Repeat Ivermectin Mass Drug Administrations for Malaria Control II: Protocol for a Double-blind, Cluster-Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial for the Integrated Control of Malaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The gains made against malaria have stagnated since 2015, threatened further by increasing resistance to insecticides and antimalarials. Improvement in malaria control necessitates a multipronged strategy, which includes the development of novel tools. One such tool is mass drug administration (MDA) with endectocides, primarily ivermectin, which has shown promise in reducing malaria transmission through lethal and sublethal impacts on the mosquito vector. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study is to assess the impact of repeated ivermectin MDA on malaria incidence in children aged ≤10 years. METHODS: Repeat Ivermectin MDA for Malaria Control II is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cluster-randomized, and parallel-group trial conducted in a setting with intense seasonal malaria transmission in Southwest Burkina Faso. The study included 14 discrete villages: 7 (50%) randomized to receive standard measures (seasonal malaria chemoprevention [SMC] and bed net use for children aged 3 to 59 months) and placebo, and 7 (50%) randomized to receive standard measures and monthly ivermectin MDA at 300 μg/kg for 3 consecutive days, provided under supervision to all eligible village inhabitants, over 2 successive rainy seasons. Nonpregnant individuals >90 cm in height were eligible for ivermectin MDA, and cotreatment with ivermectin and SMC was not permitted. The primary outcome is malaria incidence in children aged ≤10 years, as assessed by active case surveillance. The secondary safety outcome of repeated ivermectin MDA was assessed through active and passive adverse event monitoring. RESULTS: The trial intervention was conducted from July to November in 2019 and 2020, with additional sampling of humans and mosquitoes occurring through February 2022 to assess postintervention changes in transmission patterns. Additional human and entomological assessments were performed over the 2 years in a subset of households from 6 cross-sectional villages. A subset of individuals underwent additional sampling in 2020 to characterize ivermectin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Analysis and unblinding will commence once the database has been completed, cleaned, and locked. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial represents the first study to directly assess the impact of a novel approach for malaria control, ivermectin MDA as a mosquitocidal agent, layered into existing standard-of-care interventions. The study was designed to leverage the current SMC deployment infrastructure and will provide evidence regarding the additional benefit of ivermectin MDA in reducing malaria incidence in children. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03967054; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03967054 and Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACT201907479787308; https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=8219. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/41197.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.015 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".