Effectiveness and safety of reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) using dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine to reduce malaria transmission in very low-endemic setting of Eswatini: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Since 2000, many countries have scaled up effective malaria control interventions, resulting in reductions in malaria burden and a renewed goal to eradicate malaria worldwide by 2050.(1) When the goal is to interrupt transmission, it may be necessary to treat not only symptomatic malaria but also asymptomatic infections which perpetuate ongoing transmission and represent an increasing proportion of all infections in low transmission settings.(2, 3)

To address asymptomatic infections, one widely practiced strategy is active case detection in household members and neighbours of symptomatic cases recently reported from health facilities, also known as reactive case detection (RACD).(4) Since malaria infections cluster in space and time,(3) RACD can target limited resources to areas at highest risk of infection. In settings with substantial imported malaria cases that may seed local transmission, RACD also serves as a focal outbreak response.(4) However, the effectiveness of RACD is limited by the low sensitivity of currently available point-of-care diagnostics to detect low-density and non-falciparum infections. Molecular testing such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) improves sensitivity but is not practical given costs, logistical challenges of specimen collection and transport, and turn-around time required for laboratory testing and return visits to treat test-positive individuals. In addition, mass screening and treatment, which is similar to RACD but delivered community-wide, has not sustainably reduced incidence in prior studies.(5) As such, the World Health Organization (WHO) does not recommend RACD as a strategy to reduce or interrupt transmission.

Mass drug administration (MDA), or the treatment all individuals within a specified area with an effective antimalarial irrespective of infection status,(6, 7) may address some of the challenges of RACD. MDA was a component of many malaria elimination programmes in the mid-twentieth century but fell out of favor due to concerns regarding its effectiveness, sustainability, cost, and fear of accelerating drug resistance. More recent evidence suggests that when implemented in areas of low endemicity and in combination with other interventions, MDA has the potential to sustainably interrupt transmission.(6, 7) Maximizing coverage and adherence may also help to mitigate risks of drug resistance.(8) MDA has recently been recommended by the WHO in areas approaching interruption of transmission where there is good access to treatment, effective implementation of vector control and surveillance, and minimal risk of re-introduction of infection.(9) However, a dearth of definitive evidence on its effectiveness, safety, and feasibility remains.(10)

Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) is among 21 countries worldwide that were identified by WHO as the most likely to reach zero indigenous cases by 2020.(11) However, several of these countries including Eswatini continue to experience persistent local transmission and resurgence. As a malaria elimination-specific strategy, the Eswatini National Malaria Programme (NMP) has implemented RACD since 2009. Prior studies have confirmed that asymptomatic infections cluster around passively detected index cases, with the highest risk within 200 meters of the index case.(12) However, in Eswatini RACD using RDTs missed two-thirds of infections and 40% of hotspots compared to more sensitive molecular methods.(12) Due to logistical challenges, attempts to use more sensitive molecular methods to directly inform treatment have been unsuccessful (N. Dlamini, personal communication).

Reactive focal MDA (rfMDA) is an alternative intervention that builds on RACD for targeting high-risk populations residing near index cases. rfMDA entails mass drug administration without testing in household members and neighbours of recent index cases.(13) A recent trial of rfMDA using artemether-lumefantrine (AL) from a low transmission setting (infection prevalence 1–10%(14)) with minimal importation in Namibia reported safe administration and rfMDA reduced locally acquired malaria incidence by approximately 50% compared to RACD.(13) However, there are no trials of rfMDA from very low transmission settings (infection prevalence >0 but <1%(14)) with a high level of importation, which characterizes most near-elimination settings. rfMDA may be more appropriate than blanket MDA in low-endemic settings, since it targets populations where malaria has been recently introduced. Also, there are no trials of rfMDA using dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP), which compared to standard artemisinin-combination therapies such as AL, has favorable characteristics for MDA (less frequent dosing and longer period of protection), but safety concerns about rare QT-interval prolongation leading to arrythmia and sudden death exist.(15)

Our objective in this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of rfMDA using DP, compared to RACD, for reducing malaria transmission in the very low transmission setting of Eswatini. Both the rfMDA and RACD interventions were embedded within the Eswatini National Malaria Programme; as such, this pragmatic trial assessed real-world effectiveness of these interventions when delivered within an existing surveillance and response programme.

Methods

Study design and participants

We conducted a pragmatic open-label, cluster-randomised controlled trial(16) between September 2015 and June 2017 in the Kingdom of Eswatini, a low middle-income country in southern Africa. Approximately 30% of the population lives in the eastern malaria-endemic area, which borders Mozambique. Plasmodium falciparum is responsible for over 99% of malaria cases in Eswatini. Malaria transmission is unstable and occurs mainly between October and May.(12) Annual case loads are reported from July to June each year.

After major declines in malaria transmission from annual parasite incidence (API) of 3.9 to 0.07 per 1000 population from 1999 to 2009, the NMP reoriented its strategy from control to elimination of transmission by 2020. Since implementation of the elimination programme and until just prior to this trial, API has remained <1 per 1000 population. In 2014–2015, the transmission season prior to the trial, there were 604 reported cases, of which 50% were classified as imported.(17)

This pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial was designed to compare rfMDA and RACD effectiveness as implemented by the Eswatini National Malaria Programme (NMP) and in the context of other ongoing interventions including case management, vector control, surveillance, and information, communication and education. 77 malaria endemic localities or clusters, with a total of 209085 individuals residing in 431 enumeration areas, were eligible for inclusion. Of the 77 clusters, 63 had malaria cases in the three years prior to the trial; the remainder did not have cases but had prior historical risk of malaria transmission. We randomised clusters with a 1:1 allocation ratio to receive RACD, including rapid diagnostic testing with Pf-specific First Response (Premier Medical Corporation Ltd, Mumbai, India) and treatment of positives with AL (Coartem, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Kempton Park, South Africa) or rfMDA with presumptive treatment using DP (Eurartesim, Sigma Tau, Italy) (Figure 1). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Appendix 1. Briefly, microscopy- or RDT-confirmed index cases reported from any health facility in Eswatini were classified as local, imported, or unknown based on travel history. RACD or rfMDA was triggered if the index case resided within a study cluster. If RACD was conducted in the prior 5 weeks of the index case report, it was not repeated. Following the manufacturer’s recommendation that DP not be repeated within 8 weeks, nor taken more than twice in a year, rfMDA was not repeated if these criteria were met. Other exclusion criteria for DP included: age < 9 months; weight < 7 kg; pregnancy and breastfeeding, allergy to DP, acute illness including severe malaria, underlying kidney or hepatic problems, personal or family history of QT prolongation, or recent treatment with QT-prolongating medications.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Map of the study area

Abbreviations: rfMDA, reactive focal mass drug administration; RACD, reactive case detection.

Results

Between September 2015 and June 2017, 22 of the 38 clusters randomly assigned to RACD had 99 reported cases; 56 of these cases were covered by forty-nine RACD events. Twenty-five of the 39 clusters randomly assigned to rfMDA had 121 reported cases; 89 of these cases were covered by 68 rfMDA events. The remaining cases did not receive reactive interventions due to staff limitations, fuel shortages, or weather conditions complicating transport (Figure 2). Of the 2134 individuals eligible to receive RACD, 1696 (79%) were tested by RDTs. Five RDT-positive cases, of which three were LAMP positive), were referred for treatment with AL. The most common reason for non-receipt of RACD was not present (n=398, 18.7%); only 1.5% (n=33) refused. Of the 2623 individuals eligible to receive rfMDA, 1932 (74%) received DP. The most common reasons for non-receipt of rfMDA were not present (n=302, 11.5%) and ineligibility of receive DP (n=313, 11.9%) mainly due to reported potential for medication interaction. Seventy-six (2.9%) of eligible individuals refused to participate. Data on medication type were incomplete as nurses reported sensitivities around participants disclosing use of antiretrovirals (ARVs). No RDT nor LAMP-positive individuals were identified among rfMDA ineligibles. In total, 117 intervention events were implemented in the trial and 3941 individuals in 47 clusters where interventions were conducted were included in primary outcome analyses. Adherence to intervention assignment was incomplete: 20 RACD interventions were delivered in rfMDA areas (14 clusters), and 5 rfMDA interventions were delivered in RACD areas (four clusters).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Trial profile showing randomisation and enrolment

Abbreviations: rfMDA, reactive focal mass drug administration; RACD, reactive case detection; RDT, rapid diagnostic test; LAMP, loop-mediated isothermal amplification; AL, artemether-lumefantrine; DP, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine

*not covered due to staff limitations, fuel shortages, or weather conditions complicating transport

†RDT testing conducted in 262 of DP ineligibles. As none tested positive, none were referred for treatment with AL

Not taking into account clustering, index cases had a similar distribution of age, sex, case origin (e.g. local, imported, or unknown), occupation, and bed net ownership between study arms (Appendix 3). The percentage of index cases that reported having had their home sprayed in the past year was higher in rfMDA clusters than RACD clusters (28.6% vs 5.3%). For target population receiving study interventions, there was a similar distribution of age, occupation, and vector control coverage. A higher proportion in the rfMDA arm (1.4%) worked in manufacturing compared to RACD (0.1%). In all study clusters, an average of 35.7% of index cases and 2.8% of the target population reported international travel in the prior 8 weeks during the study period.

Taking into account clustering, there was imbalance in baseline transmission intensity. Cumulative incidence of all malaria in the three years preceding the trial was higher in the rfMDA arm compared to the RACD arm (6.30 vs 4.17 per 1000, respectively) with a similar trend seen for local cases only, and for all and local cases only in 2014–2015, the year preceding the trial (Table 1, Appendix 4a). The percentage of cases classified as imported in each cluster in the years prior to the trial was higher in the RACD arm compared to the rfMDA arm (35.8% vs 28.1% for 2012–2015, and 48.7% vs 32.2% for 2014–2015). Mean population size and ecological factors including rainfall, enhanced vegetative index, elevation, and daytime land surface temperature were balanced between arms at baseline (Table 1).

Index case and target population intervention coverage in the RACD arm was 80.1% and 75.6%, respectively, compared to 77.0% and 81.4%, respectively, in the rfMDA arm (Table 2). Total coverage (including both index cases and the target population around each index case) was 60.0% in RACD and 68.8% in rfMDA. For all coverage measures, 95% confidence intervals for each arm overlapped substantially. The median number of days between index case report and intervention response was 7 (range: 2, 27) in the RACD arm and 11 (range: 3, 52) in the rfMDA arm. In the rfMDA arm, two clusters had response times of 40 and 52 days; excluding those clusters, the range was 3 to 21.

During follow-up, the cumulative incidence decreased from baseline levels in both the RACD and rfMDA arms, with rfMDA having fewer cases during the final months (January to May) of the second transmission season (Figure 3, Appendix 4b). The cumulative incidence from 2015–2017 was 2.11 per 1000 in the rfMDA arm compared to 1.97 in the RACD arm (Table 3) (N = 47 clusters in both arms). In the intention-to-treat analysis, crude and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.01 (95% CI 0.58, 1.73) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.54, 1.60), respectively (Table 3). Restricting to local cases only, the adjusted IRR was 0.77 (95% CI 0.38, 1.56).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Monthly incidence in each study arm prior to and during the intervention period.

RACD, reactive case detection; rfMDA, reactive focal mass drug administration

Cumulative malaria-free survival for all cases was similar between arms (Figure 4a). Restricting to local cases only, cumulative survival was higher in the rfMDA arm until approximately 9 months after study initiation, and subsequently it was higher in the RACD arm throughout the second high transmission season (13–18 months after study initiation) (Figure 4b). The Schoenfeld residual test indicated that survival was proportional between arms for all cases (rho = −0.04, p-value = 0.308) but not for local cases (rho = 0.12, p-value = 0.032).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Malaria-free survival curves for the outcomes of a) all incident malaria cases, and b) local incident malaria cases. RACD, reactive case detection; rfMDA, reactive focal mass drug administration. High transmission seasons occurred from follow-up months 1-5 and 13-18.

In the synthetic control analysis accounting for pre-trial differences in incidence between arms, there was no difference in incidence of all malaria cases between the rfMDA arm and the synthetic RACD arm (Appendix 5 and 6). When comparing incidence in each cluster to incidence in contiguous neighbouring clusters, cluster-level incidence was not associated with incidence in contiguous neighbouring clusters, suggesting that the risk of contamination in this trial was minimal (Appendix 7).

Field staff conducted 1114 pill counts and recorded complete adherence to the 3-day DP regimen in 1099 (98.7%) individuals. Adverse events were experienced by 68 individuals in the rfMDA arm (49 in year 1, 19 in year 2). Based on the WHO severity scale, 54 (80%) events were mild and 14 (20.6%) were as moderate. The most common complaints were headache, nausea/vomiting, and abdominal pain. Of five individuals with adverse events who did not complete the course of DP, all recovered. One had difficulty breathing and chest tightness that could be consistent with DP-associated arrythmia but the accompanying diarrohea is less consistent (Appendix 8 and 9). During the study period, there was only one recorded malaria death in the study area. The infection was locally acquired and the patient lived in an rfMDA cluster, though rfMDA had not previously been conducted in the target area. No AEs were reported in the RACD arm.

Discussion

In this pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial conducted in a very low transmission malaria elimination setting, rfMDA clusters had lower locally acquired malaria incidence during the whole study period compared to RACD clusters, particularly during the second high transmission season of the study period, but overall, evidence was weak. Intervention coverage was lower than expected, and malaria occurred in fewer clusters than planned in the sample size calculation. Adherence to presumptive treatment with DP was high, and as reported elsewhere, acceptability was high.(18) Importantly, there were no serious adverse events (SAEs).

Progress towards the 2030 elimination goal in southern Africa has slowed despite coordinated regional efforts and delivery of standard interventions, including pre-season indoor residual spraying, symptomatic case management, and RACD.(11) While RACD aims in part to address asymptomatic reservoirs of transmission, rapid diagnostic tests used in low transmission settings have poor sensitivity and miss many low-density infections.(24) While blanket MDA would reach all asymptomatic infections, it is logistically difficult to implement at scale, inefficient in populations with few, highly clustered infections, and it may not be safe or acceptable.(7)

A few trials have evaluated focal MDA delivered to hotspots at the village or sub-village level in low transmission settings and results are mixed.(25-28) In Zanzibar, which most resembles our site due to high coverage of standard interventions, very low transmission intensity, and high rates of importation, negative findings of focal MDA effectiveness were hypothesized to be related to suboptimal timing and the number of MDA rounds, and re-introduction of malaria through importation.(27) The reactive approach employed in our trial sought to address these issues by targeting the focal MDA to a time and place when transmission risk was highest (e.g. where there were recent imported or local cases).

This trial is one of three that evaluated rfMDA. Results from a low transmission setting in Zambia trial are forthcoming.(25) A trial in a low transmission setting in Namibia evaluated rfMDA alone and in combination with reactive vector control in comparison to RACD.(13) Compared to RACD, rfMDA reduced local malaria incidence by 48%, and rfMDA with additional reactive vector control reduced incidence by 74%. There are several key differences between the Namibia trial and this trial. First, the Namibia trial had a higher baseline annual malaria incidence (30 per 1000 compared to 3 per 1000 in this trial) and a lower proportion of imported malaria (3% compared to 40% in this trial), both of which may facilitate higher impact of focal MDA.(26) Second, the Namibia trial was largely implemented by a research team, while the Eswatini trial was pragmatic and largely implemented by the local malaria control programme.(16) Coverage in the Namibia trial was also higher compared to this trial (study area index and target population coverage were >84% and >85%, compared to 78.5% and 78.7% in this trial).

This trial faced several challenges unique to very low incidence settings including strong spatiotemporal clustering and imported malaria.(22) The number of clusters with at least one index case during follow-up was lower than expected (we expected 63 but observed 47). Thus, the trial was not powered to detect the hypothesized incidence reduction of ≥50%, nor smaller reductions, with precision. Second, though the study was cluster-randomised, baseline malaria incidence and the percentage of imported cases was higher in the rfMDA arm than the RACD arm. The lower than expected number of clusters per arm likely contributed to these imbalances. Though analyses adjusted for these factors, it remains possible that unmeasured factors affecting malaria transmission differed between arms. To further address baseline imbalance, we conducted a synthetic control analysis, which produced similar results to the primary analysis. However, the synthetic control analysis did not completely account for pre-intervention differences in incidence between arms, likely because few clusters (<25 per arm) had incident cases during follow-up, and cluster-level incidence varied. When outcomes are rare and clustered, trials require very large cluster numbers to have sufficient statistical power and baseline balance.(27, 28)

Implementation factors may have influenced effect estimates. First, total coverage was lower than the trial’s goal of 80%, and imbalanced across arms (60% for RACD and 68.8% for rfMDA). Limitations related to staffing and transport compromised index case level coverage and participants not being present compromised target population coverage. Of note, 12% of the rfMDA target population was ineligible to receive DP, with the most common reason being potential medication interaction with ARVs. Although saquinavir, the only ARV contraindicated for use with DP, is not available in Eswatini, nurses expressed concern that adverse events could be interpreted by the participant as due to ARV, and thus compromise ARV adherence. Where ARV use is common, such as Eswatini which has the highest worldwide incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV),(29) better strategies to address safety concerns regarding drug-drug interaction will be needed. The use of less stringent exclusion criteria (e.g. inclusion of pregnant women, young children, individuals with certain morbidities) as has been safely practiced by others(30) could also improve coverage. However, coverage was not associated with incidence, suggesting that differences in coverage between arms were unlikely to affect study findings. Second, intervention response time was substantially higher for two rfMDA clusters compared to the RACD arm. It is possible that there was greater malaria transmission between index case detection and intervention delivery in the rfMDA arm than the RACD arm. Third, study clusters were not separated by geographic buffer zones to minimize contamination, which can occur due to vectors or human movement. However, cluster-level incidence was not correlated between contiguous clusters, suggesting that the chance of contamination in this trial was low.

Importantly, our study is the first to show the safety of rfMDA using DP. The Namibia trial used AL and in comparison, DP may be preferable for MDA due to ease of use and longer protective period (once versus twice daily, and 4–6 weeks versus a few days, due to the half-life). Rarely, DP-associated QT-interval prolongation may lead to sudden death (1/∼200 000), and in very low-endemic settings the risk-to-benefit ratio may not favor DP.(15) Here, one participant had symptoms that could be consistent with arrythmia, and treatment was stopped. Pharmacovigilance provided by nurses through follow-up visits and their on-call availability likely helped to prevent SAEs.

Conclusions

This study is the first trial to compare rfMDA and RACD in a very low malaria-endemic setting. As interventions were embedded within an existing national malaria programme, it provides such evidence in realistic implementation conditions. We found that rfMDA was safe. Although rfMDA clusters had lower cumulative incidence during the study period, we were unable to confirm effectiveness of rfMDA compared to RACD, potentially due to insufficient power. For rfMDA to be more effective than RACD, improved coverage and/or the addition of complementary interventions, such as IRS, may need to be delivered in tandem.(13) To improve statistical power to detect impact of interventions in very low-endemic settings, future trials may require multi-site designs, larger sample sizes, or alternatively, smaller units of randomisation (e.g. a neighborhood), or adaptive designs that adjust features such as the sample size and allocation ratio.(31, 32) Such evidence will be critical to guide countries in their quest to move from very low to no transmission.

Declarations