Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness against malaria of three types of dual-active-ingredient long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) compared with pyrethroid-only LLINs in Tanzania: a four-arm, cluster-randomised trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) have successfully reduced malaria in sub-Saharan Africa, but their effectiveness is now partly compromised by widespread resistance to insecticides among vectors. We evaluated new classes of LLINs with two active ingredients with differing modes of action against resistant malaria vectors. METHODS: We did a four-arm, cluster-randomised trial in Misungwi, Tanzania. Clusters were villages, or groups of hamlets, with at least 119 households containing children aged 6 months to 14 years living in the cluster's core area. Constrained randomisation was used to allocate clusters (1:1:1:1) to receive one of four types of LLIN treated with the following: α-cypermethrin only (pyrethroid-only [reference] group); pyriproxyfen and α-cypermethrin (pyriproxyfen group); chlorfenapyr and α-cypermethrin (chlorfenapyr group); or the synergist piperonyl butoxide and permethrin (piperonyl butoxide group). At least one LLIN was distributed for every two people. Community members and the field team were masked to group allocation. Malaria prevalence data were collected through cross-sectional surveys of randomly selected households from each cluster, in which children aged 6 months to 14 years were assessed for Plasmodium falciparum malaria infection by rapid diagnostic tests. The primary outcome was malaria infection prevalence at 24 months after LLIN distribution, comparing each of the dual-active-ingredient LLINs to the standard pyrethroid-only LLINs in the intention-to-treat population. The primary economic outcome was cost-effectiveness of dual-active-ingredient LLINs, based on incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted compared with pyrethroid-only LLINs, modelled over a 2-year period; we included costs of net procurement and malaria diagnosis and treatment, and estimated DALYs in all age groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03554616), and is ongoing but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: 84 clusters comprising 39 307 households were included in the study between May 11 and July 2, 2018. 147 230 LLINs were distributed among households between Jan 26 and Jan 28, 2019. Use of study LLINs was reported in 3155 (72·1%) of 4378 participants surveyed at 3 months post-distribution and decreased to 8694 (40·9%) of 21 246 at 24 months, with varying rates of decline between groups. Malaria infection prevalence at 24 months was 549 (45·8%) of 1199 children in the pyrethroid-only reference group, 472 (37·5%) of 1258 in the pyriproxyfen group (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·54-1·17], p=0·2354), 512 (40·7%) of 1259 in the piperonyl butoxide group (0·99 [0·67-1·45], p=0·9607), and 326 [25·6%] of 1272 in the chlorfenapyr group (0·45 [0·30-0·67], p=0·0001). Skin irritation or paraesthesia was the most commonly reported side-effect in all groups. Chlorfenapyr LLINs were the most cost-effective LLINs, costing only US$19 (95% uncertainty interval 1-105) more to public providers or $28 (11-120) more to donors per DALY averted over a 2-year period compared with pyrethroid-only LLINs, and saving costs from societal and household perspectives. INTERPRETATION: After 2 years, chlorfenapyr LLINs provided significantly better protection than pyrethroid-only LLINs against malaria in an area with pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes, and the additional cost of these nets would be considerably below plausible cost-effectiveness thresholds ($292-393 per DALY averted). Before scale-up of chlorfenapyr LLINs, resistance management strategies are needed to preserve their effectiveness. Poor textile and active ingredient durability in the piperonyl butoxide and pyriproxyfen LLINs might have contributed to their relative lack of effectiveness compared with standard LLINs. FUNDING: Joint Global Health Trials scheme (UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; UK Medical Research Council; Wellcome; UK Department of Health and Social Care), US Agency for International Development, President's Malaria Initiative.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».