↓ Skip to main content

Modelling the benefits of long-acting or transmission-blocking drugs for reducing Plasmodium falciparum transmission by case management or by mass treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Modelling the benefits of long-acting or transmission-blocking drugs for reducing Plasmodium falciparum transmission by case management or by mass treatment
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1988-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael T. Bretscher, Jamie T. Griffin, Azra C. Ghani, Lucy C. Okell

Abstract

Anti-malarial drugs are an important tool for malaria control and elimination. Alongside their direct benefit in the treatment of disease, drug use has a community-level effect, clearing the reservoir of infection and reducing onward transmission of the parasite. Different compounds potentially have different impacts on transmission-with some providing periods of prolonged chemoprophylaxis whilst others have greater transmission-blocking potential. The aim was to quantify the relative benefit of such properties for transmission reduction to inform target product profiles in the drug development process and choice of first-line anti-malarial treatment in different endemic settings. A mathematical model of Plasmodium falciparum epidemiology was used to estimate the transmission reduction that can be achieved by using drugs of varying chemoprophylactic (protection for 3, 30 or 60 days) or transmission-blocking activity (blocking 79, 92 or 100% of total onward transmission). Simulations were conducted at low, medium or high transmission intensity (slide-prevalence in 2-10 year olds being 1, 10 or 40%, respectively), with drugs administered either via case management or mass drug administration (MDA). Transmission reductions depend strongly on deployment strategy, treatment coverage and endemicity level. Transmission-blocking was most effective at low endemicity, whereas chemoprophylaxis was most useful at high endemicity levels. Increasing the duration of protection as much as possible was beneficial. Increasing transmission-blocking activity from the level of ACT to a 100% transmission-blocking drug (close to the effect estimated for ACT combined with primaquine) produced moderate impact but was not as effective as increasing the duration of protection in medium-to-high transmission settings (slide prevalence 10-40%). Combining both good transmission-blocking activity (e.g. as achieved by ACT or ACT + primaquine) and a long duration of protection (30 days or more, such as provided by piperaquine or mefloquine) within a drug regimen can substantially increase impact compared with drug regimens with only one of these properties in medium to high transmission areas (slide-prevalence in 2-10 year olds ~10 to 40%). These results applied whether the anti-malarials were used for case management or for MDA. These results emphasise the importance of increasing access to treatment for routine case management, and the potential value of choosing first-line anti-malarial treatment policies according to local malaria epidemiology to maximise impact on transmission. There is no indication that the optimal drug choice should differ between delivery via case management or MDA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 22 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,981,046
of 24,744,050 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,154
of 5,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,311
of 292,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#40
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,744,050 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.