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.

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.ResultsMalaria 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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.

Locally specific epidemiological understanding is pivotal to the success of malaria elimination in South Africa. Here, we focus on how the host, vector, parasite and environment and their interactions have influenced malaria incidence in South Africa between 1995 and 2012. Broad environmental considerations are necessary, including the physical (temperature and humidity), social (migration patterns), economic (quality of housing stock) and political (regional collaboration).

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.