Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of pyriproxyfen-pyrethroid and chlorfenapyr-pyrethroid long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) compared with pyrethroid-only LLINs for malaria control in the third year post-distribution: a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Benin

M. Accrombessi, Jackie Cook, E. Dangbénon, A. Sovi, B. Yovogan, L. Assongba, C. Adoha, B. Akinro et al.

Lancet. Infectious Diseases (Print), 2024

2,450 participants · 21 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Malaria continues to kill approximately 650 000 people each year. There is evidence that some second-generation insecticide-treated nets, which combine insecticide formulations with different modes of action, are protective against malaria while the nets are new; however, evidence for their impact over 3 years is scarce. In this study, we report the third-year results of a cluster-randomised controlled trial assessing the long-term effectiveness of dual-active ingredient long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs).

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial, carried out between May 23, 2019, and April 30, 2023, in southern Benin. Restricted randomisation was used to assign 60 clusters (villages or groups of villages with a minimum of 100 households) to the three study groups (1:1:1) to evaluate the efficacy of pyriproxyfen-pyrethroid LLINs and chlorfenapyr-pyrethroid LLINs compared with pyrethroid-only LLINs (reference) against malaria transmission. The study staff and communities were masked to the group allocation. The primary outcome was malaria incidence measured over the third year after LLIN distribution, in a cohort of children aged 6 months to 9 years at the time of enrolment, in the intention-to-treat population. Here, we present the data of the third year post-LLIN distribution. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03931473.

FINDINGS

Study net use declined over the 3 years and was consistently lowest in the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,450 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free