Vector control for malaria prevention during humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

L. Messenger, Joanna Furnival-Adams, Kallista Chan, Bethanie Pelloquin, Laura Paris, M. Rowland
{"title":"Vector control for malaria prevention during humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"L. Messenger, Joanna Furnival-Adams, Kallista Chan, Bethanie Pelloquin, Laura Paris, M. Rowland","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4019340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nHumanitarian emergencies can lead to population displacement, food insecurity, severe health system disruptions, and malaria epidemics among individuals who are immunologically naive. We aimed to assess the impact of different vector control interventions on malaria disease burden during humanitarian emergencies.\n\n\nMETHODS\nIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched ten electronic databases and two clinical trial registries from database inception to Oct 19, 2020, with no restrictions on language or study design. We also searched grey literature from 59 stakeholders. Studies were eligible if the population was affected by a humanitarian emergency in a malaria endemic region. We included studies assessing any vector control intervention and in which the primary outcome of interest was malaria infection risk. Reviewers (LAM, JF-A, KC, BP, and LP) independently extracted information from eligible studies, without masking of author or publication, into a database. We did random-effects meta-analyses to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) for randomised controlled trials, odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, and incidence rate ratios (IRR) for clinical malaria in non-randomised studies. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020214961.\n\n\nFINDINGS\nOf 12 475 studies screened, 22 studies were eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. All studies were conducted between Sept 1, 1989, and Dec 31, 2018, in chronic emergencies, with 616 611 participants from nine countries, evaluating seven different vector control interventions. Insecticide-treated nets significantly decreased Plasmodium falciparum incidence (RR 0·55 [95% CI 0·37-0·79]; high certainty) and Plasmodium vivax incidence (RR 0·69 [0·51-0·94]; high certainty). Evidence for an effect of indoor residual spraying on P falciparum (IRR 0·57 [95% CI 0·53-0·61]) and P vivax (IRR 0·51 [0·49-0·52]) incidence was of very low certainty. Topical repellents were associated with reductions in malaria infection (RR 0·58 [0·35-0·97]; moderate certainty). Moderate-to-high certainty evidence for an effect of insecticide-treated chaddars (equivalent to shawls or blankets) and insecticide-treated cattle on malaria outcomes was evident in some emergency settings. There was very low certainty evidence for the effect of insecticide-treated clothing.\n\n\nINTERPRETATION\nStudy findings strengthen and support WHO policy recommendations to deploy insecticide-treated nets during chronic humanitarian emergencies. There is an urgent need to evaluate and adopt novel interventions for malaria control in the acute phase of humanitarian emergencies.\n\n\nFUNDING\nWHO Global Malaria Programme.","PeriodicalId":153380,"journal":{"name":"The Lancet. Global health","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Lancet. Global health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4019340","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

BACKGROUND Humanitarian emergencies can lead to population displacement, food insecurity, severe health system disruptions, and malaria epidemics among individuals who are immunologically naive. We aimed to assess the impact of different vector control interventions on malaria disease burden during humanitarian emergencies. METHODS In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched ten electronic databases and two clinical trial registries from database inception to Oct 19, 2020, with no restrictions on language or study design. We also searched grey literature from 59 stakeholders. Studies were eligible if the population was affected by a humanitarian emergency in a malaria endemic region. We included studies assessing any vector control intervention and in which the primary outcome of interest was malaria infection risk. Reviewers (LAM, JF-A, KC, BP, and LP) independently extracted information from eligible studies, without masking of author or publication, into a database. We did random-effects meta-analyses to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) for randomised controlled trials, odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, and incidence rate ratios (IRR) for clinical malaria in non-randomised studies. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020214961. FINDINGS Of 12 475 studies screened, 22 studies were eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. All studies were conducted between Sept 1, 1989, and Dec 31, 2018, in chronic emergencies, with 616 611 participants from nine countries, evaluating seven different vector control interventions. Insecticide-treated nets significantly decreased Plasmodium falciparum incidence (RR 0·55 [95% CI 0·37-0·79]; high certainty) and Plasmodium vivax incidence (RR 0·69 [0·51-0·94]; high certainty). Evidence for an effect of indoor residual spraying on P falciparum (IRR 0·57 [95% CI 0·53-0·61]) and P vivax (IRR 0·51 [0·49-0·52]) incidence was of very low certainty. Topical repellents were associated with reductions in malaria infection (RR 0·58 [0·35-0·97]; moderate certainty). Moderate-to-high certainty evidence for an effect of insecticide-treated chaddars (equivalent to shawls or blankets) and insecticide-treated cattle on malaria outcomes was evident in some emergency settings. There was very low certainty evidence for the effect of insecticide-treated clothing. INTERPRETATION Study findings strengthen and support WHO policy recommendations to deploy insecticide-treated nets during chronic humanitarian emergencies. There is an urgent need to evaluate and adopt novel interventions for malaria control in the acute phase of humanitarian emergencies. FUNDING WHO Global Malaria Programme.
人道主义紧急情况期间预防疟疾病媒控制:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
人道主义紧急情况可能导致人口流离失所、粮食不安全、严重的卫生系统中断以及在免疫系统缺乏的人群中流行疟疾。我们的目的是评估人道主义紧急情况下不同病媒控制干预措施对疟疾疾病负担的影响。方法在本系统评价和荟萃分析中,我们检索了从数据库建立到2020年10月19日的10个电子数据库和2个临床试验注册库,没有语言或研究设计限制。我们还检索了来自59个利益相关者的灰色文献。如果人口在疟疾流行地区受到人道主义紧急情况的影响,则研究合格。我们纳入了评估任何病媒控制干预措施的研究,其中主要关注的结局是疟疾感染风险。审稿人(LAM, JF-A, KC, BP和LP)独立地从符合条件的研究中提取信息,不屏蔽作者或出版物,进入数据库。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析,以计算随机对照试验的合并风险比(rr)、二分类结果的优势比(ORs)和非随机研究中临床疟疾的发病率比(IRR)。证据的确定性采用分级建议评估、发展和评价(GRADE)方法进行评估。本研究注册号为PROSPERO, CRD42020214961。在筛选的12475项研究中,有22项研究符合纳入meta分析的条件。所有研究均于1989年9月1日至2018年12月31日期间在慢性紧急情况下进行,共有来自9个国家的616611名参与者,评估了7种不同的病媒控制干预措施。经杀虫剂处理的蚊帐显著降低了恶性疟原虫的发病率(RR = 0.55 [95% CI = 0.37 ~ 0.79];高确定性)和间日疟原虫发病率(RR = 0.69 [0.51 ~ 0.94];高确定性)。室内滞留喷洒对恶性疟原虫(IRR 0.57 [95% CI 0.53 ~ 0.61])和间日疟原虫(IRR 0.51 [95% CI 0.49 ~ 0.52])发病率的影响证据的确定性很低。局部驱蚊剂与疟疾感染减少相关(RR = 0.58 [0.35 - 0.97];温和的确定性)。在一些紧急情况下,关于经杀虫剂处理的纱布(相当于披肩或毯子)和经杀虫剂处理的牛对疟疾结果的影响的中等至高确定性证据是明显的。有非常低的确定性证据表明,经过杀虫剂处理的衣服有效果。研究结果加强并支持世卫组织关于在长期人道主义紧急情况期间部署驱虫蚊帐的政策建议。在人道主义紧急情况的严重阶段,迫切需要评估和采取新的疟疾控制干预措施。资助世卫组织全球疟疾方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信