sharon sanders
Editor-in-Chief & President
BMJ 2007;335:1023 (17 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.39356.574641.55 (published 16 October 2007)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7628/1023
Research
Plant based insect repellent and insecticide treated bed nets to protect against malaria in areas of early evening biting vectors: double blind randomised placebo controlled clinical trial in the Bolivian Amazon
N Hill, principal science officer<sup>1</sup>, A Lenglet, research fellow<sup>1</sup>, A M Arn?z, senior clinical scientist<sup>2</sup>, I Carneiro, lecturer<sup>1</sup>
<sup>1</sup> Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, <sup>2</sup> National Bureau of Malaria Control, Ministry of Health, La Paz, Bolivia
Correspondence to: N Hill nigel.hill@lshtm.ac.uk<script type="text/javascript"><!-- var u = "nigel.hill", d = "lshtm.ac.uk"; document.getElementById("em0").innerHTML = '<a href="mailto:' + u + '@' + d + '">' + u + '@' + d + '<\/a>'//--></script>
<!-- null --> Abstract
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
<!-- end of navigation --> Objective To determine the effectiveness in reducing malaria<sup> </sup>of combining an insect repellent with insecticide treated bed<sup> </sup>nets compared with the nets alone in an area where vector mosquitoes<sup> </sup>feed in the early evening.<sup> </sup> Design A double blind, placebo controlled cluster-randomised<sup> </sup>clinical study.<sup> </sup>
Setting Rural villages and peri-urban districts in the Bolivian<sup> </sup>Amazon.<sup> </sup>
Participants 4008 individuals in 860 households.<sup> </sup>
Interventions All individuals slept under treated nets; one<sup> </sup>group also used a plant based insect repellent each evening,<sup> </sup>a second group used placebo.<sup> </sup>
Main outcome measure Episodes of Plasmodium falciparum or P<sup> </sup>vivax malaria confirmed by rapid diagnostic test or blood slide,<sup> </sup>respectively.<sup> </sup>
Results We analysed 15 174 person months at risk and found a<sup> </sup>highly significant 80% reduction in episodes of P vivax in the<sup> </sup>group that used treated nets and repellent (incidence rate ratio<sup> </sup>0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.38, P<0.001). Numbers<sup> </sup>of P falciparum cases during the study were small and, after<sup> </sup>adjustment for age, an 82% protective effect was observed, although<sup> </sup>this was not significant (0.18, 0.02 to 1.40, P=0.10). Reported<sup> </sup>episodes of fever with any cause were reduced by 58% in the<sup> </sup>group that used repellent (0.42, 0.31 to 0.56, P<0.001).<sup> </sup>
Conclusions Insect repellents can provide protection against<sup> </sup>malaria. In areas where vectors feed in the early evening, effectiveness<sup> </sup>of treated nets can be significantly increased by using repellent<sup> </sup>between dusk and bedtime. This has important implications in<sup> </sup>malaria vector control programmes outside Africa and shows that<sup> </sup>the combined use of treated nets and insect repellents, as advocated<sup> </sup>for most tourists travelling to high risk areas, is fully justified.<sup> </sup>
Registration NCT 00144716.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
Introduction
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
<!-- end of navigation --> Bed nets impregnated with insecticide are highly effective at<sup> </sup>reducing morbidity and mortality from malaria.<sup>1</sup> Most successful<sup> </sup>reports have been from sub-Saharan Africa, where the most important<sup> </sup>vector species, Anopheles gambiae, feeds indoors overnight.<sup>2</sup><sup> </sup>Malaria vectors in other parts of the world, however, are less<sup> </sup>readily controlled by treated bed nets, particularly those species<sup> </sup>that prefer to feed outdoors or those that feed in the early<sup> </sup>evening.<sup>2</sup> <sup>3</sup> In areas of nocturnal African vectors, researchers<sup> </sup>have expressed concern that widespread use of treated nets may<sup> </sup>bring forward feeding behaviour.<sup>4</sup> As sporozoite positive females<sup> </sup>feed earlier than other mosquitoes,<sup>5</sup> this might also increase<sup> </sup>the risk of transmission.<sup> </sup> Malaria is the most serious parasitic disease in humans, and<sup> </sup>improvements in prevention are a global priority for those living<sup> </sup>in or travelling to endemic areas.<sup>6</sup> In the absence of a reliable<sup> </sup>vaccine and with emerging drug resistance, methods of personal<sup> </sup>protection are increasingly important for travellers visiting<sup> </sup>high risk areas. Each year around 2000 people return to the<sup> </sup>UK with malaria, and in 2003, 16 died.<sup>7</sup> Travellers to tropical<sup> </sup>countries commonly use insect repellents applied to the skin<sup> </sup>to protect against biting insects, and this, along with treated<sup> </sup>bed nets, is recommended by most general practitioners, travel<sup> </sup>clinics, and travellers' health guides.<sup>8</sup> <sup>9</sup> <sup>10</sup> Despite their<sup> </sup>widespread acceptance and use,<sup>11</sup> insect repellents applied to<sup> </sup>the skin have not been shown to protect against disease under<sup> </sup>normal conditions, although when the insecticide permethrin<sup> </sup>was combined with a repellent in a soap formulation and left<sup> </sup>to dry on the skin, it offered protection from malaria.<sup>12</sup><sup> </sup>
About 36% of the population of the Americas live in areas with<sup> </sup>a risk of malaria, which includes around 293 million people<sup> </sup>in 21 endemic countries.<sup>13</sup> Of the 1.14 million cases of malaria<sup> </sup>reported in the Americas during 2000, 87% were recorded in the<sup> </sup>Amazonian subregion of South America.<sup>13</sup> The primary malaria<sup> </sup>vector in the Amazon, A darlingi, has a peak biting activity<sup> </sup>between 8 pm and 10 pm, and more than 80% of feeding occurs<sup> </sup>before most local people go to bed, where they can be protected<sup> </sup>by a treated bed net.<sup>14</sup><sup> </sup>
Given the early evening feeding activity of the local vector,<sup> </sup>treated nets will probably need to be supplemented in the few<sup> </sup>hours just after dusk by some other control measure to obtain<sup> </sup>a high level of control. Field evaluations of several plant-based<sup> </sup>insect repellents and a N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) standard<sup> </sup>in this region found that one particular substance, Eucalyptus<sup> </sup>maculata citriodon, provided a high degree of protection (>98%)<sup> </sup>against A darlingi for up to four hours.<sup>3</sup> We selected a plant<sup> </sup>based repellent as we consider a natural product has the potential<sup> </sup>for local production, making it a more readily available, cheaper,<sup> </sup>and thus a more sustainable option for potential large scale<sup> </sup>use.<sup> </sup>
We evaluated the clinical benefit of the combined use of insect<sup> </sup>repellent and treated bed nets in reducing malaria in an area<sup> </sup>of evening biting vectors.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
Methods
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
<!-- end of navigation --> Recruitment
The study was carried out between March and September 2003 in<sup> </sup>all the rural communities of Vaca Diez and Pando Provinces,<sup> </sup>Department of Beni, in the Bolivian Amazon Region, plus the<sup> </sup>outer 10% of the peri-urban districts of the two major towns<sup> </sup>in the area, Riberalta and Guayaramerin. We recruited up to<sup> </sup>20% of households in any one location, and each study house<sup> </sup>was located a minimum of 25 metres from any other in the study<sup> </sup>to avoid any effect of diversion of insects from treatment to<sup> </sup>placebo homes. Researchers collected baseline data (age, sex,<sup> </sup>occupation) for each participant and obtained written informed<sup> </sup>consent from each individual or carer of those aged under 18.<sup> </sup>Participants were allowed to withdraw at any point in the study.<sup> </sup> Routine data collected at the health centres reported an annual<sup> </sup>parasite index for P falciparum of 100/1000 population. We calculated<sup> </sup>the required sample size needed to detect a 30% reduction in<sup> </sup>the primary outcome of P falciparum incidence, assuming a baseline<sup> </sup>prevalence of 0.1 episodes a year with 90% power to detect the<sup> </sup>effect at the 95% significance level. We used the methods of<sup> </sup>Hayes and Bennett<sup>15</sup> for cluster randomised trials with an inter-cluster<sup> </sup>correlation coefficient of 0.25 and estimated that we needed<sup> </sup>to recruit and follow-up 408 households in each arm with an<sup> </sup>average of five individuals per household for the full six month<sup> </sup>transmission season.<sup> </sup>
Intervention
Field staff followed the strict inclusion criteria to randomise<sup> </sup>participants at the household level following a basic sequential<sup> </sup>alternate A/B/A/B regimen. Field staff and study participants<sup> </sup>were blind to the group allocation. After we recorded baseline<sup> </sup>parameters, all participants received a freshly impregnated<sup> </sup>treated bed net (25 mg/m<sup>2</sup> deltamethrin) plus either the insect<sup> </sup>repellent (Eucalyptus maculata citriodon) with a p-menthane<sup> </sup>3,8 diol (PMD) concentration of 30% (MASTA, UK) for the treatment<sup> </sup>group or 0.1% clove oil for the placebo group. Treated nets<sup> </sup>were also provided to participants in households not enrolled<sup> </sup>in the study to reduce risks of short range diversion of mosquitoes.<sup> </sup>Treatment and placebo lotions looked and felt the same, were<sup> </sup>in identical bottles marked A or B, and had a similar alcohol<sup> </sup>base formulation and strong natural plant fragrance, but laboratory<sup> </sup>trials have previously shown that clove oil is ineffective at<sup> </sup>repelling mosquitoes (N Hill, personal communication, 2003).<sup> </sup>Individuals were shown how to apply lotion to exposed legs,<sup> </sup>arms, and neck using a pre-measured volume of 10 ml in the bottle<sup> </sup>cap. Participants applied lotion at dusk each evening. Compliance<sup> </sup>was monitored by questionnaire and verified by local field staff<sup> </sup>recording amounts used at monthly follow-up visits and through<sup> </sup>unannounced evening "sniff checks." To enable a per protocol<sup> </sup>analysis of efficacy, we considered any individual who reported<sup> </sup>that they had not used repellent on any three nights (10%) each<sup> </sup>month or who had more than 30 ml (10%) lotion left as non-compliant<sup> </sup>and excluded them from analysis for that month.<sup> </sup>
Assessments
We recorded malaria infection (with or without fever) at baseline<sup> </sup>early in the malaria season in March and at active monthly follow-up<sup> </sup>visits between April and July using P falciparum specific rapid<sup> </sup>diagnostic test (Paracheck dip stick, Orchid PVT, India). As<sup> </sup>a secondary outcome, the local health district clinic passively<sup> </sup>detected P vivax episodes by microscopic blood slide examination,<sup> </sup>which was subsequently validated at the central regional health<sup> </sup>district malaria laboratory in Riberalta or Guayaramerin. All<sup> </sup>patients with positive results were referred to the local health<sup> </sup>centre for prompt treatment: chloroquine and primaquine for<sup> </sup>P vivax or artesunate and mefloquine for P falciparum. At each<sup> </sup>visit researchers asked about and recorded any adverse events.<sup> </sup>
Statistical analysis
To assess the efficacy of the intervention the analysis included<sup> </sup>all individuals randomised, but only for the period of time<sup> </sup>that they were compliant with the intervention. We used Stata<sup> </sup>8 with a Poisson regression model to account for the distribution<sup> </sup>of incidence rates. As the intervention was allocated at the<sup> </sup>household level, and individual risk within the same household<sup> </sup>is probably similar because of exposure to other factors, we<sup> </sup>adjusted for this non-independence of individuals from the same<sup> </sup>household (intracluster correlation). As there were few episodes<sup> </sup>of P falciparum, we accounted for the intracluster correlation<sup> </sup>by using robust cluster methods.<sup>16</sup> For P vivax and general fever<sup> </sup>reports, we accounted for the intracluster correlation by using<sup> </sup>random effects (generalised estimating equation) methods. Because<sup> </sup>of the potential for relapses, all participants with an episode<sup> </sup>of P vivax were censored at that point and we excluded subsequent<sup> </sup>episodes and person time of follow-up from the analysis of P<sup> </sup>vivax incidence. We adjusted analyses for age as an a priori<sup> </sup>covariate because of the effect of age acquired immunity on<sup> </sup>malaria infection.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
Results
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
<!-- end of navigation --> The figure shows details of the numbers randomised and the flow<sup> </sup>through the study.
There were no significant differences in<sup> </sup>most household characteristics (number of household members,<sup> </sup>roof material, water source, heating source, or possession of<sup> </sup>electricity, fridge, and radio) between the two groups (data<sup> </sup>not shown), but households allocated to the repellent group<sup> </sup>were slightly more likely to own a television than those allocated<sup> </sup>to the placebo group (P=0.056) (table 1)
. There were also no<sup> </sup>significant differences in age or sex between the groups but<sup> </sup>at baseline more participants in the repellent group were positive<sup> </sup>for P falciparum (P=0.065) (table 1).
No adverse events were<sup> </sup>reported.<sup> </sup> <sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
<center><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td><table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top">
View larger version (58K):
<nobr>[in this window]
[in a new window]
[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]
</nobr> </td><td align="left" valign="top"> Study flow of trial
</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table></center>
<sup> </sup> <!-- null -->
<center><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td><table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"> View this table:
<nobr>[in this window]
[in a new window]
</nobr> </td><td align="left" valign="top"> Table 1 Baseline characteristics of participants and incidence of malaria data by treatment group. Figures are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise
</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table></center>
As compliance was high for this type of study, with just 1.5%<sup> </sup>person months excluded in each group, the results of our per<sup> </sup>protocol analysis would be similar to an intention to treat<sup> </sup>analysis. The number of P falciparum episodes detected was low,<sup> </sup>and all episodes in the placebo group were in children (age<sup> </sup>10-14), while the single episode in the repellent group was<sup> </sup>in an adult (56 years old) (table 2).
Univariate regression<sup> </sup>analysis suggested an effect of borderline significance, with<sup> </sup>an 84% reduction in incidence of P falciparum in the repellent<sup> </sup>group (P=0.091). The univariate effect of age group, however,<sup> </sup>was highly significant with a 95% reduction in incidence in<sup> </sup>adults (
15 years) compared with children aged 10-14 (P=0.005).<sup> </sup>After we accounted for age, the effect of the repellent on incidence<sup> </sup>of P falciparum remained but was even less significant (incidence<sup> </sup>rate ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 1.40, P=0.102).<sup> </sup> <sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
<center><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td><table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"> View this table:
<nobr>[in this window]
[in a new window]
</nobr> </td><td align="left" valign="top"> Table 2 Age specific incidence per 1000 person years (episodes/person months at risk) of different outcomes by treatment group
</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table></center>
Analysis of first episodes of P vivax showed a reduction in<sup> </sup>those who used repellent, and again there was a significant<sup> </sup>influence of age, with a 53% lower incidence in adults compared<sup> </sup>with children (P=0.002). Even after adjustment for the effect<sup> </sup>of age, the repellent provided 80% protection (0.20, 0.11 to<sup> </sup>0.38, P<0.001).<sup> </sup> Similarly, for the analysis of all episodes of fever (reported<sup> </sup>fever in the past month) there was a 59% reduction in the group<sup> </sup>that used repellent (P<0.001), a 42% lower incidence of fevers<sup> </sup>in adults compared with children (P<0.001), and a borderline<sup> </sup>56% higher incidence of fevers (P=0.061) in those living in<sup> </sup>larger households (six or more people) compared with those in<sup> </sup>smaller households (fewer than six). After adjustment for these<sup> </sup>factors, there was 58% lower incidence of reported fevers in<sup> </sup>the repellent compared with the placebo group (0.42, 0.31 to<sup> </sup>0.56, P<0.001).<sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
Discussion
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
<!-- end of navigation --> This randomised controlled trial shows that insect repellent<sup> </sup>applied to the skin has a significant epidemiological impact<sup> </sup>on the incidence of malaria. This difference was detected in<sup> </sup>people who were also sleeping under insecticide treated nets,<sup> </sup>highlighting the value of additional methods of protection in<sup> </sup>areas where malaria transmission occurs mainly in the early<sup> </sup>evening before treated nets are used.<sup> </sup> The large effect of the use of repellent on the incidence of<sup> </sup>P falciparum and P vivax suggests that most malaria transmission<sup> </sup>occurs in the early evening, before people are protected by<sup> </sup>sleeping under a treated bed net. Our results on the effect<sup> </sup>of the repellent on the incidence of P falciparum, however,<sup> </sup>probably reflect insufficient statistical power because of the<sup> </sup>overall low incidence of falciparum cases during the study.<sup> </sup>This might have been because of an unexpected round of outdoor<sup> </sup>fogging with lambdacyhalothrin by some health districts for<sup> </sup>a few days mid-way through the trial, which probably temporarily<sup> </sup>reduced the numbers of local adult mosquitoes, or simply a fluctuation<sup> </sup>in annual incidence, which is common in South America because<sup> </sup>of the influence of environmental conditions such as El Ni?o.<sup> </sup>
We found clear evidence to support the use of a combination<sup> </sup>of insect repellent and treated bed nets as personal protection<sup> </sup>against malaria. This is particularly important to the growing<sup> </sup>number of tourists and business travellers, who have no immunity<sup> </sup>to malaria. Health professionals and specialist travel health<sup> </sup>organisations should strongly advocate such combined measures<sup> </sup>in high risk areas, particularly with early evening or outdoor<sup> </sup>feeding vectors.<sup> </sup>
Having established that insect repellents can provide important<sup> </sup>clinical protection against malaria, we consider their potential<sup> </sup>use against other insect-borne diseases should be investigated.<sup> </sup>Ideal targets could include arboviral infections, such as dengue<sup> </sup>and West Nile fever, transmitted by daytime and outdoor biting<sup> </sup>culicine mosquito vectors, and leishmaniasis carried by sandflies.<sup> </sup>
<center><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td><table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="100%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top">What is already known on this topic
<dl><dd>Insecticide treated bed<sup> </sup>nets are a highly effective means of reducing morbidity and<sup> </sup>mortality from malaria in Africa, where local vectors bite indoors<sup> </sup>late at night
</dd><dd>Insect repellents can reduce mosquito bites but<sup> </sup>protection against insect-borne disease is not clear
</dd></dl> What<sup> </sup>this study adds
<dl><dd>Treated bed nets should not be used as the<sup> </sup>only means of preventing malaria in areas where vectors feed<sup> </sup>mainly in the evening
</dd><dd>Use of an insect repellent can significantly<sup> </sup>reduce the risk of malaria
</dd><dd>The combined use of a repellent<sup> </sup>and a treated bed net should be advocated to those travelling<sup> </sup>to malaria risk areas
</dd></dl>
</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table> </center>
<sup> </sup> <sup> </sup>
<sup> </sup>
<sup> </sup>
<sup> </sup>
<sup> </sup>
<hr align="left" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="30%"> <!-- null --> We thank Melissa Rendler-Garcia, Nicola Morgan, and Sharon Slater<sup> </sup>of Population Services International (PSI), Washington, USA,<sup> </sup>for their support in Bolivia and assistance in securing funding<sup> </sup>from PSI for an earlier pilot study. The study would not have<sup> </sup>been possible without the support and secondment of field staff<sup> </sup>from the local health districts of Riberalta and Guayaramerin,<sup> </sup>Bolivia.<sup> </sup> <!-- null --> Contributors: NH devised the study, was responsible for the<sup> </sup>protocol development, obtained funding, wrote the first and<sup> </sup>final drafts of the manuscript, and is guarantor. AL assisted<sup> </sup>in development of the protocol, acted as study coordinator in<sup> </sup>Bolivia, trained local field staff, initiated the practical<sup> </sup>phase of the project, and assisted in production of the manuscript.<sup> </sup>AMA was field supervisor, undertook daily monitoring of the<sup> </sup>project in Bolivia, and commented on the manuscript. IC assisted<sup> </sup>in the study protocol, particularly the analytical methods,<sup> </sup>study questionnaires, and database design, undertook statistical<sup> </sup>analysis of results, and contributed to the manuscript.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null --> Funding: Gates Malaria Partnership grant from LSHTM, whose committee<sup> </sup>reviewed the protocol before the award. Medical Advisory Service<sup> </sup>for Travellers Abroad (MASTA) provided bulk supplies of the<sup> </sup>insect repellent at cost price.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null --> Competing interests: NH has received minor funding from numerous<sup> </sup>manufacturers and suppliers of insect repellents in Europe and<sup> </sup>the US for laboratory evaluation of their products, and from<sup> </sup>national consumer groups to compare efficacy of repellents on<sup> </sup>the European market.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null --> Ethical approval: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine<sup> </sup>(University of London) ethics committee and Ministerio de Salud<sup> </sup>y Previsi?n Social, Bolivia.<sup> </sup>
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer<sup> </sup>reviewed.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
References
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
<!-- end of navigation -->
Related Article
<dl><dt> Preventing malaria in endemic areas </dt><dd>Donald R Roberts
BMJ 2007 335: 1001-1002. <nobr> [Extract] [Full Text] </nobr>
</dd></dl> <!-- null --> This article has been cited by other articles:
(Search Google Scholar for Other Citing Articles)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7628/1023
Research
Plant based insect repellent and insecticide treated bed nets to protect against malaria in areas of early evening biting vectors: double blind randomised placebo controlled clinical trial in the Bolivian Amazon
N Hill, principal science officer<sup>1</sup>, A Lenglet, research fellow<sup>1</sup>, A M Arn?z, senior clinical scientist<sup>2</sup>, I Carneiro, lecturer<sup>1</sup>
<sup>1</sup> Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, <sup>2</sup> National Bureau of Malaria Control, Ministry of Health, La Paz, Bolivia
Correspondence to: N Hill nigel.hill@lshtm.ac.uk<script type="text/javascript"><!-- var u = "nigel.hill", d = "lshtm.ac.uk"; document.getElementById("em0").innerHTML = '<a href="mailto:' + u + '@' + d + '">' + u + '@' + d + '<\/a>'//--></script>
<!-- null --> Abstract
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
<!-- end of navigation --> Objective To determine the effectiveness in reducing malaria<sup> </sup>of combining an insect repellent with insecticide treated bed<sup> </sup>nets compared with the nets alone in an area where vector mosquitoes<sup> </sup>feed in the early evening.<sup> </sup> Design A double blind, placebo controlled cluster-randomised<sup> </sup>clinical study.<sup> </sup>
Setting Rural villages and peri-urban districts in the Bolivian<sup> </sup>Amazon.<sup> </sup>
Participants 4008 individuals in 860 households.<sup> </sup>
Interventions All individuals slept under treated nets; one<sup> </sup>group also used a plant based insect repellent each evening,<sup> </sup>a second group used placebo.<sup> </sup>
Main outcome measure Episodes of Plasmodium falciparum or P<sup> </sup>vivax malaria confirmed by rapid diagnostic test or blood slide,<sup> </sup>respectively.<sup> </sup>
Results We analysed 15 174 person months at risk and found a<sup> </sup>highly significant 80% reduction in episodes of P vivax in the<sup> </sup>group that used treated nets and repellent (incidence rate ratio<sup> </sup>0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.38, P<0.001). Numbers<sup> </sup>of P falciparum cases during the study were small and, after<sup> </sup>adjustment for age, an 82% protective effect was observed, although<sup> </sup>this was not significant (0.18, 0.02 to 1.40, P=0.10). Reported<sup> </sup>episodes of fever with any cause were reduced by 58% in the<sup> </sup>group that used repellent (0.42, 0.31 to 0.56, P<0.001).<sup> </sup>
Conclusions Insect repellents can provide protection against<sup> </sup>malaria. In areas where vectors feed in the early evening, effectiveness<sup> </sup>of treated nets can be significantly increased by using repellent<sup> </sup>between dusk and bedtime. This has important implications in<sup> </sup>malaria vector control programmes outside Africa and shows that<sup> </sup>the combined use of treated nets and insect repellents, as advocated<sup> </sup>for most tourists travelling to high risk areas, is fully justified.<sup> </sup>
Registration NCT 00144716.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
Introduction
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
<!-- end of navigation --> Bed nets impregnated with insecticide are highly effective at<sup> </sup>reducing morbidity and mortality from malaria.<sup>1</sup> Most successful<sup> </sup>reports have been from sub-Saharan Africa, where the most important<sup> </sup>vector species, Anopheles gambiae, feeds indoors overnight.<sup>2</sup><sup> </sup>Malaria vectors in other parts of the world, however, are less<sup> </sup>readily controlled by treated bed nets, particularly those species<sup> </sup>that prefer to feed outdoors or those that feed in the early<sup> </sup>evening.<sup>2</sup> <sup>3</sup> In areas of nocturnal African vectors, researchers<sup> </sup>have expressed concern that widespread use of treated nets may<sup> </sup>bring forward feeding behaviour.<sup>4</sup> As sporozoite positive females<sup> </sup>feed earlier than other mosquitoes,<sup>5</sup> this might also increase<sup> </sup>the risk of transmission.<sup> </sup> Malaria is the most serious parasitic disease in humans, and<sup> </sup>improvements in prevention are a global priority for those living<sup> </sup>in or travelling to endemic areas.<sup>6</sup> In the absence of a reliable<sup> </sup>vaccine and with emerging drug resistance, methods of personal<sup> </sup>protection are increasingly important for travellers visiting<sup> </sup>high risk areas. Each year around 2000 people return to the<sup> </sup>UK with malaria, and in 2003, 16 died.<sup>7</sup> Travellers to tropical<sup> </sup>countries commonly use insect repellents applied to the skin<sup> </sup>to protect against biting insects, and this, along with treated<sup> </sup>bed nets, is recommended by most general practitioners, travel<sup> </sup>clinics, and travellers' health guides.<sup>8</sup> <sup>9</sup> <sup>10</sup> Despite their<sup> </sup>widespread acceptance and use,<sup>11</sup> insect repellents applied to<sup> </sup>the skin have not been shown to protect against disease under<sup> </sup>normal conditions, although when the insecticide permethrin<sup> </sup>was combined with a repellent in a soap formulation and left<sup> </sup>to dry on the skin, it offered protection from malaria.<sup>12</sup><sup> </sup>
About 36% of the population of the Americas live in areas with<sup> </sup>a risk of malaria, which includes around 293 million people<sup> </sup>in 21 endemic countries.<sup>13</sup> Of the 1.14 million cases of malaria<sup> </sup>reported in the Americas during 2000, 87% were recorded in the<sup> </sup>Amazonian subregion of South America.<sup>13</sup> The primary malaria<sup> </sup>vector in the Amazon, A darlingi, has a peak biting activity<sup> </sup>between 8 pm and 10 pm, and more than 80% of feeding occurs<sup> </sup>before most local people go to bed, where they can be protected<sup> </sup>by a treated bed net.<sup>14</sup><sup> </sup>
Given the early evening feeding activity of the local vector,<sup> </sup>treated nets will probably need to be supplemented in the few<sup> </sup>hours just after dusk by some other control measure to obtain<sup> </sup>a high level of control. Field evaluations of several plant-based<sup> </sup>insect repellents and a N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) standard<sup> </sup>in this region found that one particular substance, Eucalyptus<sup> </sup>maculata citriodon, provided a high degree of protection (>98%)<sup> </sup>against A darlingi for up to four hours.<sup>3</sup> We selected a plant<sup> </sup>based repellent as we consider a natural product has the potential<sup> </sup>for local production, making it a more readily available, cheaper,<sup> </sup>and thus a more sustainable option for potential large scale<sup> </sup>use.<sup> </sup>
We evaluated the clinical benefit of the combined use of insect<sup> </sup>repellent and treated bed nets in reducing malaria in an area<sup> </sup>of evening biting vectors.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
Methods
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
<!-- end of navigation --> Recruitment
The study was carried out between March and September 2003 in<sup> </sup>all the rural communities of Vaca Diez and Pando Provinces,<sup> </sup>Department of Beni, in the Bolivian Amazon Region, plus the<sup> </sup>outer 10% of the peri-urban districts of the two major towns<sup> </sup>in the area, Riberalta and Guayaramerin. We recruited up to<sup> </sup>20% of households in any one location, and each study house<sup> </sup>was located a minimum of 25 metres from any other in the study<sup> </sup>to avoid any effect of diversion of insects from treatment to<sup> </sup>placebo homes. Researchers collected baseline data (age, sex,<sup> </sup>occupation) for each participant and obtained written informed<sup> </sup>consent from each individual or carer of those aged under 18.<sup> </sup>Participants were allowed to withdraw at any point in the study.<sup> </sup> Routine data collected at the health centres reported an annual<sup> </sup>parasite index for P falciparum of 100/1000 population. We calculated<sup> </sup>the required sample size needed to detect a 30% reduction in<sup> </sup>the primary outcome of P falciparum incidence, assuming a baseline<sup> </sup>prevalence of 0.1 episodes a year with 90% power to detect the<sup> </sup>effect at the 95% significance level. We used the methods of<sup> </sup>Hayes and Bennett<sup>15</sup> for cluster randomised trials with an inter-cluster<sup> </sup>correlation coefficient of 0.25 and estimated that we needed<sup> </sup>to recruit and follow-up 408 households in each arm with an<sup> </sup>average of five individuals per household for the full six month<sup> </sup>transmission season.<sup> </sup>
Intervention
Field staff followed the strict inclusion criteria to randomise<sup> </sup>participants at the household level following a basic sequential<sup> </sup>alternate A/B/A/B regimen. Field staff and study participants<sup> </sup>were blind to the group allocation. After we recorded baseline<sup> </sup>parameters, all participants received a freshly impregnated<sup> </sup>treated bed net (25 mg/m<sup>2</sup> deltamethrin) plus either the insect<sup> </sup>repellent (Eucalyptus maculata citriodon) with a p-menthane<sup> </sup>3,8 diol (PMD) concentration of 30% (MASTA, UK) for the treatment<sup> </sup>group or 0.1% clove oil for the placebo group. Treated nets<sup> </sup>were also provided to participants in households not enrolled<sup> </sup>in the study to reduce risks of short range diversion of mosquitoes.<sup> </sup>Treatment and placebo lotions looked and felt the same, were<sup> </sup>in identical bottles marked A or B, and had a similar alcohol<sup> </sup>base formulation and strong natural plant fragrance, but laboratory<sup> </sup>trials have previously shown that clove oil is ineffective at<sup> </sup>repelling mosquitoes (N Hill, personal communication, 2003).<sup> </sup>Individuals were shown how to apply lotion to exposed legs,<sup> </sup>arms, and neck using a pre-measured volume of 10 ml in the bottle<sup> </sup>cap. Participants applied lotion at dusk each evening. Compliance<sup> </sup>was monitored by questionnaire and verified by local field staff<sup> </sup>recording amounts used at monthly follow-up visits and through<sup> </sup>unannounced evening "sniff checks." To enable a per protocol<sup> </sup>analysis of efficacy, we considered any individual who reported<sup> </sup>that they had not used repellent on any three nights (10%) each<sup> </sup>month or who had more than 30 ml (10%) lotion left as non-compliant<sup> </sup>and excluded them from analysis for that month.<sup> </sup>
Assessments
We recorded malaria infection (with or without fever) at baseline<sup> </sup>early in the malaria season in March and at active monthly follow-up<sup> </sup>visits between April and July using P falciparum specific rapid<sup> </sup>diagnostic test (Paracheck dip stick, Orchid PVT, India). As<sup> </sup>a secondary outcome, the local health district clinic passively<sup> </sup>detected P vivax episodes by microscopic blood slide examination,<sup> </sup>which was subsequently validated at the central regional health<sup> </sup>district malaria laboratory in Riberalta or Guayaramerin. All<sup> </sup>patients with positive results were referred to the local health<sup> </sup>centre for prompt treatment: chloroquine and primaquine for<sup> </sup>P vivax or artesunate and mefloquine for P falciparum. At each<sup> </sup>visit researchers asked about and recorded any adverse events.<sup> </sup>
Statistical analysis
To assess the efficacy of the intervention the analysis included<sup> </sup>all individuals randomised, but only for the period of time<sup> </sup>that they were compliant with the intervention. We used Stata<sup> </sup>8 with a Poisson regression model to account for the distribution<sup> </sup>of incidence rates. As the intervention was allocated at the<sup> </sup>household level, and individual risk within the same household<sup> </sup>is probably similar because of exposure to other factors, we<sup> </sup>adjusted for this non-independence of individuals from the same<sup> </sup>household (intracluster correlation). As there were few episodes<sup> </sup>of P falciparum, we accounted for the intracluster correlation<sup> </sup>by using robust cluster methods.<sup>16</sup> For P vivax and general fever<sup> </sup>reports, we accounted for the intracluster correlation by using<sup> </sup>random effects (generalised estimating equation) methods. Because<sup> </sup>of the potential for relapses, all participants with an episode<sup> </sup>of P vivax were censored at that point and we excluded subsequent<sup> </sup>episodes and person time of follow-up from the analysis of P<sup> </sup>vivax incidence. We adjusted analyses for age as an a priori<sup> </sup>covariate because of the effect of age acquired immunity on<sup> </sup>malaria infection.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
Results
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
<!-- end of navigation --> The figure shows details of the numbers randomised and the flow<sup> </sup>through the study.
<!-- null -->
<center><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td><table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top">

View larger version (58K):
<nobr>[in this window]
[in a new window]
[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]
</nobr> </td><td align="left" valign="top"> Study flow of trial
</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table></center>
<sup> </sup> <!-- null -->
<center><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td><table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"> View this table:
<nobr>[in this window]
[in a new window]
</nobr> </td><td align="left" valign="top"> Table 1 Baseline characteristics of participants and incidence of malaria data by treatment group. Figures are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise
</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table></center>
As compliance was high for this type of study, with just 1.5%<sup> </sup>person months excluded in each group, the results of our per<sup> </sup>protocol analysis would be similar to an intention to treat<sup> </sup>analysis. The number of P falciparum episodes detected was low,<sup> </sup>and all episodes in the placebo group were in children (age<sup> </sup>10-14), while the single episode in the repellent group was<sup> </sup>in an adult (56 years old) (table 2).
<!-- null -->
<center><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td><table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"> View this table:
<nobr>[in this window]
[in a new window]
</nobr> </td><td align="left" valign="top"> Table 2 Age specific incidence per 1000 person years (episodes/person months at risk) of different outcomes by treatment group
</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table></center>
Analysis of first episodes of P vivax showed a reduction in<sup> </sup>those who used repellent, and again there was a significant<sup> </sup>influence of age, with a 53% lower incidence in adults compared<sup> </sup>with children (P=0.002). Even after adjustment for the effect<sup> </sup>of age, the repellent provided 80% protection (0.20, 0.11 to<sup> </sup>0.38, P<0.001).<sup> </sup> Similarly, for the analysis of all episodes of fever (reported<sup> </sup>fever in the past month) there was a 59% reduction in the group<sup> </sup>that used repellent (P<0.001), a 42% lower incidence of fevers<sup> </sup>in adults compared with children (P<0.001), and a borderline<sup> </sup>56% higher incidence of fevers (P=0.061) in those living in<sup> </sup>larger households (six or more people) compared with those in<sup> </sup>smaller households (fewer than six). After adjustment for these<sup> </sup>factors, there was 58% lower incidence of reported fevers in<sup> </sup>the repellent compared with the placebo group (0.42, 0.31 to<sup> </sup>0.56, P<0.001).<sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
Discussion
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
<!-- end of navigation --> This randomised controlled trial shows that insect repellent<sup> </sup>applied to the skin has a significant epidemiological impact<sup> </sup>on the incidence of malaria. This difference was detected in<sup> </sup>people who were also sleeping under insecticide treated nets,<sup> </sup>highlighting the value of additional methods of protection in<sup> </sup>areas where malaria transmission occurs mainly in the early<sup> </sup>evening before treated nets are used.<sup> </sup> The large effect of the use of repellent on the incidence of<sup> </sup>P falciparum and P vivax suggests that most malaria transmission<sup> </sup>occurs in the early evening, before people are protected by<sup> </sup>sleeping under a treated bed net. Our results on the effect<sup> </sup>of the repellent on the incidence of P falciparum, however,<sup> </sup>probably reflect insufficient statistical power because of the<sup> </sup>overall low incidence of falciparum cases during the study.<sup> </sup>This might have been because of an unexpected round of outdoor<sup> </sup>fogging with lambdacyhalothrin by some health districts for<sup> </sup>a few days mid-way through the trial, which probably temporarily<sup> </sup>reduced the numbers of local adult mosquitoes, or simply a fluctuation<sup> </sup>in annual incidence, which is common in South America because<sup> </sup>of the influence of environmental conditions such as El Ni?o.<sup> </sup>
We found clear evidence to support the use of a combination<sup> </sup>of insect repellent and treated bed nets as personal protection<sup> </sup>against malaria. This is particularly important to the growing<sup> </sup>number of tourists and business travellers, who have no immunity<sup> </sup>to malaria. Health professionals and specialist travel health<sup> </sup>organisations should strongly advocate such combined measures<sup> </sup>in high risk areas, particularly with early evening or outdoor<sup> </sup>feeding vectors.<sup> </sup>
Having established that insect repellents can provide important<sup> </sup>clinical protection against malaria, we consider their potential<sup> </sup>use against other insect-borne diseases should be investigated.<sup> </sup>Ideal targets could include arboviral infections, such as dengue<sup> </sup>and West Nile fever, transmitted by daytime and outdoor biting<sup> </sup>culicine mosquito vectors, and leishmaniasis carried by sandflies.<sup> </sup>
<center><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td><table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="100%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e1e1e1"><td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top">What is already known on this topic
<dl><dd>Insecticide treated bed<sup> </sup>nets are a highly effective means of reducing morbidity and<sup> </sup>mortality from malaria in Africa, where local vectors bite indoors<sup> </sup>late at night
</dd><dd>Insect repellents can reduce mosquito bites but<sup> </sup>protection against insect-borne disease is not clear
</dd></dl> What<sup> </sup>this study adds
<dl><dd>Treated bed nets should not be used as the<sup> </sup>only means of preventing malaria in areas where vectors feed<sup> </sup>mainly in the evening
</dd><dd>Use of an insect repellent can significantly<sup> </sup>reduce the risk of malaria
</dd><dd>The combined use of a repellent<sup> </sup>and a treated bed net should be advocated to those travelling<sup> </sup>to malaria risk areas
</dd></dl>
</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table> </center>
<sup> </sup> <sup> </sup>
<sup> </sup>
<sup> </sup>
<sup> </sup>
<sup> </sup>
<hr align="left" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="30%"> <!-- null --> We thank Melissa Rendler-Garcia, Nicola Morgan, and Sharon Slater<sup> </sup>of Population Services International (PSI), Washington, USA,<sup> </sup>for their support in Bolivia and assistance in securing funding<sup> </sup>from PSI for an earlier pilot study. The study would not have<sup> </sup>been possible without the support and secondment of field staff<sup> </sup>from the local health districts of Riberalta and Guayaramerin,<sup> </sup>Bolivia.<sup> </sup> <!-- null --> Contributors: NH devised the study, was responsible for the<sup> </sup>protocol development, obtained funding, wrote the first and<sup> </sup>final drafts of the manuscript, and is guarantor. AL assisted<sup> </sup>in development of the protocol, acted as study coordinator in<sup> </sup>Bolivia, trained local field staff, initiated the practical<sup> </sup>phase of the project, and assisted in production of the manuscript.<sup> </sup>AMA was field supervisor, undertook daily monitoring of the<sup> </sup>project in Bolivia, and commented on the manuscript. IC assisted<sup> </sup>in the study protocol, particularly the analytical methods,<sup> </sup>study questionnaires, and database design, undertook statistical<sup> </sup>analysis of results, and contributed to the manuscript.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null --> Funding: Gates Malaria Partnership grant from LSHTM, whose committee<sup> </sup>reviewed the protocol before the award. Medical Advisory Service<sup> </sup>for Travellers Abroad (MASTA) provided bulk supplies of the<sup> </sup>insect repellent at cost price.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null --> Competing interests: NH has received minor funding from numerous<sup> </sup>manufacturers and suppliers of insect repellents in Europe and<sup> </sup>the US for laboratory evaluation of their products, and from<sup> </sup>national consumer groups to compare efficacy of repellents on<sup> </sup>the European market.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null --> Ethical approval: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine<sup> </sup>(University of London) ethics committee and Ministerio de Salud<sup> </sup>y Previsi?n Social, Bolivia.<sup> </sup>
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer<sup> </sup>reviewed.<sup> </sup>
<!-- null -->
References
<!-- start of nav, hiding until we can rip out for good -->
<!-- end of navigation -->
- <!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Lengeler C. Insecticide-treated bed nets and curtains for preventing malaria. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(2):CD000363.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:1" --><!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Pates H, Curtis C. Mosquito behavior and vector control. Annu Rev Entomol 2005;50:53-70.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:2" -->[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]<!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Moore SJ, Lenglet A, Hill N. Field evaluation of three plant-based insect repellents against malaria vectors in Vaca Diez Province, the Bolivian Amazon. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 2002;18:107-10.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:3" -->[ISI][Medline]<!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Knoles BGJ, Takken W. The wide-scale use of impregnated bednets for malaria control in Africa: impact on mosquitoes. Proc Exp Appl Entomol 1998;8:15-20.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:4" --><!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Maxwell CA, Wakibara J, Tho S, Curtis CF. Malaria-infective biting at different hours of the night. Med Vet Entomol 1998;12:325-7.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:5" -->[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]<!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Greenwood BM, Bojang K, Whitty CJM, Targett GAT. Malaria. Lancet 2005;365:1487-98.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:6" -->[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]<!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Health Protection Agency. Malaria imported into the UK, 2003: implications for those advising travellers. .www.hpa.org.uk/cdr/archives/2004/cdr3504.pdf<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:7" --><!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Bradley DJ, Bannister B. Guidelines for malaria prevention in travellers from the United Kingdom for 2003. Commun Dis Public Health 2003;6:180-99.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:8" -->[Medline]<!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>NHS Direct. Malaria. .www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=462<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:9" --><!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Goodyer LI. Bite avoidance. In: Goodyer LI, ed. Travel medicine for health professionals. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 2004:139-71.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:10" --><!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Fradin MS, Day JF. Comparative efficacy of insect repellents against mosquito bites. N Engl J Med 2002;347:13-8.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:11" --><nobr>[Abstract/Free Full Text]</nobr><!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Rowland M. DEET mosquito repellent provides personal protection against malaria: a household randomized trial in an Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan. Trop Med Int Hlth 2004;9:335-42.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:12" -->[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]<!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Pan American Health Organization. Basic indicators: health situation in the Americas. .www.paho.org/english/dd/ais/BI-brochure-2004.pdf<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:13" --><!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Harris AF, Matias-Arn?z A, Hill N. Biting time of Anopheles darlingi in the Bolivian Amazon and implication for the control of malaria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2006;100:45-7.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:14" -->[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]<!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Hayes RJ, Bennett S. Simple sample size calculation for cluster-randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 1999;28:319-26.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:15" --><nobr>[Abstract/Free Full Text]</nobr><!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup><!-- null -->
- <sup> </sup>Horton NJ, Lipsitz SR. Review of software to fit generalized estimating equation regression models. Am Stat 1999;53:160-9.<!-- HIGHWIRE ID="335:7628:1023:16" -->[CrossRef]<!-- /HIGHWIRE --><sup> </sup>
Related Article
<dl><dt> Preventing malaria in endemic areas </dt><dd>Donald R Roberts
BMJ 2007 335: 1001-1002. <nobr> [Extract] [Full Text] </nobr>
</dd></dl> <!-- null --> This article has been cited by other articles:
(Search Google Scholar for Other Citing Articles)
- Roberts, D. R (2007). Preventing malaria in endemic areas. BMJ 335: 1001-1002 <nobr> [Full text] </nobr>