4.4 Article

Effectiveness of screened ceilings over the current best practice in reducing malaria prevalence in western Kenya: a cluster randomized-controlled trial

Journal

PARASITOLOGY
Volume 149, Issue 7, Pages 944-955

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0031182022000415

Keywords

Anopheline; ceiling; Kenya; malaria; net; RCT

Categories

Funding

  1. Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd
  2. Global Center of Excellence Program, Nagasaki University, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A study conducted in Kenya suggests that insecticide-treated ceiling nets provide additional protection against malaria compared to traditional bed nets.
Increases in bed net coverage and antimalarial treatment have reduced the risk of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. However, the pace of reduction has slowed, and new tools are needed to reverse this trend. We evaluated houses screened with insecticide-treated ceiling nets using a cluster randomized-controlled trial in western Kenya. The primary endpoints were Plasmodium falciparum PCR-positive prevalence (PCRPJPR) of children from 7 months to 10 years old and anopheline density. Ceiling nets and bed nets were provided to 1073 houses, and 1162 houses were provided with bed nets only. The treatment and control arms each had four clusters. We conducted three epidemiological and entomological post-intervention surveys over the course of a year and a half. Each epidemiological survey targeted 150 children per cluster, and entomological surveys targeted 25 houses. When the three surveys were combined, the median PCRPfPRs were 23% (IQR 8%) in the intervention arm and 42% (IQR 12%) in the control arm. The adjusted risk ratio (RR) was 0.53 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.71; P = 0.029]. The median anopheline densities were 0.4 (IQR 0.4) and 2.0 (IQR 1.4), respectively. The adjusted RR was 0.41 (95% CI 0.29-0.90; P= 0.029). The present study indicates additional protection from insecticide-screened ceilings over the current best practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available