Mozambique uses 4 million mosquito nets in turn from pesticide, in war on malaria

June 20, 2017

Mozambique’s National Malaria Control Programme distributed 4 million LLIN, insecticide-impregnated nets, to protect children and others from malaria as they sleep, the time most malaria-infecting mosquito bites occur. Malaria Consortium photo

Mozambique’s National Malaria Control Programme distributed 4 million LLIN, insecticide-impregnated nets, to protect children and others from malaria as they sleep, the time most malaria-infecting mosquito bites occur. Malaria Consortium photo

Mozambique is one of only ten nations still using DDT for Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) to fight malaria.

But DDT’s effectiveness diminishes rapidly, as does the effectiveness of the other eleven insecticides generally used for IRS against malaria or other vector-borne diseases. Insecticides are sprayed indoors, and not outdoors, to provide protection where humans are most often bitten, and to prevent non-target mosquitoes and other creatures from being exposed to the insecticides. This prevents harmful pests from developing resistance to the insecticides, and diminishes damage to beneficial species, like food fish.

Instead of spraying, malaria fighters turn increasingly to bednets impregnated with insecticide, known as Long-Lasting Insecticide-impregnated Nets (LLIN). A net provides closer to 100% protection from bites than IRS. A net immediately protects anyone sleeping under it, while IRS must treat at least 80% of nearby homes to achieve more than 50 percent prevention.

While still using IRS, Mozambique stakes its future malaria fighting on nets.

The Malaria Consortium aided in the recent distribution of nets.

Malaria Consortium has successfully completed a mass distribution campaign of over four million long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) across Nampula and Niassa provinces in Mozambique. The nets were distributed almost simultaneously across all districts of each province – 23 districts in Nampula in November 2016, and 16 districts in Niassa in May 2017 – using a new operational model aimed at optimising resources.

Throughout the campaigns, Mozambique’s National Malaria Control Programme was responsible for the LLIN acquisition and led overall planning and implementation through the decentralised structures of the health system. Malaria Consortium’s role consisted of operational support, which included financial management, transport, procurement, logistics, training, management of service providers, efficient use of resources and effective coordination at provincial, district and field levels.

Sonia Gwesela, Malaria Consortium Mozambique Country Director said, “In Nampula Province, a major achievement was that 99 percent of households collected their nets. We successfully delivered 98 percent of the nets in both provinces, coming well above the 90 percent target set by the National Malaria Control Programme.

“With the successful completion of the distribution, we can now focus on a post-distribution communications campaign about the correct use of LLINs,” she concluded.

The Malaria Prevention and Control Project is funded by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria and supports the efforts of the Mozambican government to reduce malaria throughout the country through scale up of prevention and control efforts with community involvement. Malaria Consortium is working in partnership with World Vision, Fundacao para o Desenvolvimento da Comunidadeo, International Relief and Development, and the Mozambique Ministry of Health.

Bednets can be twice as effective as IRS in preventing the spread of malaria. Beating malaria also requires upgrading health care for quick diagnoses and quick, complete treatment of malaria in humans, and prevention projects to drain mosquito-breeding places within 50 yards of homes; more prevention of bites means less medical treatment is required.

WHO estimated 5 million people died of malaria in the 1950s into the 1960s. WHO’s Malaria Report 2016 reported malaria deaths fell to less than 430,000 world wide, a more than 90 percent reduction since 1963, mostly accomplished without DDT.

Malaria Consortium on Twitter, @FightingMalaria.

Save

Save

Save


110th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s birth, May 27, 2017

May 28, 2017

Rachel Carson at Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania. USFWS photo.

Rachel Carson at Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania. USFWS photo.

Rachel Carson’s birth anniversary in 2017 was remarkably free from attacks by DDT advocates or other people misinformed about her life and work.

Not that those attacks don’t continue on other days, still, but that the critics did not use the occasion of the anniversary of her birth to gang up on news media.

Some of the nice things said on Twitter:

Over the years, Maria Popova at Brainpickings (@brainpicker) collected and republished quite a bit of good biography on Rachel Carson.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/868644265953558528

 

 

But:

And earlier:


Malaria uptick in Botswana: No, more DDT can’t help

March 28, 2017

Health workers in Botswana use a cell phone to report malaria diagnoses and commencement of treatment, enabling real-time tracking of malaria outbreaks and rapid public health service responses. Photo from MalariaNoMore.

Health workers in Botswana use a cell phone to report malaria diagnoses and commencement of treatment, enabling real-time tracking of malaria outbreaks and rapid public health service responses. Photo from MalariaNoMore.

Interested, and interesting, to discover Botswana has a Facebook page where it appears is posted almost every press release or news item from the government.

I found it because some wag claimed on Twitter that Botswana faces a malaria crisis, and therefore DDT should be ‘brought back from the dead.’

Botswana did post about a malaria outbreak, but the nation appears to have good sense about how to fight malaria. The Tweeter missed that Botswana is already doing what a nation would use DDT for, Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS), and that phrase alone means Botswana’s malaria fighters are alert to any need for DDT should it arise, but also to the severe limitations on DDT use. DDT doesn’t work in about 95% of the nations on Earth.

Botswana is among the ten nations remaining on Earth who use DDT when and where they find a population of mosquitoes still susceptible to DDT. Almost all nations on Earth signed the Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty (POPs, or Stockholm Agreement), which requires annual reporting of DDT use. But there are 11 other pesticides the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends for IRS. Botswana is unlikely to use DDT where it won’t work, which is most places.

Botswana is one of the DDT Ten in 2016, too. But this is down from 43 nations in 2001. DDT’s effectiveness and time as a tool to fight malaria is mostly gone, vanishing quickly.

Botswana has DDT if it can find a use for it; no more DDT is needed. A malaria outbreak in Botswana is no reason to remove the ban on DDT use on U.S. farms.

Here is the story/press release from Botswana’s government:

MALARIA CASES RISE IN OKAVANGO

North West District has been hard hit by a malaria epidemic with 670 recorded cases and five deaths since the beginning of the rainy season.

Head of the District Health Management Team, Dr Malebogo Pusoentsi revealed this at a press conference aimed at evaluating efforts made in the district to control the disease, recently.

A task force was in the district to assess and appreciate the situation as well as discuss what more could be done going forward.

Dr Pusoentsi said the highly affected region was Okavango which recorded over 90 per cent of the cases.

Highly affected areas include Shakawe, Xakao and Seronga in the Okavango District while in Ngami, Tsau and Mababe were the most affected.

Out of the affected people, it was reported that males were mostly affected as compared to females, and that more than 30 per cent of the affected were children. The most affected areas were said to be schools.

Dr Pusoentsi explained that malaria infection in humans was mainly transmitted through the sting of the female anopheles mosquito, adding that the disease in people could present clinically as either uncomplicated, complicated or asymptomatic, especially for people living in malaria endemic areas.

She stated that prevention of malaria remained a priority with strategies aimed at vector control. She said two strategies have been used to control mosquitoes in the area such as indoor residual spraying and the distribution of the long lasting insecticide treated nets. She added that 57 000 nets having been distributed across the country.

Regarding indoor spraying, Dr Pusoentsi revealed that for the transmission period of 2016/17, the district achieved an average of 69 per cent coverage as compared to the 85 per cent target.

Asked if the district was winning the battle, she said they were on the right track as health officials have doubled up efforts to tackle the epidemic.

She said social mobilisation was effective as the community and leadership were taught to make malaria a priority in their agenda, adding that if one member of a family was affected, chances were high that the rest of the family were also at risk.

Furthermore, Dr Pusoentsi explained that many opportunities still existed at community level to effectively control the spread of malaria, citing the cleaning of surroundings to minimise the breeding spaces for the mosquitoes.

Another strategy was to work collaboratively to ensure community knowledge and participation during the epidemic period. She urged the community to visit health facilities if they experience any symptoms of malaria so that they could be assisted on time.

She noted that common signs and symptoms include high temperature, headache and rigors, pallor and vomiting.

Dr Pusoentsi also noted that Botswana was among the countries which were aiming to eliminate malaria by 2018, adding that as part of the strategy, all efforts and investments had been put in place to control the spread.

Effective surveillance mechanism, she said had been put in place to monitor the disease burden and response efficiency at all times.

In addition, she pointed out that case management and drug supply had been strengthened to ensure quality management of cases of malaria to avoid deaths. (BOPA)

Save


Brazil’s Yellow Fever outbreak: Medical stuff we should know, from NAIAD

March 9, 2017

Accurate information can be the greatest tool in the fight against diseases, infectious or vector-borne. NAIAD slide.

Accurate information can be the greatest tool in the fight against diseases, infectious or vector-borne. NAIAD slide.

Brazil endures an outbreak of Yellow Fever in early 2017. Mosquitoes transmit Yellow Fever from one mammal host to another. Famously, Yellow Fever had to be controlled to allow construction of the Panama Canal between 1910 and 1915.

It should be just a matter of days, or perhaps a few hours, before harpies on the right and in anti-science trenches demand “return” of DDT to fight this outbreak, arguing that EPA didn’t know what it was doing when it banned DDT from farm use, and probably dropping cheap shots at Rachel Carson and “environmentalists.”

Yellow Fever is usually carried by mosquitoes in the species Aedes aegypti, a nasty little bug that carries several diseases to humans including Zika virus and West Nile virus.

Distribution of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in the U.S. Map by U.S. CDC, via Wikipedia

Distribution of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in the U.S. Map by U.S. CDC, via Wikipedia

Astute observers know that A. aegypti are almost ubiquitous in warmer human cities, so the transmission of the disease requires only that a host (usually human) shows up infected with the pathogen, and an epidemic might occur.

Those observers also know that all mosquitoes are resistant or immune to DDT and frequently to other pesticides as well, their having been bombarded with pesticides for 60 or more years, and consequently having evolved resistance alleles. So spraying with DDT won’t work.

That’ won’t stop those who relish slandering Carson or who wish to impugn the humanity and good motives of environmentalists.

Get facts, first.

Come Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Cahtharine Paules of the U.S.’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NAIAD), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to offer information to calm the hyperventilated, and to inform the serious and concerned citizen with an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, explaining Brazil’s problem, Yellow Fever, and what U.S. residents need to do, and this press release from NAIAD to get the key points across quickly.

Will anyone listen?

Yellow Fever in the Americas

Current Outbreak Merits Close Watch
March 8, 2017

The unusually large outbreak of yellow fever now occurring in rural Brazil deserves careful attention by world health authorities, notes Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of the National Institutes of Health. Writing in a Perspectives piece for the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Fauci and his associate Catharine I. Paules, M.D., note that this latest outbreak of a serious mosquito-borne virus comes as Zika virus, which is spread by the same mosquito as yellow fever virus, continues to affect countries throughout the Americas.

Historically, yellow fever has claimed millions of lives, including many thousands in the United States. The Philadelphia epidemic of 1793, for example, killed approximately ten percent of the city’s population. In its most serious form, yellow fever symptoms include high fever, hemorrhagic manifestations, kidney failure, liver malfunction and jaundice (yellowish appearance of the eyes and skin, which gives the disease its name.)

A vaccine has been available since 1937 and confers lifelong immunity in up to 99 percent of those who receive it. Extensive immunization campaigns, along with effective mosquito control—especially in developed countries—have reduced yellow fever cases worldwide. Nevertheless, localized outbreaks in parts of Africa and Central and South America account for an estimated 84,000 to 170,000 severe cases of disease and between 29,000 and 60,000 deaths annually.

The Brazilian outbreak is a manifestation of the “sylvatic,” or jungle, transmission cycle in which forest-dwelling mosquitoes spread the virus primarily to non-human primates, with humans serving only as incidental hosts. At this time, there is no evidence that the outbreak is transforming into its “urban” cycle, but authorities should remain alert for this possibility, the authors note. In the urban cycle, yellow fever virus is usually spread by city-dwelling Aedes aegypti mosquitoes directly to people. An urban cycle of yellow fever in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo that began in late 2015 caused 961 confirmed cases and 137 deaths. During that outbreak, write Drs. Fauci and Paules, the world’s emergency vaccine stockpile reserve was exhausted, limiting the number of available vaccine doses and making the outbreak more difficult to control. To prevent a similar occurrence during a future yellow fever outbreak in Brazil or elsewhere, “early identification of cases and rapid implementation of public health management and prevention strategies, such as mosquito control and appropriate vaccination, are critical,” they write.

In an era of frequent international travel, an increase in domestic cases in Brazil has the potential to spread yellow fever to non-endemic areas and could pose serious disease-control challenges, Drs. Fauci and Paules observe. They urge clinicians, especially those in the United States and other places where yellow fever is uncommon, to inform themselves about yellow fever symptoms and to adopt a high index of suspicion for this diagnosis, particularly when examining travelers returning from affected regions.

ARTICLE:
CI Paules and AS Fauci. Yellow fever: Once again on the radar screen in the Americas. New England Journal of Medicine DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1702172 (2017).

WHO:
Dr. Fauci is available to discuss this article.

CONTACT:
To schedule interviews, please contact Anne A. Oplinger, (301) 402-1663, aoplinger@niaid.nih.gov.

Map of Brazil showing confirmed cases of Yellow Fever

Map of Brazil showing confirmed cases of Yellow Fever “in the current outbreak,” as of March 2017. Information from Brazil’s Ministry of Health. NEJM image.


Suicide with DDT: DDT can kill humans

February 13, 2017

Label on a can of DDT. BigPictureEducation image

Label on a can of DDT. BigPictureEducation image

It’s a footnote, but an important one right now, when the anti-science, anti-environmental protection, anti-learning wing of American culture again gears up to attack the memory of Rachel Carson, the science findings that led to the ban on crop use of DDT in America, and upon health care and medicine and science in general.

DDT kills. DDT can kill humans.

Daily Beast, usually a sober-enough, accurate enough online news organ that has absorbed the old print magazine Newsweek, recently carried a column by Paul Offitt, repeating the hoax claims that DDT was banned contrary to science, by a conspiracy of power-made environmentalists, that DDT is harmless to humans, and that had DDT not been banned, millions of humans would have survived malaria.

Long-time readers of this organ know each of those points is false, hoaxes ginned up to impugn science, leftists, environmental protection, or just for the hell of it. Offitt’s is just the first of several of these hoax-based articles which will cause us all grief this spring, I predict.

Probably the most difficult-to-explain hoax claim is the one that says DDT is “harmless” to humans.

DDT usually doesn’t come in a dose great enough to kill humans outright.  That should not be mistaken for safety. DDT was known to kill early on, and as it turns out, it has become a method of human suicide across Asia. Unfortunately for policy study, those cases rarely get reported in science journals.

Some medical researcher should study the issue, to determine how widespread DDT suicide might be, what physicians do to save a person so poisoned, if they ever can. And I often wonder, is any suicide by insecticide reported as “DDT,” though it may be some other toxin?

I stumbled across the story of a DDT suicide in India some time back. It was a short report. I found no follow ups.

Some time ago I was surprised to hear an author talking about DDT suicide, which she had mentioned in one of her stories. The story was published in The New Yorker, “A Sheltered Woman.” The magazine interviewed the author, Yiyun Li; Li explained why she mentioned DDT suicide in the story.

This week’s story, “A Sheltered Woman,” is about a baby nurse named Auntie Mei, a Chinese immigrant who has established a solid career for herself looking after infants and their breast-feeding mothers in the Bay Area. When did the character of Auntie Mei first come to you?

A year ago, while rummaging through old things, I found a notebook that I had bought at a garage sale in Iowa City when I first came to America—I had paid five cents for it. The notebook was in a good shape; though it remained unused. A character occurred to me: she paid a dime and asked if there was a second notebook so she did not have to have the change back. Such greed, the character said, laughing at herself. From that moment on I knew I had a story.

Auntie Mei keeps a distance between herself and her charges, rarely staying longer than the first month of a baby’s life and establishing an orderly regime in the households she enters. Yet her disciplined approach starts to falter when she’s faced with Chanel, a disgruntled young mother, and her son. Why is Chanel able to unsettle Auntie Mei? Did you know this would happen when you starting thinking of the way the two characters would interact?

Auntie Mei’s life has a reliable pattern: the moment she enters a house to take care of a new set of mother and infant she can already see the exit point. But any pattern is breakable. When I started the story, I knew that the situation would change for Auntie Mei. Chanel, by not being ready to be a mother, forces Auntie Mei into a dilemma: When the baby in her charge is not loved by his parents, should she step in and offer her love? And what danger would she find herself in if she does not suppress that love?

You said in a recent interview that your characters don’t struggle as immigrants but are concerned rather with internal struggles and with the problems they’ve brought with them from China. That’s certainly the case here, where Auntie Mei is haunted by the legacy of the two women who raised her, her mother and her grandmother, who rejected the men in their lives. Does Auntie Mei’s childhood reflect anything in particular about Chinese-village life? Could you imagine a similar situation had she grown up in America?

Part of Auntie Mei’s childhood reflects Chinese-village life. For instance, her mother threatened to kill herself with DDT. DDT was banned in the United States in 1972, but, when I grew up, it was widely used in China, and, in the countryside, suicides by DDT were common. The peculiarities of Auntie Mei’s grandmother and mother would have been less readily accepted had she grown up in America, or even in a big city in China. However, Auntie Mei’s struggle is not specific to China. I imagine it’s a situation that can happen in any country. Our knowledge of history in general is limited, but at least there are historians who strive to enlighten the public. The murkiest history is within one’s own family, and oftentimes things remain unexplored and unsaid, and what is said may be misrepresentation or even distortion. Auntie Mei is not alone in her struggle with a shadowy past. In fact, I wonder how many people are truly exempted from the past.

One more anecdote, but one we may put stock into. DDT suicide is a thing. DDT can kill humans acutely, when the dose is great enough. Statements that DDT is harmless are inaccurate.

It’s a good short story, by the way.


Fact sheet for World Malaria Report 2016

December 16, 2016

A woman shows the mosquito net that protects her and her family from malaria transmission, in India. India remains the world's top DDT user, but is switching to nets in an effort to bring malaria rates down and set up malaria eradication before the end of DDT in 2020. WHO image.

A woman shows the mosquito net that protects her and her family from malaria transmission, in India. India remains the world’s top DDT user, but is switching to nets in an effort to bring malaria rates down and set up malaria eradication before the end of DDT in 2020. WHO image.

World Health Organization publishes an annual World Malaria Report, with the year appended to the title. It summarizes the state of the fight against malaria worldwide, recording progress and setbacks.

In the tally of progress we get a clear indication of what is needed to continue or increase that progress, with the ultimate goal of controlling malaria to the point it poses no great economic risk, or health risk, to any nation, or better that human malaria is eradicated.

World Malaria Report 2016 is 184 pages, shorter than some previous reports but packed with figures and history, some of which requires greater background to understand completely.

For example, the 2016 publication notes that about 412,000 people died from malaria in 2016. This is a shocking figure. Most of the news coverage of the report mentions this death toll in the first paragraph.

It’s too many deaths. But it’s a more than 50% reduction in deaths from 1990s rates, and it’s a more than 90% reduction from the annual death tolls that shocked the world to concerted action after World War II. Most estimates are that about 5 million people a year died from malaria through the 1950s, and into the 1960s.

WHO concentrates on the malaria fight, and plays down the political aspects to encourage international cooperation to help fight the disease. But there are political statements made, if one has the background to understand them. There remains controversy over the use of DDT, with many people yelling far and wide that if ‘bans on DDT were removed’ then malaria would quickly become an eradicated disease. This position ignores the facts, that there were still 5 million people dying each year during peak DDT use; that death tolls plunged after the U.S. banned DDT use on crops; that the U.S. ban covered only crop use, and that DDT use against disease has never been banned anywhere in the world; and that DDT use continued long after the U.S. banned DDT, around the world. DDT use never stopped.

Taken together, we would understand that the 90% reduction in malaria deaths from peak DDT use years, was accomplished mostly without DDT, and that therefore DDT is not a panacea.

World Malaria Report 2016 also tallies the slow demise of DDT. Mosquito resistance to pesticides, especially DDT, is a major problem in the fight against the disease. But more DDT can’t fix that problem now that every mosquito on Earth carries alleles that make them resistant and wholly immune to the stuff. DDT will probably never be a panacea, even were its manufacture not scheduled to stop very soon.

History, and a complete assessment of the science and current conditions in the frontlines of the malaria fight, can help us put these things in perspective.

So far, only the Los Angeles Times in the U.S. provided any in-depth reporting on World Malaria Report 2016. We hope other media will take up the challenge to inform. They will find WHO’s Fact Sheet useful.

With that warning in mind, it’s good to look at the broad outlines of the report, which WHO has packaged into a fact sheet for our convenience.

Fact Sheet: World Malaria Report 2016

13 December 2016

The World Malaria Report, published annually by WHO, tracks progress and trends in malaria control and elimination across the globe. It is developed by WHO in collaboration with ministries of health and a broad range of partners. The 2016 report draws on data from 91 countries and areas with ongoing malaria transmission.

Global progress and disease burden (2010–2015)

According to the report, there were 212 million new cases of malaria worldwide in 2015 (range 148–304 million). The WHO African Region accounted for most global cases of malaria (90%), followed by the South-East Asia Region (7%) and the Eastern Mediterranean Region (2%).

In 2015, there were an estimated 429 000 malaria deaths (range 235 000–639 000) worldwide. Most of these deaths occurred in the African Region (92%), followed by the South-East Asia Region (6%) and the Eastern Mediterranean Region (2%).

Between 2010 and 2015, malaria incidence rates (new malaria cases) fell by 21% globally and in the African Region. During this same period, malaria mortality rates fell by an estimated 29% globally and by 31% in the African Region.

Between 2010 and 2015, malaria incidence rates (new malaria cases) fell by 21% globally and in the African Region. During this same period, malaria mortality rates fell by an estimated 29% globally and by 31% in the African Region.

Other regions have achieved impressive reductions in their malaria burden. Since 2010, the malaria mortality rate declined by 58% in the Western Pacific Region, by 46% in the South-East Asia Region, by 37% in the Region of the Americas and by 6% in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. In 2015, the European Region was malaria-free: all 53 countries in the region reported at least 1 year of zero locally-acquired cases of malaria.

Children under 5 are particularly susceptible to malaria illness, infection and death. In 2015, malaria killed an estimated 303 000 under-fives globally, including 292 000 in the African Region. Between 2010 and 2015, the malaria mortality rate among children under 5 fell by an estimated 35%. Nevertheless, malaria remains a major killer of under-fives, claiming the life of 1 child every 2 minutes.

Trends in the scale-up of malaria interventions

Vector control is the main way to prevent and reduce malaria transmission. Two forms of vector control are effective in a wide range of circumstances: insecticide-treated mosquito nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS).

ITNs are the cornerstone of malaria prevention efforts, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Over the last 5 years, the use of treated nets in the region has increased significantly: in 2015, an estimated 53% of the population at risk slept under a treated net compared to 30% in 2010.

Indoor residual spraying of insecticides (IRS) is used by national malaria programmes in targeted areas. In 2015, 106 million people globally were protected by IRS, including 49 million people in Africa. The proportion of the population at risk of malaria protected by IRS declined from a peak of 5.7% globally in 2010 to 3.1% in 2015.

Diagnostics

WHO recommends diagnostic testing for all people with suspected malaria before treatment is administered. Rapid diagnostic testing (RDTs), introduced widely over the past decade, has made it easier to swiftly distinguish between malarial and non-malarial fevers, enabling timely and appropriate treatment.

New data presented in the report show that, in 2015, approximately half (51%) of children with a fever who sought care at a public health facility in 22 African countries received a malaria diagnostic test compared to 29% in 2010. Sales of RDTs reported by manufacturers rose from 88 million globally in 2010 to 320 million in 2013, but fell to 270 million in 2015.

Treatment

Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are highly effective against P. falciparum, the most prevalent and lethal malaria parasite affecting humans. Globally, the number of ACT treatment courses procured from manufacturers increased from 187 million in 2010 to a peak of 393 million in 2013, but subsequently fell to 311 million in 2015.

Prevention in pregnancy

Malaria infection in pregnancy carries substantial risks for the mother, her fetus and the newborn child. In Africa, the proportion of women who receive intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) for malaria has been increasing over time, but coverage levels remain below national targets.

IPTp is given to pregnant women at scheduled antenatal care visits after the first trimester. It can prevent maternal death, anaemia and low birth weight, a major cause of infant mortality. Between 2010 and 2015, there was a five-fold increase in the delivery of 3 or more doses of IPTp in 20 of the 36 countries that have adopted WHO’s IPTp policy – from 6% coverage in 2010 to 31% coverage in 2015.

Insecticide and drug resistance

In many countries, progress in malaria control is threatened by the rapid development and spread of antimalarial drug resistance. To date, parasite resistance to artemisinin – the core compound of the best available antimalarial medicines – has been detected in 5 countries of the Greater Mekong subregion.

Mosquito resistance to insecticides is another growing concern. Since 2010, 60 of the 73 countries that monitor insecticide resistance have reported mosquito resistance to at least 1 insecticide class used in nets and indoor spraying; of these, 50 reported resistance to 2 or more insecticide classes.

Progress towards global targets

To address remaining challenges, WHO has developed the Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016-2030 (GTS). The Strategy was adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2015. It provides a technical framework for all endemic countries as they work towards malaria control and elimination.

This Strategy sets ambitious but attainable goals for 2030, with milestones along the way to track progress. The milestones for 2020 include:

  • Reducing malaria case incidence by at least 40%;
  • Reducing malaria mortality rates by at least 40%;
  • Eliminating malaria in at least 10 countries;
  • Preventing a resurgence of malaria in all countries that are malaria-free.

Progress towards the GTS country elimination milestone is on track: In 2015, 10 countries and areas reported fewer than 150 locally-acquired cases of malaria. A further 9 countries reported between 150 and 1000 cases.

However, progress towards other GTS targets must be accelerated. Less than half (40) of the 91 malaria-endemic countries are on track to meet the GTS milestone of a 40% reduction in malaria case incidence by 2020. Progress has been particularly slow in countries with a high malaria burden.

Forty-nine countries are on track to achieve the milestone of a 40% reduction in malaria mortality; this figure includes 10 countries that reported zero malaria deaths in 2015.

Funding trends

In 2015, malaria funding totalled US$ 2.9 billion, representing only 45% of the GTS funding milestone for 2020. Governments of malaria-endemic countries provided 32% of total funding. The United States of America and the United Kingdom are the largest international funders of malaria control and elimination programmes, contributing 35% and 16% of total funding, respectively. If the 2020 targets of the GTS are to be achieved, total funding must increase substantially.

More:

Save

Save


Good news, or great challenge? U.S. could help eliminate malaria

December 13, 2016

World Malaria Report 2016, published December 13, offers great hope in progress made against malaria in the past 16 years.

But it also notes a severe challenge: Funding to beat malaria works well, but funding pledges sometimes are not met, and progress against the disease slowed some in 2016.

In 2000, nearly a million people died from malaria worldwide. In 2015, the death toll had been cut to ~470,000, a 50% reduction in 15 years.

In 2016, ~429,000 people died from malaria. It’s 40,000 fewer people than the year before. Malaria fighters had hoped for more.

Most deaths occur in Africa, most deaths occur to children, and most deaths occur in areas where distribution of insecticide-impregnated bednets has not been complete. Distribution was slowed in 2016 by lack of funds at steps in the process, from manufacturing the nets (now done significantly in Africa) to distributing the nets, to educating people how to use them. Nets are more effective than pesticide spraying, with DDT or the other 11 approved pesticides, and considerably less expensive.

A child shows off the mosquito bednet that keeps him malaria-free. Image from Nothing But Nets.

A child shows off the mosquito bednet that keeps him malaria-free. Image from Nothing But Nets.

WHO’s press release on the Report laid out the problem, with hints at a solution.

Sustained and sufficient funding for malaria control is a serious challenge. Despite a steep increase in global investment for malaria between 2000 and 2010, funding has since flat-lined. In 2015, malaria funding totalled US$ 2.9 billion, representing only 45% of the funding milestone for 2020 (US$ 6.4 billion).

Governments of malaria-endemic countries provided about 31% of total malaria funding in 2015. The United States of America is the largest international malaria funder, accounting for about 35% of total funding in 2015, followed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (16%).

U.S. funding was just over $1 billion. That may sound like a lot, but it’s not even a drop in the U.S. federal budget bucket.

With a doubling of the U.S. contribution to $2 billion, the U.S. could again lead the world in fighting malaria, and set a good example of American democracy in action.

In doing that, another 100,000 lives might be saved each year.

Then, U.S. would have high moral ground to urge other nations to contribute to fighting malaria, either directly through WHO or through non-governmental organizations whose work goes too-often unsung, such as Malaria No More, Nothing But ‘Nets, and the Clinton Foundation.

$10 buys a net and distribution, and a net protects a child from malaria better than spraying dangerous insecticides, for two to five years.

What are the odds the Trump administration could be recruited to beat malaria? Let’s increase those odds.


%d bloggers like this: