Robust and responsive surveillance systems are critical for malaria elimination. The ideal information system that supports malaria elimination includes: rapid and complete case reporting, incorporation of related data, such as census or health survey information, central data storage and management, automated and expert data analysis, and customized outputs and feedback that lead to timely and targeted responses. Spatial information enhances such a system, ensuring cases are tracked and mapped over time. Data sharing and coordination across borders are vital and new technologies can improve data speed, accuracy, and quality. Parts of this ideal information system exist and are in use, but have yet to be linked together coherently. Malaria elimination programs should support the implementation and refinement of information systems to support surveillance and response and ensure political and financial commitment to maintain the systems and the human resources needed to run them. National malaria programs should strive to improve the access and utility of these information systems and establish cross-border data sharing mechanisms through the use of standard indicators for malaria surveillance. Ultimately, investment in the information technologies that support a timely and targeted surveillance and response system is essential for malaria elimination.

As countries move toward malaria elimination, imported infections become increasingly significant as they often represent the majority of cases, can sustain transmission, cause resurgences, and lead to mortality. Here we review and critique current methods to prevent malaria importation in countries pursuing elimination and explore methods applied in other transmission settings and to other diseases that could be transferred to support malaria elimination. To improve intervention targeting we need a better understanding of the characteristics of populations importing infections and their patterns of migration, improved methods to reliably classify infections as imported or acquired locally, and ensure early and accurate diagnosis. The potential for onward transmission in the most receptive and vulnerable locations can be predicted through high-resolution risk mapping that can help malaria elimination or prevention of reintroduction programs target resources. Cross border and regional initiatives can be highly effective when based on an understanding of human and parasite movement. Ultimately, determining the optimal combinations of approaches to address malaria importation will require an evaluation of their impact, cost effectiveness, and operational feasibility.

Background In low malaria-endemic settings, screening and treatment of individuals in close proximity to index cases, also known as reactive case detection (RACD), is practised for surveillance and response. However, other approaches could be more effective for reducing transmission. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) in the low malaria-endemic setting of Zambezi (Namibia).Methods We did a cluster-randomised controlled, open-label trial using a two-by-two factorial design of 56 enumeration area clusters in the low malaria-endemic setting of Zambezi (Namibia). We randomly assigned these clusters using restricted randomisation to four groups: RACD only, rfMDA only, RAVC plus RACD, or rfMDA plus RAVC. RACD involved rapid diagnostic testing and treatment with artemether-lumefantrine and single-dose primaquine, rfMDA involved presumptive treatment with artemether-lumefantrine, and RAVC involved indoor residual spraying with pirimiphos-methyl. Interventions were administered within 500 m of index cases. To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions targeting the parasite reservoir in humans (rfMDA vs RACD), in mosquitoes (RAVC vs no RAVC), and in both humans and mosquitoes (rfMDA plus RAVC vs RACD only), an intention-to-treat analysis was done. For each of the three comparisons, the primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of locally acquired malaria cases. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02610400.

BackgroundIn malaria elimination settings, all malaria cases must be identified, documented and investigated. To facilitate complete and timely reporting of all malaria cases and effective case management and follow-up, engagement with private providers is essential, particularly in settings where the private sector is a major source of healthcare. However, research on the role and performance of the private sector in malaria diagnosis, case management and reporting in malaria elimination settings is limited. Moreover, the most effective strategies for private sector engagement in malaria elimination settings remain unclear.MethodsTwenty-five experts in malaria elimination, disease surveillance and private sector engagement were purposively sampled and interviewed. An extensive review of grey and peer-reviewed literature on private sector testing, treatment, and reporting for malaria was performed. Additional in-depth literature review was conducted for six case studies on eliminating and neighbouring countries in Southeast Asia and Southern Africa.ResultsThe private health sector can be categorized based on their commercial orientation or business model (for-profit versus nonprofit) and their regulation status within a country (formal vs informal). A number of potentially effective strategies exist for engaging the private sector. Conducting a baseline assessment of the private sector is critical to understanding its composition, size, geographical distribution and quality of services provided. Facilitating reporting, referral and training linkages between the public and private sectors and making malaria a notifiable disease are important strategies to improve private sector involvement in malaria surveillance. Financial incentives for uptake of rapid diagnostic tests and artemisinin-based combination therapy should be combined with training and community awareness campaigns for improving uptake. Private sector providers can also be organized and better engaged through social franchising, effective regulation, professional organizations and government outreach.ConclusionThis review highlights the importance of engaging private sector stakeholders early and often in the development of malaria elimination strategies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-017-1901-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionTo interrupt malaria transmission, strategies must target the parasite reservoir in both humans and mosquitos. Testing of community members linked to an index case, termed reactive case detection (RACD), is commonly implemented in low transmission areas, though its impact may be limited by the sensitivity of current diagnostics. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) before malaria season is a cornerstone of vector control efforts. Despite their implementation in Namibia, a country approaching elimination, these methods have been met with recent plateaus in transmission reduction. This study evaluates the effectiveness and feasibility of two new targeted strategies, reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) in Namibia.Methods and analysisThis is an open-label cluster randomised controlled trial with 2×2 factorial design. The interventions include: rfMDA (presumptive treatment with artemether-lumefantrine (AL)) versus RACD (rapid diagnostic testing and treatment using AL) and RAVC (IRS with Acellic 300CS) versus no RAVC. Factorial design also enables comparison of the combined rfMDA+RAVC intervention to RACD. Participants living in 56 enumeration areas will be randomised to one of four arms: rfMDA, rfMDA+RAVC, RACD or RACD+RAVC. These interventions, triggered by index cases detected at health facilities, will be targeted to individuals residing within 500 m of an index. The primary outcome is cumulative incidence of locally acquired malaria detected at health facilities over 1 year. Secondary outcomes include seroprevalence, infection prevalence, intervention coverage, safety, acceptability, adherence, cost and cost-effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationFindings will be reported on clinicaltrials.gov, in peer-reviewed publications and through stakeholder meetings with MoHSS and community leaders in Namibia.Trial registration numberNCT02610400; Pre-results.