Impact of malaria control interventions on malaria infection and anaemia in areas with irrigated schemes: a cross-sectional population-based study in Sudan

BACKGROUND: While the overall burden of malaria is still high, the global technical strategy for malaria advocates for two sets of interventions: vector control-based prevention and diagnosis and prompt effective treatment of malaria cases. This study aimed to assess the performance of malaria interventions on malaria infection and anaemia in irrigated areas in Sudan. METHODS: Based on the Sudan 2016 national malaria indicator survey, data for two states (Gezira and Sennar), characterized by large-irrigated schemes, were analysed. Four community-level malaria interventions were used as contextual variables: utilization of malaria diagnosis, utilization of Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT), utilization of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and coverage with indoor residual spraying (IRS). Association between these interventions and two outcomes: malaria infection and anaemia, was assessed separately. Malaria infection was assessed in all age groups while anaemia was assessed in children under 5 years. Multilevel multiple logistic regression analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Among 4478 individuals involved in this study distributed over 47 clusters, the overall malaria infection rate was 3.0% and 56.5% of the children under 5 years (total = 322) were anaemic. Except for IRS coverage (69.6%), the average utilization of interventions was relatively low: 52.3% for utilization of diagnosis, 33.0% for utilization of ACTs and 18.6% for LLINs utilization. The multi-level multiple logistic regression model showed that only IRS coverage was associated with malaria infection (Odds ratio 0.83 per 10% coverage, 95%Confidence Interval (95%CI) 0.74-0.94, p = 0.003) indicating that a higher level of IRS coverage was associated with less malaria infection. Anaemia was not associated with any intervention (all p values larger than 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Malaria transmission in Gezira and Sennar areas is low. IRS, with insecticide to which vectors are susceptible, is an effective malaria control intervention in irrigated schemes. Community utilization of other interventions was not associated with malaria infection in this study. This may be due to the low utilization of these interventions. However, individual use of LLINs provide personal protection. This study failed to establish an association between anaemia and malaria control interventions in low transmission areas. The higher level of malaria infection in urban areas is a cause for concern

Impact of malaria control interventions on malaria infection and anaemia in low malaria transmission settings: a cross-sectional population-based study in Sudan

BACKGROUND: The past two decades were associated with innovation and strengthening of malaria control interventions, which have been increasingly adopted at large scale. Impact evaluations of these interventions were mostly performed in moderate or high malaria transmission areas. This study aimed to evaluate the use and performance of malaria interventions in low transmission areas on malaria infections and anaemia. METHODS: Data from the 2016 Sudan malaria indicator survey was used. Multi-level logistic regression analysis was used to assess the strength of association between real-life community-level utilization of malaria interventions [diagnosis, artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs)] and the study outcomes: malaria infections and anaemia (both overall and moderate-to-severe anaemia). RESULTS: The study analysis involved 26,469 individuals over 242 clusters. Malaria infection rate was 7.6%, overall anaemia prevalence was 47.5% and moderate-to-severe anaemia prevalence was 4.5%. The average community-level utilization was 31.5% for malaria diagnosis, 29.9% for ACTs and 35.7% for LLINs. The odds of malaria infection was significantly reduced by 14% for each 10% increase in the utilization of malaria diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) per 10% utilization 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95, p = 0.004). However, the odds of infection was positively associated with the utilization of LLINs at community-level (aOR per 10% utilization 1.20, 95% CI 1.11-1.29, p < 0.001). No association between malaria infection and utilization of ACTs was identified (aOR per 10% utilization 0.97, 95% CI 0.91-1.04, p = 0.413). None of the interventions was associated with overall anaemia nor moderate-to-severe anaemia. CONCLUSION: There was strong evidence that utilization of malaria diagnosis at the community level was highly protective against malaria infection. No protective effect was seen for community utilization of ACTs or LLINs. No association was established between any of the interventions and overall anaemia or moderate-to-severe anaemia. This lack of effectiveness could be due to the low utilization of interventions or the low level of malaria transmission in the study area. Identification and response to barriers of access and low utilization of malaria interventions are crucial. It is crucial to ensure that every suspected malaria case is tested in a timely way, notably in low transmission settings