecticide classes, e.g. pyrethroid-based nets combined with organophosphate or carbamate based IRS. The overall community benefits would however depend also on other factors such as proportion of people covered by the interventions and the behaviour of vector species. This article concludes by emphasizing the need for basic and operational research, including mathematical modelling to evaluate IRS/ITN combinations in comparison to IRS alone or ITNs alone.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                atalisuna@kemri-wellcome.org
                anoor@kemri-wellcome.org
                okuip@yahoo.co.uk
                rsnow@kemri-wellcome.org
                Journal
                Malar J
                Malar. J
                Malaria Journal
                BioMed Central (London )
                1475-2875
                15 April 2015
                15 April 2015
                2015
                : 14
                : 158
                Affiliations
                [ ]INFORM Project, Department of Public Health Research, KEMRI-Welcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya
                [ ]Centre for Tropical Medicine & Global Health, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, CCVTM, Oxford, UK
                [ ]Uganda Malaria Surveillance Programme (UMSP), Kampala, Uganda
                [ ]Ministry of Health, National Malaria Control Programme, Plot 6 Lourdel Road Nakasero, Kampala, Uganda
                Article
                677
                10.1186/s12936-015-0677-4
                4399081
                b18c38f6-c77f-4fb8-957e-0e4ce9e19c63
                © Talisuna et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 1 December 2014
                : 4 April 2015
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                epidemiological intelligence,surveillance,monitoring and evaluation,vector control,parasite prevention,malaria control,global malaria eradication project,malaria elimination,roll back malaria,uganda

                Comments

                Comment on this article