Mobilizing resources with an investment case to mitigate cross-border malaria transmission and achieve malaria elimination in South Africa.

South Africa's effort to eliminate malaria is significantly challenged by a large number of imported malaria cases, especially from neighbouring Mozambique. The country has a funding gap to achieve its malaria elimination goals (prior to 2019) and is ineligible to receive a national allocation from the Global Fund. The findings of an IC were utilised to successfully mobilise resources for malaria elimination in South Africa in 2018. A five-step resource mobilisation strategy was implemented to highlight financing challenges and leverage the economic evidence from an IC for malaria elimination in South Africa. South Africa's malaria programme implements control and elimination activities in three malaria-endemic provinces (KwaZulu Natal, Limpopo, and Mpumalanga). Driven by the IC findings, the South African government took an unprecedented step and increased total domestic malaria financing by approximately 36%, from the 2018/19 to the 2019/20 financial years through the creation of a new conditional grant for malaria. The IC findings predicted that malaria control in southern Mozambique is a prerequisite to eliminate malaria in South Africa. Based on this, the South African government also allocated funding towards a co-financing mechanism to support malaria control efforts in southern Mozambique. The IC findings assisted the South African National Department of Health to make a convincing case to key government decision-makers to invest in national malaria elimination and maximise economic returns in the long run. The South African government is the first in Southern Africa to mobilise a significant increase in domestic malaria financing to address the financial sustainability of both national and regional malaria elimination efforts. Continued surveillance activities will be required to prevent the re-establishment of malaria transmission even after malaria elimination is achieved in South Africa. Information sharing and close collaboration with provincial and national government officials were key to the successful outcome.

The effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on malaria transmission in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: For a country such as South Africa which is targeting malaria elimination, mobile and migrant populations pose a substantial risk to importation of malaria parasites. It has been hypothesized that halting cross-border movement of mobile and migrant populations will decrease the importation of malaria, however this option is not a politically, operationally, and financially viable prospect. It has social impacts as well, since families live on either side of the border and preventing travel will challenge family ties. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and closure of ports of entry (land and air) for non-essential travel into South Africa, a unique opportunity arose to test the hypothesis. METHODOLOGY: An interrupted time series analysis was done to assess whether the post-lockdown trends (April-December 2020) in monthly reported imported and local cases differed from the pre-lockdown trends (January 2015-March 2020). The analysis was conducted separately for KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga, and Limpopo provinces. RESULTS: On average, imported cases were lower in the post-intervention period in all three provinces, and local cases were lower in Mpumalanga and Limpopo, though no results were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Since population movement continued after the travel restrictions were lifted, border screening with testing and treating should be considered for reducing parasite movement. Another option is reducing malaria cases at the source in neighbouring countries by implementing proven, effective vector and parasite control strategies and through a downstream effect reduce malaria entering South Africa.

The importation and establishment of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the first eight weeks of the South African COVID-19 epidemic.

BACKGROUND: We describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 in South Africa following importation and during implementation of stringent lockdown measures. METHODS: Using national surveillance data including demographics, laboratory test data, clinical presentation, risk exposures (travel history, contacts and occupation) and outcomes of persons undergoing COVID-19 testing or hospitalised with COVID-19 at sentinel surveillance sites, we generated and interpreted descriptive statistics, epidemic curves, and initial reproductive numbers (Rt). FINDINGS: From 4 March to 30 April 2020, 271,670 SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests were performed (462 tests/100,000 persons). Of these, 7,892 (2.9%) persons tested positive (median age 37 years (interquartile range 28-49 years), 4,568 (58%) male, cumulative incidence of 13.4 cases/100,000 persons). Hospitalization records were found for 1,271 patients (692 females (54%)) of whom 186 (14.6%) died. Amongst 2,819 cases with data, 489/2819 (17.3%) travelled internationally within 14 days prior to diagnosis, mostly during March 2020 (466 (95%)). Cases diagnosed in April compared with March were younger (median age, 37 vs. 40 years), less likely female (38% vs. 53%) and resident in a more populous province (98% vs. 91%). The national initial Rt was 2.08 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.71-2.51). INTERPRETATION: The first eight weeks following COVID-19 importation were characterised by early predominance of imported cases and relatively low mortality and transmission rates. Despite stringent lockdown measures, the second month following importation was characterised by community transmission and increasing disease burden in more populous provinces.

Investment case for malaria elimination in South Africa: a financing model for resource mobilization to accelerate regional malaria elimination.

BACKGROUND: Malaria continues to be a public health problem in South Africa. While the disease is mainly confined to three of the nine provinces, most local transmissions occur because of importation of cases from neighbouring countries. The government of South Africa has reiterated its commitment to eliminate malaria within its borders. To support the achievement of this goal, this study presents a cost-benefit analysis of malaria elimination in South Africa through simulating different scenarios aimed at achieving malaria elimination within a 10-year period. METHODS: A dynamic mathematical transmission model was developed to estimate the costs and benefits of malaria elimination in South Africa between 2018 and 2030. The model simulated a range of malaria interventions and estimated their impact on the transmission of Plasmodium falciparum malaria between 2018 and 2030 in the three endemic provinces of Limpopo, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal. Local financial, economic, and epidemiological data were used to calibrate the transmission model. RESULTS: Based on the three primary simulated scenarios: Business as Usual, Accelerate and Source Reduction, the total economic burden was estimated as follows: for the Business as Usual scenario, the total economic burden of malaria in South Africa was R 3.69 billion (USD 223.3 million) over an 11-year period (2018-2029). The economic burden of malaria was estimated at R4.88 billion (USD 295.5 million) and R6.34 billion (~ USD 384 million) for the Accelerate and Source Reduction scenarios, respectively. Costs and benefits are presented in midyear 2020 values. Malaria elimination was predicted to occur in all three provinces if the Source Reduction strategy was adopted to help reduce malaria rates in southern Mozambique. This could be achieved by limiting annual local incidence in South Africa to less than 1 indigenous case with a prediction of this goal being achieved by the year 2026. CONCLUSIONS: Malaria elimination in South Africa is feasible and economically worthwhile with a guaranteed positive return on investment (ROI). Findings of this study show that through securing funding for the proposed malaria interventions in the endemic areas of South Africa and neighbouring Mozambique, national elimination could be within reach in an 8-year period.

COVID-19: lessons and experiences from South Africa's first surge.

On 5 March 2020, South Africa recorded its first case of imported COVID-19. Since then, cases in South Africa have increased exponentially with significant community transmission. A multisectoral approach to containing and mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 was instituted, led by the South African National Department of Health. A National COVID-19 Command Council was established to take government-wide decisions. An adapted World Health Organiszion (WHO) COVID-19 strategy for containing and mitigating the spread of the virus was implemented by the National Department of Health. The strategy included the creation of national and provincial incident management teams (IMTs), which comprised of a variety of work streams, namely, governance and leadership; medical supplies; port and environmental health; epidemiology and response; facility readiness and case management; emergency medical services; information systems; risk communication and community engagement; occupational health and safety and human resources. The following were the most salient lessons learnt between March and September 2020: strengthened command and control were achieved through both centralised and decentralised IMTs; swift evidenced-based decision-making from the highest political levels for instituting lockdowns to buy time to prepare the health system; the stringent lockdown enabled the health sector to increase its healthcare capacity. Despite these successes, the stringent lockdown measures resulted in economic hardship particularly for the most vulnerable sections of the population.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reactive, targeted indoor residual spraying for malaria control in low-transmission settings: a cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Increasing insecticide costs and constrained malaria budgets could make universal vector control strategies, such as indoor residual spraying (IRS), unsustainable in low-transmission settings. We investigated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a reactive, targeted IRS strategy. METHODS: This cluster-randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial compared reactive, targeted IRS with standard IRS practice in northeastern South Africa over two malaria seasons (2015-17). In standard IRS clusters, programme managers conducted annual mass spray campaigns prioritising areas using historical data, expert opinion, and other factors. In targeted IRS clusters, only houses of index cases (identified through passive surveillance) and their immediate neighbours were sprayed. The non-inferiority margin was 1 case per 1000 person-years. Health service costs of real-world implementation were modelled from primary and secondary data. Incremental costs per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) were estimated and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses conducted. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02556242. FINDINGS: Malaria incidence was 0·95 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 0·58 to 1·32) in the standard IRS group and 1·05 per 1000 person-years (0·72 to 1·38) in the targeted IRS group, corresponding to a rate difference of 0·10 per 1000 person-years (-0·38 to 0·59), demonstrating non-inferiority for targeted IRS (p<0·0001). Per additional DALY incurred, targeted IRS saved US$7845 (2902 to 64 907), giving a 94-98% probability that switching to targeted IRS would be cost-effective relative to plausible cost-effectiveness thresholds for South Africa ($2637 to $3557 per DALY averted). Depending on the threshold used, targeted IRS would remain cost-effective at incidences of less than 2·0-2·7 per 1000 person-years. Findings were robust to plausible variation in other parameters. INTERPRETATION: Targeted IRS was non-inferior, safe, less costly, and cost-effective compared with standard IRS in this very-low-transmission setting. Saved resources could be reallocated to other malaria control and elimination activities. FUNDING: Joint Global Health Trials.

High levels of imported asymptomatic malaria but limited local transmission in KwaZulu-Natal, a South African malaria-endemic province nearing malaria elimination.

BACKGROUND: KwaZulu-Natal, one of South Africa's three malaria endemic provinces, is nearing malaria elimination, reporting fewer than 100 locally-acquired cases annually since 2010. Despite sustained implementation of essential interventions, including annual indoor residual spraying, prompt case detection using malaria rapid diagnostics tests and treatment with effective artemisinin-based combination therapy, low-level focal transmission persists in the province. This malaria prevalence and entomological survey was therefore undertaken to identify the drivers of this residual transmission. METHODS: Malaria prevalence as well as malaria knowledge, attitudes and practices among community members and mobile migrant populations within uMkhanyakude district, KwaZulu-Natal were assessed during a community-based malaria prevalence survey. All consenting participants were tested for malaria by both conventional and highly-sensitive falciparum-specific rapid diagnostic tests. Finger-prick filter-paper blood spots were also collected from all participants for downstream parasite genotyping analysis. Entomological investigations were conducted around the surveyed households, with potential breeding sites geolocated and larvae collected for species identification and insecticide susceptibility testing. A random selection of households were assessed for indoor residual spray quality by cone bioassay. RESULTS: A low malaria prevalence was confirmed in the study area, with only 2% (67/2979) of the participants found to be malaria positive by both conventional and highly-sensitive falciparum-specific rapid diagnostic tests. Malaria prevalence however differed markedly between the border market and community (p < 0001), with the majority of the detected malaria carriers (65/67) identified as asymptomatic Mozambican nationals transiting through the informal border market from Mozambique to economic hubs within South Africa. Genomic analysis of the malaria isolates revealed a high degree of heterozygosity and limited genetic relatedness between the isolates supporting the hypothesis of limited local malaria transmission within the province. New potential vector breeding sites, potential vector populations with reduced insecticide susceptibility and areas with sub-optimal vector intervention coverage were identified during the entomological investigations. CONCLUSION: If KwaZulu-Natal is to successfully halt local malaria transmission and prevent the re-introduction of malaria, greater efforts need to be placed on detecting and treating malaria carriers at both formal and informal border crossings with transmission blocking anti-malarials, while ensuring optimal coverage of vector control interventions is achieved.

Assessing Kwa-Zulu-Natal's progress towards malaria elimination and its readiness for sub-national verification.

BACKGROUND: The South African province of KwaZulu-Natal is rapidly approaching elimination status for malaria with a steady decline in local cases. With the possibility of achieving elimination in reach, the KZN malaria control programme conducted a critical evaluation of its practices and protocols to identify potential challenges and priorities to achieving elimination. Three fundamental questions were addressed: (1) How close is KZN to malaria elimination; (2) Are all systems required to pursue subnational verification of elimination in place; and (3) What priority interventions must be implemented to reduce local cases to zero? METHODS: Based on the 2017 World Health Organization Framework for Elimination, twenty-eight requirements were identified, from which forty-nine indicators to grade elimination progress were further stratified. Malaria data were extracted from the surveillance system and other programme data sources to calculate each indicator and semi-quantitatively rate performance into one of four categories to assess the provinces elimination preparedness. RESULTS: Across the key components a number of gaps were elucidated based on specific indicators. Out of the 49 indicators across these key components, 10 indicators (20%) were rated as fully implemented/well implemented, 11 indicators (22%) were rated as partially done/somewhat implemented/activity needs to be strengthened, and 12 indicators (24%) were rated as not done at all/not implemented/poor performance. Sixteen indicators (33%) could not be calculated due to lack of data or missing data. CONCLUSIONS: The critical self-evaluation of programme performance has allowed the KZN malaria programme to plan to address key issues moving forward. Based on the findings from the checklist review process, planning exercises were conducted to improve lower-rating indicators, and a monitoring and evaluation framework was created to assess progress on a monthly basis. This is scheduled to be reviewed annually to ensure continued progress toward meeting the elimination goal. In addition, multiple dissemination meetings were held with both provincial senior management and operational staff to ensure ownership of the checklist and its action plan at all levels.

Effectiveness of 24-h mobile reporting tool during a malaria outbreak in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: As surveillance is a key strategy for malaria elimination in South Africa, ensuring strong surveillance systems is a National Department of Health priority. Historically, real time tracking of case trends and reporting within 24 h-a requirement in South Africa's National surveillance guidelines-has not been possible. To enhance surveillance and response efficiency, a mobile surveillance tool, MalariaConnect, was developed using Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) technology. It was rolled out in health facilities in malaria endemic areas of South Africa to provide 24-h reporting of malaria cases. METHODS: To evaluate the efficiency of the mobile tool to detect an outbreak data were extracted from the paper based and MalariaConnect reporting systems in Bushbuckridge from 1 January to 18 June 2017. These data were subject to time series analyses to determine if MalariaConnect provided sufficient data reliably to detect increasing case trends reported through the paper system. The Chi squared test was used to determine goodness of fit between the following indicator data generated using MalariaConnect and paper reporting systems: timeliness, completeness, and precision. RESULTS: MalariaConnect adequately tracked case trends reported through the paper system. Timeliness of reporting increased significantly using MalariaConnect with 0.63 days to notification compared to 5.65 days using the paper-system (p < 0.05). The completeness of reporting was significantly higher for the paper system (100% completion; p < 0.05), compared to confirmed MalariaConnect cases (61%). There was a moderate association between data precision and the reporting system (p < 0.05). MalariaConnect provided an effective way of reliably and accurately identifying the onset of the malaria outbreak in Bushbuckridge. CONCLUSION: Timeliness significantly improved using MalariaConnect and in a malaria elimination setting, can be used to markedly improve case investigation and response activities within the recommended 72-h period. Although data completeness and precision were lower compared to paper reporting, MalariaConnect data can be used to trigger outbreak responses.

Evaluating a 24-h mobile reporting system for malaria notifications in comparison with a paper-based system in South Africa, 2015.

BACKGROUND: As South Africa strives to achieve malaria elimination by 2018 (zero local cases) the country needs to strengthen its disease surveillance system by reducing the timeliness from case diagnosis to notification of key stakeholders in the malaria programme. This study evaluated the feasibility of a 24-h mobile reporting system, designed for speeding up malaria notifications, from primary healthcare facilities to district, provincial, and national malaria programmes in South Africa. METHODS: A prospective descriptive study utilizing primary data collected from structured interviews with healthcare workers in public healthcare facilities was used to compare two reporting systems (24-h mobile reporting system and the paper-based reporting system) in malaria endemic provinces (Limpopo, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal). Data on completeness of reporting, simplicity, user acceptability and technical limitations were analysed. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the time difference between the two reporting systems. RESULTS: There were 1819 cases of malaria reported through the paper-based system, and 63.2% (1149) of those cases were also reported through the 24-h mobile reporting system. Out of the 272 healthcare workers who were interviewed, 40% (108) had seen malaria patients and reported a case through the 24-h mobile reporting system. The median time for cases to be reported through the 24-h mobile reporting system was significantly shorter at < 1 day (range < 1 to 31 days) compared to the paper-based system at 3 days (range 2 to > 39 days) (p < 0.001). It was found that 26% (28) were able to use the system and send reports within 2 min, 94% (256) were willing to continue to use the system. Of the 108 healthcare workers who reported a case, 18.5% (20) experienced network challenges. CONCLUSIONS: The 24-h mobile reporting system is user friendly and trained healthcare workers are willing to use the system, despite network limitations. The 24-h mobile reporting system reduces the time required for diagnosed cases to be notified by the health care facility to district, provincial and national levels. The 24-h mobile reporting system is a feasible option for malaria notification in South Africa and will assist with early detection of malaria outbreaks.

Sustaining control: lessons from the Lubombo spatial development initiative in southern Africa.

BACKGROUND: The Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative (LSDI) was a tri-country project between South Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique with the aim of accelerating socio-economic development in the region. The malaria component of the project was introduced to decrease the transmission of malaria in the region. This goal was met but with termination of this project resulted in an upsurge of malaria cases in the sub-region mainly as a result of migration from high transmission areas to low transmission ones. The movement of people across borders in southern Africa remains a challenge in sustaining malaria control and elimination. METHODS: Malaria case data for Swaziland and South Africa were obtained from their respective national Malaria Information Systems. Data for Mozambique was obtained from the Mozambican Ministry of Health. Data obtained during the course of the LSDI project was compared to the case data post the termination of the LSDI. RESULTS: The 12-year period of the LSDI showed a substantial decrease in disease burden amongst the three countries involved when compared to the baseline year of 2000. The decrease in malaria cases was 99 % in South Africa and 98 % in Swaziland. Malaria prevalence in Mozambique decreased by 85 % over the same period. However, after the LSDI ended, between 2012 and 2014, there was an upward trend in case data that was counter to the goal of elimination. CONCLUSION: South Africa and Swaziland benefitted from the LSDI and were able to sustain malaria control and progress to the stage of elimination. Mozambique could not sustain the gains made during the LSDI and case numbers increased. Technical and financial resources are key challenges for malaria control and elimination interventions.

Towards malaria elimination in the MOSASWA (Mozambique, South Africa and Swaziland) region.

The substantial impact of cross-border collaborative control efforts on the burden of malaria in southern Africa has previously been demonstrated through the successes of the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative. Increases in malaria cases recorded in the three partner countries (Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland) since termination of that programme in 2011 have provided impetus for the resuscitation of cooperation in the form of the MOSASWA malaria initiative. MOSASWA, launched in 2015, seeks to renew regional efforts to accelerate progress towards malaria elimination goals already established in the region. National malaria programmes, together with developmental partners, academic institutions and the private sector seek to harmonize policy, strengthen capacity, share expertise, expand access to elimination interventions particularly amongst migrant and border population groups, mobilize resources and advocate for long-term funding to ultimately achieve and sustain malaria elimination in the MOSASWA region.

Reviewing South Africa's malaria elimination strategy (2012-2018): progress, challenges and priorities.

BACKGROUND: With a sustained national malaria incidence of fewer than one case per 1000 population at risk, in 2012 South Africa officially transitioned from controlling malaria to the ambitious goal of eliminating malaria within its borders by 2018. This review assesses the progress made in the 3 years since programme re-orientation while highlighting challenges and suggesting priorities for moving the malaria programme towards elimination. METHODS: National malaria case data and annual spray coverage data from 2010 until 2014 were assessed for trends. Information on surveillance, monitoring and evaluation systems, human and infrastructure needs and community malaria knowledge was sourced from the national programme mid-term review. RESULTS: Malaria cases increased markedly from 6811 in 2013 to 11,711 in 2014, with Mpumalanga and Limpopo provinces most affected. Enhanced local transmission appeared to drive malaria transmission in Limpopo Province, while imported malaria cases accounted for the majority of cases reported in Mpumalanga Province. Despite these increases only Vhembe and Mopani districts in Limpopo Province reported malaria incidences more than one case per 1000 population at risk by 2014. Over the review period annual spray coverage did not reach the recommended target of 90 % coverage, with information gaps identified in parasite prevalence, artemether-lumefantrine therapeutic utilization, asymptomatic/sub-patent carriage, drug efficacy, vector distribution and insecticide resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Although South Africa has made steady progress since adopting an elimination agenda, a number of challenges have been identified. The heterogeneity of malaria transmission suggests interventions in Vhembe and Mopani districts should focus on control, while in KwaZulu-Natal Province eliminating transmission foci should be prioritized. Cross-border initiatives with neighbouring countries should be established/strengthened as a matter of urgency since malaria importation poses a real threat to the country's elimination efforts. It is also critical that provincial programmes are adequately resourced to effectively conduct the necessary targeted elimination activities, informed by current vector/parasite distribution and resistance data. More sensitive methods to detect sub-patent infections, primaquine as a transmission-blocking drug, and alternative vector control methods need to be investigated. Knowledge gaps among malaria health workers and affected communities should be identified and addressed.

The feasibility of malaria elimination in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Following the last major malaria epidemic in 2000, malaria incidence in South Africa has declined markedly. The decrease has been so emphatic that South Africa now meets the World Health Organization (WHO) threshold for malaria elimination. Given the Millennium Development Goal of reversing the spread of malaria by 2015, South Africa is being urged to adopt an elimination agenda. This study aimed to determine the appropriateness of implementing a malaria elimination programme in present day South Africa. METHODS: An assessment of the progress made by South Africa in terms of implementing an integrated malaria control programme across the three malaria-endemic provinces was undertaken. Vector control and case management data were analysed from the period of 2000 until 2011. RESULTS: Both malaria-related morbidity and mortality have decreased significantly across all three malaria-endemic provinces since 2000. The greatest decline was seen in KwaZulu-Natal where cases decreased from 42,276 in 2000 to 380 in 2010 and deaths dropped from 122 in 2000 to six in 2010. Although there has been a 49.2 % (8,553 vs 4,214) decrease in the malaria cases reported in Limpopo Province, currently it is the largest contributor to the malaria incidence in South Africa. Despite all three provinces reporting average insecticide spray coverage of over 80%, malaria incidence in both Mpumalanga and Limpopo remains above the elimination threshold. Locally transmitted case numbers have declined in all three malaria provinces but imported case numbers have been increasing. Knowledge gaps in vector distribution, insecticide resistance status and drug usage were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Malaria elimination in South Africa is a realistic possibility if certain criteria are met. Firstly, there must be continued support for the existing malaria control programmes to ensure the gains made are sustained. Secondly, cross border malaria control initiatives with neighbouring countries must be strongly encouraged and supported to reduce malaria in the region and the importation of malaria into South Africa. Thirdly, operational research, particularly on vector distribution and insecticide resistance status must be conducted as a matter of urgency, and finally, the surveillance systems must be refined to ensure the information required to inform an elimination agenda are routinely collected.

Malaria control in South Africa 2000-2010: beyond MDG6.

BACKGROUND: Malaria is one of the key targets within Goal 6 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), whereby the disease needs to be halted and reversed by the year 2015. Several other international targets have been set, however the MDGs are universally accepted, hence it is the focus of this manuscript. METHODS: An assessment was undertaken to determine the progress South Africa has made against the malaria target of MDG Goal 6. Data were analyzed for the period 2000 until 2010 and verified after municipal boundary changes in some of South Africa's districts and subsequent to verifying actual residence of malaria positive cases. RESULTS: South Africa has made significant progress in controlling malaria transmission over the past decade; malaria cases declined by 89.41% (63663 in 2000 vs 6741 in 2010) and deaths decreased by 85.4% (453 vs 66) in the year 2000 compared to the year 2010. Coupled with this, malaria cases among children under five years of age have also declined by 93% (6791 in 2000 vs 451 in 2010). This has resulted in South Africa achieving and exceeding the malaria target of the MDGs. A series of interventions have attributed to this decrease, these include: drug policy change from monotherapy to artemisinin combination therapy, insecticide change from pyrethroids back to DDT; cross border collaboration (South Africa with Mozambique and Swaziland through the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative- LSDI) and financial investment in malaria control. The KwaZulu-Natal Province has seen the largest reduction in malaria cases and deaths (99.1% cases- 41786 vs 380; and 98.5% deaths 340 vs 5), when comparing the year 2000 with 2010. The Limpopo Province recorded the lowest reduction in malaria cases compared to the other malaria endemic provinces (56.1% reduction- 9487 vs 4174; when comparing 2000 to 2010). CONCLUSIONS: South Africa is well positioned to move beyond the malaria target of the MDGs and progress towards elimination. However, in addition to its existing interventions, the country will need to sustain its financing for malaria control and support programmed reorientation towards elimination and scale up active surveillance coupled with treatment at the community level. Moreover cross-border malaria collaboration needs to be sustained and scaled up to prevent the re-introduction of malaria into the country.

Preventing the reintroduction of malaria in Mauritius: a programmatic and financial assessment.

Sustaining elimination of malaria in areas with high receptivity and vulnerability will require effective strategies to prevent reestablishment of local transmission, yet there is a dearth of evidence about this phase. Mauritius offers a uniquely informative history, with elimination of local transmission in 1969, re-emergence in 1975, and second elimination in 1998. Towards this end, Mauritius's elimination and prevention of reintroduction (POR) programs were analyzed via a comprehensive review of literature and government documents, supplemented by program observation and interviews with policy makers and program personnel. The impact of the country's most costly intervention, a passenger screening program, was assessed quantitatively using simulation modeling.On average, Mauritius spent $4.43 per capita per year (pcpy) during its second elimination campaign from 1982 to 1988. The country currently spends $2.06 pcpy on its POR program that includes robust surveillance, routine vector control, and prompt and effective treatment and response. Thirty-five percent of POR costs are for a passenger screening program. Modeling suggests that the estimated 14% of imported malaria infections identified by this program reduces the annual risk of indigenous transmission by approximately 2%. Of cases missed by the initial passenger screening program, 49% were estimated to be identified by passive or reactive case detection, leaving an estimated 3.1 unidentified imported infections per 100,000 inhabitants per year.The Mauritius experience indicates that ongoing intervention, strong leadership, and substantial predictable funding are critical to consistently prevent the reestablishment of malaria. Sustained vigilance is critical considering Mauritius's enabling conditions. Although the cost of POR is below that of elimination, annual per capita spending remains at levels that are likely infeasible for countries with lower overall health spending. Countries currently embarking on elimination should quantify and plan for potentially similar POR operations and costs.

Field evaluation of a malaria rapid diagnostic test (ICT Pf).

BACKGROUND: Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (MRDTs) are quick and easy to perform and useful for diagnosing malaria in primary health care settings. In South Africa most malaria infections are due to Plasmodium falciparurrm, and HRPII-based MRDTs have been used since 2001. Previous studies in Africa showed variability in sensitivity and specificity of HRPII-based MRDTs; hence, we conducted a field evaluation in Limpopo province to determine the accuracy of the MRDT currently used in public sector clinics and hospitals. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted to determine the sensitivity and specificity of an ICT Pf MRDT. We tested 405 patients with fever with ICT Pf MRDT and compared the results with blood film microscopy (the gold standard). RESULTS. The overall sensitivity of the ICT Pf MRDT was 99.48% (95% confidence interval (CI) 96.17-100%), while specificity was 96.26% (95% CI 94.7-100%). The positive predictive value of the test was 98.48 (99% CI 98.41-100%), and the negative predictive value was 99.52% (95% CI 96.47-100%). CONCLUSIONS: The ICT Pf MRDT is an appropriate test to use in the field in South Africa where laboratory facilities are not available. It has a high degree of sensitivity and acceptable level of specificity in accordance with the World Health Organization criteria. However, sensitivity of MRDT at low levels of parasitaemia (<100 parasites/microl of blood) in field conditions must still be established.

An exploratory study of factors that affect the performance and usage of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria in the Limpopo Province, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are relatively simple to perform and provide results quickly for making treatment decisions. However, the accuracy and application of RDT results depends on several factors such as quality of the RDT, storage, transport and end user performance. A cross sectional survey to explore factors that affect the performance and use of RDTs was conducted in the primary care facilities in South Africa. METHODS: This study was conducted in three malaria risk sub-districts of the Limpopo Province, in South Africa. Twenty nurses were randomly selected from 17 primary health care facilities, three nurses from hospitals serving the study area and 10 other key informants, representing the managers of the malaria control programmes, routine and research laboratories, were interviewed, using semi-structured questionnaires. RESULTS: There was a high degree of efficiency in ordering and distribution of RDTs, however only 13/20 (65%) of the health facilities had appropriate air-conditioning and monitoring of room temperatures. Sixty percent (12/20) of the nurses did not receive any external training on conducting and interpreting RDT. Fifty percent of nurses (10/20) reported RDT stock-outs. Only 3/20 nurses mentioned that they periodically checked quality of RDT. Fifteen percent of nurses reported giving antimalarial drugs even if the RDT was negative. CONCLUSION: Storage, quality assurance, end user training and use of RDT results for clinical decision making in primary care facilities in South Africa need to be improved. Further studies of the factors influencing the quality control of RDTs, their performance of RDTs and the ways to improve their use of RDTs are needed.