Kesteman Thomas, Randrianarivelojosia Milijaona, Rogier Christophe
Fondation Mérieux, Lyon, France.
Malaria Research Unit, Institut Pasteur de Madagascar, Antananarivo, Madagascar.
F1000Res. 2017 Nov 1;6:1932. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12952.1. eCollection 2017.
: Thanks to a considerable increase in funding, malaria control interventions (MCI) whose efficacy had been demonstrated by controlled trials have been largely scaled up during the last decade. Nevertheless, it was not systematically investigated whether this efficacy had been preserved once deployed on the field. Therefore, we sought the literature to assess the disparities between efficacy and effectiveness and the effort to measure the protective effectiveness (PE) of MCI. : The PubMed database was searched for references with keywords related to malaria, to control interventions for prevention and to study designs that allow for the measure of the PE against parasitemia or against clinical outcomes. : Our search retrieved 1423 references, and 162 articles were included in the review. Publications were scarce before the year 2000 but dramatically increased afterwards. Bed nets was the MCI most studied (82.1%). The study design most used was a cross-sectional study (65.4%). Two thirds (67.3%) were conducted at the district level or below, and the majority (56.8%) included only children even if the MCI didn't target only children. Not all studies demonstrated a significant PE from exposure to MCI: 60.6% of studies evaluating bed nets, 50.0% of those evaluating indoor residual spraying, and 4/8 showed an added PE of using both interventions as compared with one only; this proportion was 62.5% for intermittent preventive treatment of pregnant women, and 20.0% for domestic use of insecticides. : This review identified numerous local findings of low, non-significant PE -or even the absence of a protective effect provided by these MCIs. The identification of such failures in the effectiveness of MCIs advocates for the investigation of the causes of the problem found. Ideal evaluations of the PE of MCIs should incorporate both a large representativeness and an evaluation of the PE stratified by subpopulations.
由于资金大幅增加,过去十年中,疗效已在对照试验中得到证实的疟疾控制干预措施(MCI)已得到大规模推广。然而,这些干预措施在实际应用中其疗效是否得以保持,却并未得到系统研究。因此,我们检索了相关文献,以评估疗效与实际效果之间的差异,以及衡量疟疾控制干预措施保护效果(PE)的研究力度。
我们在PubMed数据库中搜索了与疟疾、预防控制干预措施以及可用于衡量针对寄生虫血症或临床结局的保护效果的研究设计相关的关键词参考文献。
我们的检索共获取了1423篇参考文献,其中162篇文章被纳入综述。2000年以前相关出版物较少,但之后急剧增加。蚊帐是研究最多的疟疾控制干预措施(占82.1%)。最常用的研究设计是横断面研究(占65.4%)。三分之二(67.3%)的研究在地区及以下层面开展,且大多数研究(56.8%)仅纳入了儿童,即便相关疟疾控制干预措施并非仅针对儿童。并非所有研究都表明接触疟疾控制干预措施能产生显著的保护效果:评估蚊帐的研究中有60.6%、评估室内滞留喷洒的研究中有50.0%,以及8项研究中有4项表明,与仅采用一种干预措施相比,同时采用两种干预措施可增加保护效果;孕妇间歇性预防治疗的这一比例为62.5%,家用杀虫剂的这一比例为20.0%。
本综述发现了许多关于保护效果低、不显著甚至这些疟疾控制干预措施未产生保护作用的局部研究结果。确定疟疾控制干预措施实际效果方面的此类失败情况,提倡对所发现问题的原因进行调查。对疟疾控制干预措施保护效果的理想评估应兼具广泛的代表性,并按亚人群对保护效果进行评估。