Effectiveness of long-lasting insecticidal nets with pyriproxyfen–pyrethroid, chlorfenapyr–pyrethroid, or piperonyl butoxide–pyrethroid versus pyrethroid only against malaria in Tanzania: final-year results of a four-arm, single-blind, cluster-randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New classes of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) containing two active ingredients have been recently recommended by WHO in areas where malaria vectors are resistant to pyrethroids. This policy was based on evidence generated by the first 2 years of our recently published trial in Tanzania. In this Article, we report the final third-year trial findings, which are necessary for assessing the long-term effectiveness of new classes of LLIN in the community and the replacement intervals required. METHODS: A third year of follow-up of a four-arm, single-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial of dual active ingredient LLINs was conducted between July 14, 2021, and Feb 10, 2022, in Misungwi, Tanzania. Restricted randomisation was used to assign 84 clusters to the four LLIN groups (1:1:1:1) to receive either standard pyrethroid (PY) LLINs (reference), chlorfenapyr-PY LLINs, pyriproxyfen-PY LLINs, or piperonyl butoxide (PBO)-PY LLINs. All households received one LLIN for every two people. Data collection was done in consenting households in the cluster core area with at least one child between 6 months and 15 years of age who permanently resided in the selected household. Exclusion criteria were householders absent during the visit, living in the cluster buffer area, no adult caregiver capable of giving informed consent, or eligible children who were severely ill. Field staff and study participants were masked to allocation, and those analysing data were not. The primary 24-month endpoint was reported previously; here, we present the secondary outcome, malaria infection prevalence in children at 36 months post LLIN distribution, reported in the intention-to-treat analysis. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03554616) and is now complete. FINDINGS: Overall usage of study nets was 1023 (22·3%) of 4587 people at 36 months post distribution. In the standard PY LLIN group, malaria infection was prevalent in 407 (37·4%) of 1088 participants, compared with 261 (22·8%) of 1145 in the chlorfenapyr-PY LLIN group (odds ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·38-0·86; p=0·0069), 338 (32·2%) of 1048 in the PBO-PY LLIN group (0·95, 0·64-1·42; p=0·80), and 302 (28·8%) of 1050 in the pyriproxyfen-PY LLIN group (0·82, 0·55-1·23; p=0·34). None of the participants or caregivers reported side-effects. INTERPRETATION: Despite low coverage, the protective efficacy against malaria offered by chlorfenapyr-PY LLINs was superior to that provided by standard PY LLINs over a 3-year LLIN lifespan. Appropriate LLIN replacement strategies to maintain adequate usage of nets will be necessary to maximise the full potential of these nets. FUNDING: Department for International Development, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department of Health and Social Care, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation via the Innovative Vector Control Consortium.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".