1
|
Subramanian S, Kibachio J, Hoover S, Edwards P, Amukoye E, Amuyunzu–Nyamongo M, Abbam G, Busakhala N, Chakava A, Dick J, Gakunga R, Gathecha G, Hilscher R, Husain MJ, Kaduka L, Kayima J, Karagu A, Kiptui D, Korir A, Meme N, Munoz B, Mwanda W, Mwai D, Mwangi J, Munyoro E, Muriuki Z, Njoroge J, Ogola E, Olale C, Olwal–Modi D, Rao R, Rosin S, Sangoro O, von Rège D, Wata D, Williams P, Yonga G. Research for Actionable Policies: implementation science priorities to scale up non–communicable disease interventions in Kenya. J Glob Health 2017. [PMCID: PMC5441449 DOI: 10.7189/jogh.07.010204] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Gisela Abbam
- GE Healthcare, Chalfont St Giles, UK
- Global Diagnostic Imaging, Healthcare IT & Radiation Therapy Trade Association, Arlington, Virginia, USA
| | - Naftali Busakhala
- Moi University, Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare, Eldoret, Kenya
| | | | - Jonathan Dick
- Moi University, Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare, Eldoret, Kenya
| | | | | | | | | | - Lydia Kaduka
- Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - James Kayima
- Makerere University, Uganda Heart Institute, Kampala, Uganda
| | | | | | - Anne Korir
- Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Nkatha Meme
- Makerere University, Uganda Heart Institute, Kampala, Uganda
| | - Breda Munoz
- RTI International, Waltham, Massachusetts USA
| | - Walter Mwanda
- University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
- Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Elijah Ogola
- University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
- Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya
| | | | | | - Rose Rao
- Novo Nordisk A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | | | | | - David Wata
- Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sangoro O, Kelly AH, Mtali S, Moore SJ. Feasibility of repellent use in a context of increasing outdoor transmission: a qualitative study in rural Tanzania. Malar J 2014; 13:347. [PMID: 25182272 PMCID: PMC4283126 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-347] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2014] [Accepted: 08/28/2014] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Extensive employment of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) has substantially reduced malaria morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. These tools target indoor resting and biting vectors, and may select for vectors that bite and rest outdoors. Thus, to significantly impact this residual malaria transmission outdoors, tools targeting outdoor transmission are required. Repellents, used for personal protection, offer one solution. However, the effectiveness of this method hinges upon its community acceptability. This study assessed the feasibility of using repellents as a malaria prevention tool in Mbingu village, Ulanga, Southern Tanzania. METHODOLOGY Change in knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) in relation to repellent use was assessed before and after the implementation of a cluster randomized clinical trial on topical repellents in rural Tanzania where repellent and placebo lotion were provided free of charge to 940 households for a period of 14 months between July 2009 and August 2010. Compliance, defined as the number of evenings that participants applied the recommended dose of repellent every month during the study period, was assessed using questionnaires, administered monthly during follow up of participants in the clinical trial. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in the same community three years later to assess the community's KAP in relation to repellents and preference to different repellent formats. RESULTS At baseline, only 0.32% (n=2) households in the intervention arm and no households in the control arm had ever used topical repellents. During follow-up surveys, significantly more households, 100% (n=457) in intervention arm relative to the control, 84.03% (n=379), (p=<0.001) perceived the repellent to be effective.Post-study, 99.78% (n=462) and 99.78% (n=463), (p=0.999) in the intervention and control arms respectively, were willing to continue repellent use. Mosquito nuisance motivated repellent use. From the FGDs, it emerged that most respondents preferred bed nets to repellents because of their longevity and cost effectiveness. CONCLUSION High repellent acceptability indicates their feasibility for malaria control in this community. However, to improve the community's uptake of repellents for use complimentary to LLINs for early evening and outdoor protection from mosquito bites, longer lasting and cheap formats are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Onyango Sangoro
- />Ifakara Health Institute, Box 74, Bagamoyo, Tanzania
- />Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK
| | - Ann H Kelly
- />Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK
- />Department of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of Exeter, Byrne House, Exeter, EX4 4PJ UK
| | - Sarah Mtali
- />Ifakara Health Institute, Box 74, Bagamoyo, Tanzania
| | - Sarah J Moore
- />Ifakara Health Institute, Box 74, Bagamoyo, Tanzania
- />Department of Health Interventions, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse, 57, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland
- />University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4003 Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sangoro O, Turner E, Simfukwe E, Miller JE, Moore SJ. A cluster-randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of using 15% DEET topical repellent with long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) compared to a placebo lotion on malaria transmission. Malar J 2014; 13:324. [PMID: 25129515 PMCID: PMC4247706 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-324] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2014] [Accepted: 08/09/2014] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) have limited effect on malaria transmitted outside of sleeping hours. Topical repellents have demonstrated reduction in the incidence of malaria transmitted in the early evening. This study assessed whether 15% DEET topical repellent used in combination with LLINs can prevent greater malaria transmission than placebo and LLINs, in rural Tanzania. METHODS A cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between July 2009 and August 2010 in a rural Tanzanian village. Sample size calculation determined that 10 clusters of 47 households with five people/household were needed to observe a 24% treatment effect at the two-tailed 5% significance level, with 90% power, assuming a baseline malaria incidence of one case/person/year. Ten clusters each were randomly assigned to repellent and control groups by lottery. A total of 4,426 individuals older than six months were enrolled. All households in the village were provided with an LLIN per sleeping space. Repellent and placebo lotion was replaced monthly. The main outcome was rapid diagnostic test (RDT)-confirmed malaria measured by passive case detection (PCD). Incidence rate ratios were estimated from a Poisson model, with adjustment for potential confounders, determined a priori. According-to-protocol approach was used for all primary analyses. RESULTS The placebo group comprised 1972.3 person-years with 68.29 (95% C.I 37.05-99.53) malaria cases/1,000 person-years. The repellent group comprised 1,952.8 person-years with 60.45 (95% C.I 48.30-72.60) cases/1,000 person-years, demonstrating a non-significant 11.44% reduction in malaria incidence rate in this group, (Wilcoxon rank sum z=0.529, p=0.596). Principal components analysis (PCA) of the socio-economic status (SES) of the two groups demonstrated that the control group had a higher SES (Pearson's chi square=13.38, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS Lack of an intervention effect was likely a result of lack of statistical power, poor capture of malaria events or bias caused by imbalance in the SES of the two groups. Low malaria transmission during the study period could have masked the intervention effect and a larger study size was needed to increase discriminatory power. Alternatively, topical repellents may have no impact on malaria transmission in this scenario. Design and implementation of repellent intervention studies is discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION The trial was registered ISRCTN92202008--http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN92202008.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Onyango Sangoro
- />Ifakara Health Institute, Box 74, Bagamoyo, Tanzania
- />Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK
| | - Elizabeth Turner
- />Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics and Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Duke Box 2721, Durham, NC 27705 USA
| | | | - Jane E Miller
- />Population Services International, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
| | - Sarah J Moore
- />Ifakara Health Institute, Box 74, Bagamoyo, Tanzania
- />Department of Health Interventions, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse, 57, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland
- />University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4003 Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sangoro O, Lweitojera D, Simfukwe E, Ngonyani H, Mbeyela E, Lugiko D, Kihonda J, Maia M, Moore S. Use of a semi-field system to evaluate the efficacy of topical repellents under user conditions provides a disease exposure free technique comparable with field data. Malar J 2014; 13:159. [PMID: 24767458 PMCID: PMC4006452 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-159] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2013] [Accepted: 04/21/2014] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Before topical repellents can be employed as interventions against arthropod bites, their efficacy must be established. Currently, laboratory or field tests, using human volunteers, are the main methods used for assessing the efficacy of topical repellents. However, laboratory tests are not representative of real life conditions under which repellents are used and field-testing potentially exposes human volunteers to disease. There is, therefore, a need to develop methods to test efficacy of repellents under real life conditions while minimizing volunteer exposure to disease. METHODS A lotion-based, 15% N, N-Diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET) repellent and 15% DEET in ethanol were compared to a placebo lotion in a 200 sq m (10 m × 20 m) semi-field system (SFS) against laboratory-reared Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes and in full field settings against wild malaria vectors and nuisance-biting mosquitoes. The average percentage protection against biting mosquitoes over four hours in the SFS and field setting was determined. A Poisson regression model was then used to determine relative risk of being bitten when wearing either of these repellents compared to the placebo. RESULTS Average percentage protection of the lotion-based 15% DEET repellent after four hours of mosquito collection was 82.13% (95% CI 75.94-88.82) in the semi-field experiments and 85.10% (95% CI 78.97-91.70) in the field experiments. Average percentage protection of 15% DEET in ethanol after four hours was 71.29% (CI 61.77-82.28) in the semi-field system and 88.24% (84.45-92.20) in the field. CONCLUSIONS Semi-field evaluation results were comparable to full-field evaluations, indicating that such systems could be satisfactorily used in measuring efficacy of topically applied mosquito repellents, thereby avoiding risks of exposure to mosquito-borne pathogens, associated with field testing.
Collapse
|