Imported malaria into Australia: surveillance insights and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Malaria continues to pose a significant burden in endemic countries, many of which lack access to molecular surveillance. Insights from malaria cases in travellers returning to non-endemic areas can provide valuable data to inform endemic country programmes. To evaluate the potential for novel global insights into malaria, we examined epidemiological and molecular data from imported malaria cases to Australia. METHODS: We analysed malaria cases reported in Australia from 2012 to 2022 using National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System data. Molecular data on imported malaria cases were obtained from literature searches. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2022, 3204 malaria cases were reported in Australia. Most cases (69%) were male and 44% occurred in young adults aged 20-39 years. Incidence rates initially declined between 2012 and 2015, then increased until 2019. During 2012-2019, the incidence in travellers ranged from 1.34 to 7.71 per 100 000 trips. Cases were primarily acquired in Sub-Saharan Africa (n = 1433; 45%), Oceania (n = 569; 18%) and Southern and Central Asia (n = 367; 12%). The most common countries of acquisition were Papua New Guinea (n = 474) and India (n = 277). Plasmodium falciparum accounted for 58% (1871/3204) of cases and was predominantly acquired in Sub-Saharan Africa, and Plasmodium vivax accounted for 32% (1016/3204), predominantly from Oceania and Asia. Molecular studies of imported malaria cases to Australia identified genetic mutations and deletions associated with drug resistance and false-negative rapid diagnostic test results, and led to the establishment of reference genomes for P. vivax and Plasmodium malariae. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the continuing burden of imported malaria into Australia. Molecular studies have offered valuable insights into drug resistance and diagnostic limitations, and established reference genomes. Integrating molecular data into national surveillance systems could provide important infectious disease intelligence to optimize treatment guidelines for returning travellers and support endemic country surveillance programmes.

Comparison of Commercial ELISA Kits to Confirm the Absence of Transmission in Malaria Elimination Settings.

Background: Antimalarial antibody measurements are useful because they reflect historical and recent exposure to malaria. As such, they may provide additional information to assess ongoing transmission in low endemic or pre-elimination settings where cases are rare. In addition, the absence of antibody responses in certain individuals can indicate the cessation of transmission. Commercial malaria enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) detect antimalarial antibodies and are commonly used to screen blood donations for possible malaria infection. However, there is no standardized test to detect antimalarial antibodies for epidemiological use. Here we compared five commercially available ELISA kits (Trinity Biotech, newbio, DiaPro, Cellabs, and NovaTec) in search of a standardized tool for supporting claims of absence of malaria transmission. For comparison, a research-based (RB) ELISA protocol was performed alongside the commercial kits. Results: The commercial kits were first compared using serum samples from known malaria-unexposed individuals (n = 223) and Toxoplasma-infected individuals (n = 191) to assess specificity and cross-reactivity against non-malaria infections. In addition, 134 samples from ≥10-year-olds collected in a hyperendemic region in the Gambia in the early 1990s were used to assess sensitivity. Three out of five kits showed high sensitivity (90-92%), high specificity (98-99%), low cross-reactivity (0-3%) and were considered user-friendly (Trinity Biotech, newbio and NovaTec). Two of these kits (Trinity Biotech and NovaTec) were taken forward for epidemiological evaluation and results were compared to those using the RB-ELISA. Samples from two pre-elimination settings (Praia, Cape Verde; n = 1,396, and Bataan, the Philippines; n = 1,824) were tested. Serological results from both the Trinity Biotech kit and the RB-ELISA concurred with recent passively detected case counts in both settings. Results from the Trinity Biotech kit reflected a significant decrease in the number of reported cases in Bataan in the 1990s better than the RB-ELISA. Results from the NovaTec kit did not reflect transmission patterns in either setting. Conclusion: The Trinity Biotech commercial ELISA kit was considered reliable for epidemiological use and accurately described transmission patterns in two (previously) malaria endemic settings. The use of this simple and standardized serological tool may aid national control and elimination programs by confirming that regions are free from malaria.