A framework for malaria elimination.pdf

A framework for
malaria elimination
Global Malaria Programme

A framework for malaria elimination
ISBN 978-92-4-151198-8
© World Health Organization 2017
Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO
licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo).
Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the
work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses
any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you
must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you
should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health
Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall
be the binding and authentic edition”.
Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the
World Intellectual Property Organization.
Suggested citation. A framework for malaria elimination. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA
3.0 IGO.
Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris.
Sales, rights and licensing. To purchase WHO publications, see http://apps.who.int/bookorders. To submit requests for
commercial use and queries on rights and licensing, see http://www.who.int/about/licensing.
Third-party materials. If you wish to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or
images, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the
copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely
with the user.
General disclaimers. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WHO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area
or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent
approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or
recommended by WHO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the
names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the
published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the
interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall WHO be liable for damages arising from its use.
Map production: WHO Global Malaria Programme and WHO Public Health Information and Geographic Systems.
Please consult the WHO Global Malaria Programme website for the most up-to-date version of all documents
(www.who.int/malaria)
Printed in Spain

Contents
1
3
8
9
11
15
16
17
22
22
23
24
28
34
35
43
Acknowledgements
Glossary
Preamble
What is new?
Introduction
1. Principles and practice of malaria elimination
1.1 The starting-point: understanding malaria transmission intensity and
country stratification
1.2 Aligning country field actions with the Global technical strategy for
malaria 2016–2030
2. Strategies and interventions for malaria elimination
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Local stratification by malaria transmission intensity
2.3 Enhancing and optimizing vector control
2.4 Enhancing and optimizing case detection and case management
2.5 Role of quality assurance and reference laboratories in malaria
elimination
2.6 Surveillance
2.7 Accelerating activities towards elimination
3. Management and planning
3.1 Planning process
3.2 Informed decision-making
3.3 Programme structure and management
3.4 Supply chain systems
3.5 Independent national malaria elimination advisory committee
3.6 Creating an enabling environment
45
45
47
49
50
51
51

54
56
58
59
60
61
61
65
73
65
78
80
82
84
85
87
90
92
93
67
68
68
69
70
4. Prevention of re-establishment of malaria
4.1 Risks for re-establishment of malaria
4.2 Maintaining a strong health system
4.3 Integrating malaria activities into general health services
5. Certification and verification of malaria elimination
5.1 WHO certification of malaria elimination – general
5.2 WHO certification of malaria elimination – procedure
5.3 Follow-up of WHO certification
5.4 Subnational verification of malaria elimination
6. Innovation and research for malaria elimination
6.1 Research and development for malaria elimination and eradication
6.2 Operational research
6.3 Regulatory environment for malaria elimination
References
Annexes
Annex 1. Biology of malaria
Annex 2. Diagnosis and treatment of Plasmodium falciparum and
P. vivax malaria
Annex 3. Monitoring and evaluation indicators for interventions in an
elimination programme
Annex 4. Terms of reference for the WHO Malaria Elimination
Certification Panel
Annex 5. Documents for the Malaria Elimination Certification Panel to
be prepared from the elimination database by the national government
Annex 6. Outline of content of a national elimination report
Annex 7. Example of individual case investigation form for a national
malaria case register
Annex 8. Example of individual focus investigation form for a national
malaria case register
Annex 9. Information to be included in annual report for follow-up of
WHO certification
Annex 10. Generic terms of reference for an independent national
malaria elimination advisory committee

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
1
Acknowledgements
In June 2015, the WHO Global Malaria Programme (GMP) established an evidence
review group, with the specific objective of preparing new guidance for malaria
elimination. The group’s work was led by Dr Hoda Atta (WHO Regional Office for the
Eastern Mediterranean) and Dr Keith Carter (WHO Regional Office for the Americas) in
consultation with Dr Pedro Alonso (GMP).
The GMP is very grateful to the members of the evidence review group and their
organizations (when applicable) for their participation in WHO meetings held in
New Delhi, India (July–August 2015), Montreux, Switzerland (December 2015) and
Shanghai, China (June 2016); for preparing various sections of the framework on the
basis of their areas of greatest expertise; and for their involvement in the peer review.
Special thanks to the Chair, Dr Richard Steketee (Malaria Control and Elimination
Partnership in Africa, a programme at PATH [United States of America]) who drafted
sections and reviewed the entire document.
The 13 members were (in alphabetical order): Dr Majed Al-Zadjali (Department
of Malaria, Ministry of Health, Oman); Professor Graham Brown (Nossal Institute
for Global Health, University of Melbourne, Australia); Professor Thomas Burkot
(Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Australia);
Dr Justin Cohen (Global Malaria, Clinton Health Access Initiative, USA); Dr Mikhail
Ejov (independent consultant, Canada); Professor Rossitza Kurdova-Mintcheva
(independent consultant, Bulgaria); Dr Bruno Moonen (Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, USA); Dr Gao Qi (Jiangsu Institute of Parasitic Diseases, China); Dr Frank
Richards (The Carter Center, USA); Professor Christophe Rogier (Pasteur Institute of
Madagascar and French Military Health Service); Dr Allan Schapira (independent
consultant, Philippines), Professor Robert Snow (KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research
Programme, Kenya) and Dr Richard Steketee.
The following are also gratefully acknowledged: Dr Hana Bilak (Malaria Control and
Elimination Partnership in Africa) for rewriting and technically editing the entire report,
in collaboration with Dr Richard Steketee and with Dr Pedro Alonso and Laurent
Bergeron (WHO GMP) for overall management of the project.
Substantial comments and valuable input to the document were provided by Dr Andrei
Beljaev, Dr Charles Delacollette, Dr Anatoly Kondrashin and Dr Regina Rabinovich
(ISGlobal, Barcelona Institute for Global Health) and by the following WHO staff based
in regional and country offices and at headquarters: Issa Sanou (WHO Regional
Office for Africa); Rainier Escalada (WHO Regional Office for the Americas), Ghasem
Zamani (WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean); Elkhan Gasimov
(WHO Regional Office for Europe); Leonard Icutanim Ortega (WHO Regional Office
for South-East Asia, now with WHO GMP); Eva-Maria Christophel (WHO Regional
Office for the Western Pacific, now at the WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia);
Walter Kazadi (coordinator, Emergency Response to Artemisinin Resistance Hub,
WHO Country Office, Cambodia, now at the WHO Country Office, Burundi); Gawrie
Loku Galappaththy (WHO Country Office, Viet Nam, now with WHO GMP); and Maru
Aregawi, Andrea Bosman, Richard Cibulskis, Tessa Knox, Kimberly Lindblade, Abraham
Mnzava, Sivakuraman Muragasampillay, Abdisalan Noor, Martha Quinones, Charlotte
Rasmussen, Pascal Ringwald and Emmanuel Temu (WHO GMP).

2
The framework for malaria elimination was complemented by contributions from a wide
range of malaria programme managers in the six WHO regions during an extensive
consultation (international meetings and face-to-face interviews). In addition, it was
refined after field testing at training workshops on malaria elimination in Paro, Bhutan
(organized by WHO on 27 June–2 July 2016) and in Pasay City, Philippines (organized by
ACTMalaria in collaboration with WHO on 4–9 July 2016) and by an in-depth review by
the WHO Malaria Policy Advisory Committee in September 2016.
Funding for the production of this document was gratefully received from the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
3
Case detection One of the activities of surveillance operations, involving a
search for malaria cases in a community
Note: Case detection is a screening process in which the
indicator is either the presence of fever or epidemiological
attributes such as high-risk situations or groups. Infection
detection requires use of a diagnostic test to identify
asymptomatic malaria infections.
Case detection,
active
Detection by health workers of malaria cases at
community and household levels, sometimes in
population groups that are considered at high risk. Active
case detection can consist of screening for fever followed
by parasitological examination of all febrile patients or
as parasitological examination of the target population
without prior screening for fever.
Note: Active case detection may be undertaken in
response to a confirmed case or cluster of cases, in which
a population potentially linked to such cases is screened
and tested (referred to as “reactive case detection”), or
it may be undertaken in high-risk groups, not prompted
by detection of cases (referred to as “proactive case
detection”).
Case detection,
passive
Detection of malaria cases among patients who, on
their own initiative, visit health services for diagnosis and
treatment, usually for a febrile illness
Case investigation Collection of information to allow classification of
a malaria case by origin of infection, i.e. imported,
indigenous, induced, introduced, relapsing or
recrudescent
Note: Case investigation may include administration of
a standardized questionnaire to a person in whom a
malaria infection is diagnosed and screening and testing
of people living in the same household or surrounding
areas.
Glossary
This glossary comprises all key terms relevant for A framework for malaria elimination.
The definitions are extracted from those approved by the WHO Malaria Policy
Advisory Committee in September 2015. As the terminology is reviewed continuously,
readers should visit the WHO GMP website at
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/208815/1/WHO_HTM_GMP_2016.6_eng.pdf
for updated definitions or more malaria-specific terms.

4
Case, imported Malaria case or infection in which the infection was
acquired outside the area in which it is diagnosed
Case, index A case of which the epidemiological characteristics trigger
additional active case or infection detection. The term
“index case” is also used to designate the case identified
as the origin of infection of one or a number of introduced
cases.
Case, indigenous A case contracted locally with no evidence of importation
and no direct link to transmission from an imported case
Case, induced A case the origin of which can be traced to a blood
transfusion or other form of parenteral inoculation of the
parasite but not to transmission by a natural mosquito-
borne inoculation
Note: In controlled human malaria infections in malaria
research, the parasite infection (challenge) may
originate from inoculated sporozoites, blood or infected
mosquitoes.
Case, introduced A case contracted locally, with strong epidemiological
evidence linking it directly to a known imported case
(first-generation local transmission)
Case, locally
acquired
A case acquired locally by mosquito-borne transmission
Note: Locally acquired cases can be indigenous,
introduced, relapsing or recrudescent; the term
“autochthonous” is not commonly used.
Case, malaria Occurrence of malaria infection in a person in whom
the presence of malaria parasites in the blood has been
confirmed by a diagnostic test
Note: A suspected malaria case cannot be considered a
malaria case until parasitological confirmation. A malaria
case can be classified as indigenous, induced, introduced,
imported, relapsing or recrudescent (depending on the
origin of infection); and as symptomatic or asymptomatic.
In malaria control settings, a “case” is the occurrence of
confirmed malaria infection with illness or disease. In
settings where malaria is actively being eliminated or
has been eliminated, a “case” is the occurrence of any
confirmed malaria infection with or without symptoms.
Case, relapsing Malaria case attributed to activation of hypnozoites of
P. vivax or P. ovale acquired previously
Note: The latency of a relapsing case can be > 6–12
months. The occurrence of relapsing cases is not an
indication of operational failure, but their existence
should lead to evaluation of the possibility of ongoing
transmission.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
5
Entomological
inoculation rate
Number of infective bites received per person in a given
unit of time, in a human population
Note: This rate is the product of the “human biting rate”
(the number of bites per person per day by vector
mosquitoes) and the sporozoite rate (proportion of
vector mosquitoes that are infective). At low levels of
transmission, the estimated entomological inoculation
rate may not be reliable, and alternative methods should
be considered for evaluating transmission risk.
Focus, malaria A defined and circumscribed area situated in a
currently or formerly malarious area that contains the
epidemiological and ecological factors necessary for
malaria transmission
Note: Foci can be classified as active, residual non-active
or cleared.
Malaria elimination Interruption of local transmission (reduction to zero
incidence of indigenous cases) of a specified malaria
parasite species in a defined geographical area as a
result of deliberate activities. Continued measures to
prevent re-establishment of transmission are required.
Note: The certification of malaria elimination in a country
will require that local transmission is interrupted for all
human malaria parasites.
Malaria eradication Permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence
of infection caused by all human malaria parasite species
as a result of deliberate activities. Interventions are no
longer required once eradication has been achieved.
Malaria
reintroduction
Malaria reintroduction is the occurrence of introduced
cases (cases of the first-generation local transmission
that are epidemiologically linked to a confirmed imported
case) in a country or area where the disease had
previously been eliminated
Note: Malaria reintroduction is different from
re-establishment of malaria transmission (see definition).
Malaria-free Describes an area in which there is no continuing local
mosquito-borne malaria transmission and the risk for
acquiring malaria is limited to infection from introduced
cases
Mass drug
administration
Administration of antimalarial treatment to every member
of a defined population or every person living in a defined
geographical area (except those for whom the medicine
is contraindicated) at approximately the same time and
often at repeated intervals

6
Population at risk Population living in a geographical area where locally
acquired malaria cases have occurred in the past three
years
Receptivity Receptivity of an ecosystem to transmission of malaria
Note: A receptive ecosystem should have e.g. the
presence of competent vectors, a suitable climate and a
susceptible population.
Recrudescence Recurrence of asexual parasitaemia of the same
genotype(s) that caused the original illness, due
to incomplete clearance of asexual parasites after
antimalarial treatment
Note: Recrudescence is different from reinfection with a
parasite of the same or different genotype(s) and relapse
in P. vivax and P. ovale infections.
Transmission, re-
establishment of
Renewed presence of a measurable incidence of
locally acquired malaria infection due to repeated
cycles of mosquito-borne infections in an area in which
transmission had been interrupted
Note: A minimum indication of possible re-establishment
of transmission would be the occurrence of three or more
indigenous malaria cases of the same species per year in
the same focus, for three consecutive years.
Transmission,
residual
Persistence of transmission after good coverage has been
achieved with high-quality vector control interventions to
which local vectors are fully susceptible
Note: Both human and vector behaviour is responsible
for such residual transmission, such as people staying
outdoors at night or local mosquito vector species
displaying behaviour that allows them to avoid core
interventions.
Vectorial capacity Number of new infections that the population of a given
vector would induce per case per day at a given place
and time, assuming that the human population is and
remains fully susceptible to malaria
Vulnerability The frequency of influx of infected individuals or groups
and/or infective anopheline mosquitoes
Note: Also referred to as “importation risk”. The term can
also be applied to the introduction of drug resistance in a
specific area.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
7
ACD active case detection
ACT artemisinin-based combination therapy
G6PD glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase
GMP Global Malaria Programme
GTS Global technical strategy for malaria (2016–2030)
IRS indoor residual spraying
ITN insecticide-treated mosquito net
LLIN long-lasting insecticidal net
MECP Malaria Elimination Certification Panel
MPAC Malaria Policy Advisory Committee
PCD passive case detection
RCD reactive case detection
RDT rapid diagnostic test
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
Abbreviations and acronyms

8
Preamble
The intention of this document is to provide malaria-endemic countries
with a framework for malaria elimination. It gives guidance on the tools,
activities, and dynamic strategies required to achieve interruption of
transmission and to prevent re-establishment of malaria. It also describes
the process for obtaining WHO certification of malaria elimination. The
framework is meant to serve as a basis for national malaria elimination
strategic plans and should be adapted to local contexts.
The document emphasizes that all countries should work towards the
goal of malaria elimination, regardless of the intensity of transmission.
Countries should establish tools and systems that will allow them to
reduce the disease burden (when and where transmission is high) and
progress to elimination of malaria as soon as possible. While malaria
elimination should be the ultimate goal for all malaria-endemic
countries, the guidance given here is intended mostly for areas of low
transmission that are progressing to zero.
Section 1 describes the key principles underlying malaria elimination,
which should be tailored to local contexts. Sections 2 and 3 describe the
interventions and activities recommended in areas of low transmission
that are progressing to zero transmission (elimination). The steps required
to eliminate malaria serve to prepare programmes and health systems to
maintain elimination (see section 4). Section 5 gives an overview of the
process for obtaining malaria-free certification from WHO.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
9
What is new?
This document builds on the WHO document Malaria elimination - A field manual for
low and moderate endemic countries (1), published in 2007. Many of the principles
outlined in the original document remain relevant; key changes are listed below.
• This framework builds on progress during the past decade, when most countries
demonstrated that they can scale up their control programmes and achieve
significant reductions in disease burden and, in some cases, eliminate malaria.
• The framework is designed for all malaria-endemic countries. It outlines the work
required across the spectrum of malaria transmission intensity around the world, in
order to end malaria, in alignment with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3.3.
• The programme actions along the continuum of malaria transmission, from
high to very low, are highlighted, with emphasis on planning for successive
steps. Thus, the distinct categories of “control”, “consolidation”, “pre-elimination”
and “elimination”, which are based solely on epidemiological criteria, are not
used; rather, the framework suggests that iterative planning with anticipation
of transitions and evolving approaches is critical. In addition, it stresses the
importance of adapting and tailoring interventions to certain areas in the same
country.
• The requirements for achieving and maintaining elimination are described.
• Greater emphasis is given to health systems requirements and programmatic
aspects essential for achieving malaria elimination.
• The role of information systems and surveillance as an intervention is
highlighted; with modern information and communications technology available
to all programmes, information collection and exchange are more rapid and
dynamic than previously considered possible.
• Additional emphasis is placed on (i) planning the systems required for
documenting elimination; (ii) the new role of verification (country-specific
documentation of subnational elimination) and (iii) the importance of
acknowledging incremental progress in reducing incidence, illness, severe disease
and mortality.
• Acceleration and the speed of change (rapidly lowering transmission and
documenting the impact) are discussed. As they can be more rapid than
anticipated, each step towards elimination must be planned early.
• Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and light microscopy are both recommended for
malaria diagnosis in areas and countries that are eliminating malaria.
• The classification of foci has been simplified, with three instead of seven types of
focus and an emphasis on defined, but adaptable, intervention packages for each
focus type.
• Updated strategies are based on current WHO recommendations, including the
use of mass drug administration. Further updates will be reflected regularly in the
online version of this document.

10
• The process for WHO certification of malaria elimination is simplified, with
a key role for a WHO Malaria Elimination Certification Panel (MECP), a final
recommendation by the WHO Malaria Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) to the
WHO GMP and a final decision by the WHO Director-General, who will officially
inform the national government.
• A careful national investigation and consultation with WHO will be required before
a country loses its malaria-free certification. The minimum threshold for possible
re-establishment of transmission would be the occurrence of three or more
indigenous malaria cases of the same species per year in the same focus for three
consecutive years.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
11
Introduction
Malaria biology
Malaria is caused by the protozoan parasite Plasmodium, which is transmitted by
female Anopheles mosquitoes, which usually bite between sunset and sunrise. There
are four human malaria parasite species – P. falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae and
P. ovale. Of the non-human malaria parasite species, P. knowlesi has recently been
reported to infect humans in South-East Asia with increasing frequency, but there is
no evidence so far of human-to-human transmission.1 Of the human malaria parasite
species, P. falciparum and P. vivax pose the greatest threat. P. falciparum remains
the most dangerous and is responsible for the majority of malaria-related deaths.
Outside sub-Saharan Africa, P. vivax malaria accounts for about half of malaria cases
and predominates in countries that are prime candidates for elimination; the parasite
accounts for more than 70% of malaria cases in countries with fewer than 5000 cases
each year (2). In contrast to P. falciparum, which does not cause persistent liver-stage
infection, P. vivax can stay dormant in the liver for many months or even years after
inoculation and can cause repeated relapses. Thus, the elimination of P. vivax malaria is
particularly challenging and may in some settings require new tools and strategies (2).
Of about 515 Anopheles species, only 30–40 are considered important malaria
vectors. Multiple species can coexist within one geographical area, each with its own
biting and resting pattern and preferred human or animal host; thus, species vary
widely in their transmission efficiency and in their susceptibility to existing or potential
anti-mosquito interventions. For more information on the biology of malaria, see
Annex 1.
Recent gains in malaria control
Wide-scale malaria interventions have led to major reductions in overall malaria
mortality and morbidity. At the beginning of 2016, an estimated 3.2 billion people in
91 countries and territories (3) were at risk of infection with Plasmodium. This reflects
a remarkable change since 2000. Between 2000 and 2015, the rate of new malaria
cases declined globally by an estimated 37%, and the global malaria death rate fell by
60%, with 6.2 million lives saved (4).
Since 2000, 17 countries and territories have been declared no longer endemic or
had zero indigenous malaria cases in 2015 (Fig. 1). These are: Argentina, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, Georgia, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Oman, Paraguay, Sri
Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates
and Uzbekistan.
1 Certification of malaria elimination by WHO requires the elimination of all four human parasite species, and
does not require elimination of the non-human parasite P. knowlesi.

12
FIG. 1.
Countries endemic for malaria in 2000 and in 2016
Source: World Malaria Report 2016 (3)
0 10 000 20 000 kilometres
Countries endemic for malaria, 2016 Countries endemic in 2000, no longer endemic in 2016
Countries not endemic for malaria, 2000 Not applicable
Global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030
Building on the unprecedented progress achieved over the previous decade, WHO
developed a Global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030 (GTS) (5), endorsed by
the World Health Assembly in 2015, which sets global targets for 2030, with milestones
for measuring progress in 2020 and 2025. All countries, including those with high
burdens in Africa and elsewhere, will set their own national or subnational targets and
will accelerate activities for eliminating malaria transmission and preventing its re-
establishment. Progress towards malaria-free status is continuous: countries, subnational
areas and communities are at different stages on the path to malaria elimination, and
intervention packages can be tailored for use in different settings within a country.
The GTS is an overarching approach based on three pillars and two supporting
elements (Fig. 2) to guide the design of tailored country programmes, while Action
and investment to defeat malaria 2016–2030 (6), developed by the RBM Partnership,
builds a strong case for investment to mobilize collective action and resources for the
fight against malaria.
The GTS sets the most ambitious targets since those of the Global Malaria Eradication
Programme over 50 years ago: by 2030, mortality from and the incidence of malaria
should be reduced by at least 90% from the levels in 2015, and malaria should be
eliminated in at least 35 countries in which it was transmitted in 2015 (Table 1).

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
13
FIG. 2.
GTS framework: pillars and supporting elements
Pillar 1
Ensure universal
access to malaria
prevention,
diagnosis and
treatment
Pillar 2
Accelerate efforts
towards elimination
and attainment of
malaria-free status
Pillar 3
Transform malaria
surveillance into a
core intervention
Global technical strategy for
malaria 2016–2030
Supporting element 1. Harnessing innovation and expanding research
Supporting element 2. Strengthening the enabling environment
TABLE 1.
Goals, milestones and targets of the Global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030
Vision – a world free of malaria
GOALS MILESTONES TARGETS
2020 2025 2030
Reduce malaria mortality
rates globally compared
with 2015
At least 40% At least 75% At least 90%
Reduce malaria case
incidence globally
compared with 2015
At least 40% At least 75% At least 90%
Eliminate malaria from
countries in which malaria
was transmitted in 2015
At least 10 countries At least 20 countries At least 35 countries
Prevent re-establishment
of malaria in all countries
that are malaria-free
Re-establishment
prevented
Re-establishment
prevented
Re-establishment
prevented

14
BOX 1.
Key policy changes and reviews since 2007
Changes
• 2007: Universal coverage of insecticide-treated mosquito nets (ITNs) is
recommended.
• 2010: Malaria treatment guidelines recommend prompt parasitological
confirmation by microscopy or with an RDT for all patients with suspected
malaria before treatment is started.
• 2012 (reviewed in 2015): In low transmission areas, a single dose of
0.25 mg/kg body weight of primaquine with ACT should be given to all
patients (except for pregnant women, infants aged < 6 months and women
breastfeeding infants < 6 months) with P. falciparum malaria.
Reviews
• 2014: WHO policy recommendation on malaria diagnostics in low transmission
settings (7);
• 2015: Guidelines for the treatment of malaria, 3rd edition (8);
• 2015: The role of mass drug administration, mass screening and treatment,
and focal screening and treatment for malaria (9); and
• 2015: Risks associated with scale-back of vector control after malaria
transmission has been reduced (10)
New guidance for malaria elimination
Since 2007, a number of policies for malaria control have changed, including universal
coverage of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and diagnostic testing and updated
malaria treatment guidelines (see Box 1). The previous guidance (1) published in 2007
had to be revised to include all countries and epidemiological settings, wherever they
lie along the continuum to malaria elimination, while providing updated guidance for
countries or areas with moderate to very low malaria transmission.
This framework is intended primarily for national malaria programme managers. It
will also inform the governments of endemic countries, partners, donor agencies and
field workers about malaria elimination and how it is adapted and adopted in settings
with different malaria epidemiology and health systems.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
15
1. Principles and practice of
malaria elimination
This section gives an overview of the principles of malaria elimination, from the
moment a country decides to set elimination targets to the point at which the country is
certified malaria-free by WHO. These principles are summarized in Box 2 and further
detailed in subsequent sections.
BOX 2.
Key principles of malaria elimination
• National malaria elimination is defined as country-wide interruption of local
mosquito-borne transmission of a specified malaria parasite species (reduction to
zero incidence of indigenous cases).
• WHO certification of malaria elimination in a country requires proof that local
transmission of all human malaria parasites has been interrupted, resulting
in zero incidence of indigenous cases for at least the past three consecutive
years. Measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission are required
indefinitely until eradication is achieved.
• No single intervention or package of interventions will achieve malaria
elimination in all countries; rather, a set of interventions should be identified
and used appropriately for the malaria transmission intensity and dynamics
in each country to achieve and maintain elimination. Because of variation in
the effectiveness of interventions by place and time, effectiveness should be
evaluated regularly to guide adaptation of the country’s malaria programme.
• Excellent surveillance and response are the keys to achieving and maintaining
malaria elimination; information systems must become increasingly “granular”
to allow identification, tracking, classification and response for all malaria
cases (e.g. imported, introduced, indigenous).
• Elimination requires that the health system in a country have both strong
leadership and the capacity to reach fully into communities (e.g. with systems
to ensure access, deliver quality services, track progress and rapidly and
effectively respond to epidemiological challenges).
• Operational research on tools, strategies and delivery should generate
knowledge to improve guidelines and future elimination activities.
• Every country, including those with a high burden of malaria, may consider
malaria elimination as a goal and adjust interventions to accelerate
progress towards elimination. Therefore, understanding of the process and
requirements for WHO certification of malaria elimination should be global.
• Any country may set subnational elimination targets as internal milestones
to maintain public and political commitment and to increase the funding
available for attaining national certification.

16
As further discussed in section 5, malaria elimination in a country is officially
recognized by WHO certification. In order to be certified malaria-free, a country must
show beyond reasonable doubt that local malaria transmission has ended in the
country, resulting in zero incidence of indigenous malaria cases for at least the past
three consecutive years. This requires that a good-quality surveillance and response
system is in place for rapid detection, diagnosis and treatment of any case of locally
transmitted malaria. It is essential that countries embarking on malaria elimination
establish such systems early in the programme so that they can achieve and maintain
their status. Countries should be aware of the requirements for documentation of proof
of malaria elimination to be certified as malaria-free.
A country that plans to set subnational elimination targets should establish internal
systems to verify malaria-free areas within its borders (see section 5). Subnational
verification is conducted by countries, including evaluation of candidate subnational
areas. Subnational verification not only contributes to strengthening surveillance
and response but also provides opportunities for attaining milestones as the country
progresses towards elimination, reinforcing national commitment and advocacy for
continued or additional funding.
1.1 The starting-point: understanding malaria transmission
intensity and country stratification
Every country can accelerate progress towards elimination through evidence-based
strategies, regardless of the current intensity of transmission and the malaria burden
they may carry.
Accurate stratification of malaria transmission intensity is essential for effective
targeting of interventions. In settings with high transmission, the malaria control
programme usually stratifies subnational areas such as districts or provinces,
sometimes by population surveys. As countries progress towards elimination, finer-
scale mapping is required, and stratification should be more specific, ideally at the
level of localities or health facility catchment areas (11,12). Accurate local stratification
requires reliable case detection through a surveillance system in which health facilities
routinely receive reports of confirmed malaria cases at specified intervals (weekly,
monthly) (13).
As described below and in greater detail in section 2, stratification involves
classification of geographical units according to their current transmission intensity
and, once transmission intensity has been reduced, according to their vulnerability and
receptivity to malaria, i.e. the risk for importation of malaria cases and the inherent
potential of their vector-human ecosystem to transmit malaria.
Transmission intensity is usually assessed as the incidence of cases or the prevalence of
infection. Most countries have information on the annual parasite incidence2
(number

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
17
of new parasitologically confirmed malaria cases per 1000 population per year) from
routine surveillance and/or on the parasite prevalence from surveys, often conducted
during or just after periods of peak transmission.
The following categories of transmission intensity are indicative and meant to provide
an adaptable framework in which each country can conduct a stratification exercise to
classify geographical units according to local malaria transmission (see section 2.2).
• Areas of high transmission are characterized by an annual parasite incidence of
about 450 or more cases per 1000 population and a P. falciparum prevalence rate
of ≥35%.3
• Moderate transmission areas have an annual parasite incidence of 250–450
cases per 1000 population and a prevalence of P. falciparum/P. vivax malaria of
10–35%.
• Areas of low transmission have an annual parasite incidence of 100–250 cases
per 1000 population and a prevalence of P. falciparum/P. vivax of 1–10%. It should
be noted that the incidence of cases or infections is a more useful measure in
geographical units in which the prevalence is low, given the difficulty of measuring
prevalence accurately at low levels (15).
• Very low transmission areas have an annual parasite incidence of
< 100 cases per 1000 population and a prevalence of P. falciparum/P. vivax
malaria > 0 but < 1%.
The relation between parasite incidence, parasite prevalence and the number of cases
presenting to a health facility per week can be estimated in models (16). For case
investigation and focus investigation, local programmes must know the number of
cases per health facility per week, as these activities are possible only if health workers
see few cases and have sufficient time to conduct investigations within a reasonable
workload. Generally, only in areas with “very low transmission” is the number of cases
small enough (perhaps fewer than two or three cases per week per health facility)
to permit investigation and follow-up. Training and preparation for this work must
precede this stage.
Differences in transmission from one area to another may be due to geographical
characteristics, such as altitude, temperature and humidity, rainfall patterns, proximity
to water bodies, land use, vector distribution, socio-demographic characteristics,
access to anti-malarial treatment and implementation of vector control. In most
endemic areas, seasonal patterns of transmission are seen, with high transmission
during part of the year. Both the intensity and timing of transmission are important
considerations in designing elimination strategies.
2 “Incidence” is the number of new events or cases of disease that develop in a population of individuals at risk
during a specified interval (14); here, it is the annual number of new malaria cases per 1000 population at risk.
3
This rate typically applies only to P. falciparum, as such high levels are not usually achieved in P. vivax infections.

18
1.2 Aligning country field actions with the Global technical
strategy for malaria 2016–2030
On the basis of the results of accurate stratification of transmission intensity and
understanding of the epidemiological, ecological and social features of each
area, national malaria programmes can determine the appropriate package of
interventions to be used in each area. The choices should be reassessed regularly.
Fig. 3 presents an indicative set of interventions, aligned with the pillars and supporting
elements of the GTS and the WHO vision of malaria elimination, for deployment and
enhancement over time as malaria transmission intensity is systematically reduced.
1.2.1 Component A: Enhancing and optimizing vector control and
case management
Vector control strategies, such as use of insecticide-treated mosquito nets
(ITNs/LLINs4
) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), together with case management
(prompt access to diagnosis and effective treatment) are critical for reducing malaria
morbidity and mortality, and reducing malaria transmission. In all areas, especially
as programmes approach elimination, it is essential to “Ensure universal access to
malaria prevention, diagnosis and treatment” for at-risk populations (GTS pillar 1).
In many countries, continued access to core malaria prevention will be required even
as transmission is markedly reduced: a large proportion of the reduction in receptivity
is due to vector control. Once elimination has been achieved, vector control may be
“focalized” rather than scaled back, i.e. the intervention should be made available for
defined at-risk populations to prevent reintroduction or resumption of local transmission.
1.2.2 Component B: Increasing the sensitivity and specificity
of surveillance to detect, characterize and monitor all cases
(individual and in foci)
According to the GTS pillar “Transform malaria surveillance into a core intervention”,
countries should upgrade surveillance of parasitologically confirmed malaria to a
core intervention, irrespective of their stage of malaria elimination. This is essential for
tracking cases and responding to data received.
In this programme step, activities should be started early, even in settings where
the intensity of transmission is high or moderate, so that systems are in place
for characterizing, classifying and investigating each malaria case and focus
as transmission intensity is reduced. For example, early steps to strengthen the
surveillance system so that it becomes an actual intervention against malaria include:
• testing all individuals with suspected malaria and recording all confirmed cases;
• enhancing the quality and timeliness of case reporting through training,
supervising and retraining (in case of staff turnover);
• including community case detection, confirmation and reporting of malaria cases;
4 Since 2007, the ITNs distributed have been LLINs; however, the number of ITNs is still used as an indicator of
standard coverage and use. Consequently, and to avoid confusion, this vector control intervention is referred to
as “ITN/LLIN” throughout this document.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
19
FIG.
3.
Illustrative
intervention
package
*Acceleration
–
as
represented
by
arrow
bars
(>>>>>)
here
-
relates
to
time-limited
efforts
made
across
all
components
in
order
to
(1)
achieve
universal/optimal
coverage
in
malaria
prevention
and
case
management
(Component
A),
and
increase
sensitivity
and
specificity
of
surveillance
systems
so
they
are
able
to
detect,
characterize
and
monitor
all
malaria
cases
and
foci
(Component
B);
and
(2)
bring
malaria
transmission
to
sufficiently
low
levels
(with
or
without
population-wide
parasite
clearance
and
other
strategies,
Component
C
as
an
option)
where
remaining
cases
can
be
investigated/cleared
and
foci
can
be
managed
and
followed
up
(Component
D).
High
Component
D
Component
C
Component
B
Component
A
Moderate
Low
Very
low
Zero
Transmission
intensity
Global
technical
strategy
for
malaria
2016–2030
Maintaining
zero
ELIMINATE
DOCUMENT
&
MAINTAIN
Investigate
and
clear
individual
cases,
manage
foci
and
follow
up
>>Accelerate
efforts>>
towards
elimination
and
attainment
of
malaria-free
status
Harnessing
innovation
and
expanding
research
Strengthening
the
enabling
environment
Transform
malaria
surveillance
into
a
core
intervention
Ensure
universal
access
to
malaria
prevention,
diagnosis
and
treatment
Supporting
elements
Pillars
Enhance
and
optimize
vector
control
Enhance
and
optimize
case
management
-
testing,
treating
and
tracking
Increase
sensitivity
and
specificity
of
surveillance
systems
to
detect,
characterize
and
monitor
all
cases
(individual
and
in
foci);
see
component
D
Population-wide
parasite
clearance
and
additional
or
new
interventions
(when
or
where
applicable)
This
package
of
intervention
strategies
can
be
adapted
for
different
geographical
areas
in
a
country.
The
choice
of
interventions
should
be
based
on
transmission
intensity
(from
“high”
to
“very
low”
to
zero
and
maintaining
zero)
and
also
on
operational
capacity
and
system
readiness.
The
diagram
should
be
seen
as
illustrative
rather
than
prescriptive,
as
the
onset
and
duration
of
interventions
will
depend
on
local
circumstances.
The
shading
in
the
boxes
showing
components
indicates
the
enhancements
and
quality
required
as
programmes
progress
towards
elimination,
with
darker
colours
indicating
more
intense
actions
and
shading
from
light
to
dark
indicating
enhancement
of
the
quality
and
scale
or
focus
of
the
work.

20
• including cases detected by all parts of the health system (e.g. public, private,
nongovernmental organizations, military); and
• developing reference laboratory capacity for verification of parasitological
diagnosis of malaria, which is required for decision-making.
As transmission is reduced and the number of cases decreases, the information
obtained should be more and more detailed and dynamic. Surveillance not only
provides information to determine which interventions are required but is also a
pivotal component for complete interruption of transmission (see section 2). This
includes the response triggered by case and focus investigation:
• building systems for reactive case investigation;
• collecting relevant information on travel to determine or estimate whether malaria
infections are local or imported; and
• documenting elimination through continuous surveillance and reporting and
ensuring that reintroduction does not occur (see below).
All countries that have eliminated malaria have established strong information systems
and maintained them to prevent or contain re-establishment of the disease.
1.2.3 Component C: Accelerating transmission reduction
As part of the GTS pillar “Accelerate efforts towards elimination and attainment of
malaria-free status”, component C refers to the speed at which universal coverage
with core malaria interventions is achieved for at-risk populations and at which
surveillance systems generate detailed, dynamic information. Depending on the local
context, component C may also include deployment of additional, timely, efficient
interventions to reduce transmission intensity to sufficiently low levels that the few
remaining infections can be found, treated and cleared as soon as they arise.
Possible means of acceleration include strategies such as population-wide parasite
clearance by mass drug administration, which is currently recommended for
consideration in areas approaching elimination (9), and potential strategies such as
additional vector control and vaccines, if and when they become available. Decisions
to use such means of acceleration are made for each location after careful assessment
of factors such as transmission intensity and system readiness (see section‑2.7 for
more information).
1.2.4 Component D: Investigating and clearing individual cases,
managing foci and following up
Component D is the other part of the GTS pillar “Accelerate efforts towards elimination
and attainment of malaria-free status”, which can be implemented effectively once
a programme has attained a very low intensity of malaria transmission through
acceleration strategies. The programme must be capable of finding the few remaining
infections and any foci of ongoing transmission and investigating and clearing them
with appropriate treatment and possibly additional vector control (see section 2).

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
21
BOX 3
Documenting malaria elimination (17)
Determination of elimination relies principally on a high-quality, comprehensive
system for case-based surveillance and outreach, with systematic documentation
of the absence of indigenous malaria over time, such as the three years before
verification or certification of malaria elimination. The case-based measures are
the following.
• All cases of suspected malaria are tested with quality-assured methods
(RDTs* or microscopy).
• All tested cases are negative or are positive5
with probable exposure to
malaria outside the area.
• All test-positive imported cases are followed and shown not to lead to
indigenous transmission.
* The diagnostic performance of currently available RDTs is adequate for the
detection of low-density parasitaemia (in the range of 100–200 parasites/µL)
caused by P. falciparum6
and P. vivax and evaluated by the WHO Product Testing
Programme (18). However, RDTs are not evaluated for detection of P. malariae
and P. ovale because of lack of sources of suitable mono-species infections with
these parasites. Published data suggest that the sensitivity of RDTs for detecting
these species is significantly poorer than that for P. falciparum and P. vivax.
Therefore, negative findings of RDTs targeting all non-falciparum infections
should be supported by use of more sensitive and specific techniques (i.e. expert
microscopy).
As a country creates malaria transmission-free areas, documentation may initially
be necessary only for the communities in the catchment areas of one or a group of
health facilities. As elimination is extended, the groupings may include full districts,
groups of districts, provinces and regions. Such measurement and documentation
capacity is necessary for subnational verification and for ultimate certification.
5 If combination Pf/pan RDTs are used, tests with a positive pan-line and a negative Pf-line require
confirmatory testing for species identification by expert microscopy or polymerase chain reaction.
6
This refers to P. falciparum parasites that express HRP2 antigen.
Documentation of zero infections and no local transmission is critical to verify (in local
health facility catchment areas or at district level) and ultimately certify (at national
level) that elimination has been achieved. Once elimination has been achieved,
surveillance (identifying cases or foci and responding to them) becomes the mainstay
of future health system work to maintain elimination. This is the case in every country in
which malaria has been eliminated: these countries continue to maintain surveillance
and information systems and the ability to detect any introduced or imported cases
and ensure no local transmission. Box 3 describes the case-based method for
documenting elimination of malaria.
When a programme achieves and maintains zero cases of malaria, high quality and
coverage of the intervention package of components A, B and D must be maintained.

22
2. Strategies and
interventions for malaria
elimination
2.1 Introduction
This and subsequent sections describe the work required as countries approach malaria
elimination, moving from low to no local transmission. Key strategies and interventions
for malaria elimination are summarized in Box 4. Before elimination is attempted, a
core set of interventions should already be in place, including optimal coverage of vector
control, high-quality, timely case management, and an ever-improving information and
surveillance system capable of confirming and characterizing cases, and measuring
intervention coverage and transmission dynamics.
BOX 4
Strategies and interventions for malaria elimination: key points
• Most countries have diverse transmission intensity, and factors such as ecology,
immunity, vector behaviour, social factors and health system characteristics
influence both the diversity of transmission and the effectiveness of tools,
intervention packages and strategies in each locality.
• To manage the inherent complexity of addressing transmission intensities
in different geographical areas, malaria programmes should stratify their
national maps of malaria distribution into discrete areas.
• Stratification should, if possible:
o
o differentiate receptive from non-receptive areas;
o
o identify receptive areas in which malaria transmission has already been
curtailed by current interventions;
o
o distinguish between areas with widespread transmission and those in
which transmission occurs only in discrete foci;
o
o differentiate strata by transmission intensity, particularly if different
intensities are being addressed by different sets of interventions; and
o
o determine geographical variations and population characteristics that are
associated with vulnerability.
• Stratification allows better targeting and efficiency, with assignment of specific
packages of interventions and deployment strategies to designated strata.
• Stratification packages may include:
o
o further enhancement and optimization of vector control;
o
o further strengthening of timely detection, high-quality diagnosis
(confirmation) and management and tracking of cases;

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
23
o
o strategies to accelerate clearance of parasites or vectors in order to
reduce transmission rapidly when possible; and
o
o information, detection and response systems to identify, investigate and
clear remaining malaria foci.
• Optimal coverage of ITNs/LLINs or IRS should be ensured and maintained in
strata that are both receptive and vulnerable to malaria transmission.
• Vector control interventions should be conducted in addition to ITNs/LLINs
and/or IRS according to the principles of integrated vector management and
evidence-based, WHO-recommended strategies.
National malaria programmes have tools (e.g. insecticides to kill vectors, methods
to prevent vector–human contact, diagnostics to detect infections and document
clearance of infections, a variety of medicines to kill parasites in humans) and
strategies to use those tools (e.g. spraying insecticides on walls or distributing ITNs/
LLINs, managing clinical illness or proactively seeking infected people or at-risk
populations to ensure clearance or prophylaxis of malaria infections). As described in
section 6, new tools and strategies will become available in the future; nevertheless,
even current tools and strategies can dramatically reduce the malaria disease burden
and transmission; many countries have already eliminated malaria with existing tools.
In order to define optimal intervention packages, current and evolving transmission
intensities and the ecological and epidemiological features of the areas of a country
must be understood.
2.2 Local stratification by malaria transmission intensity
As elimination activities are expected to change the epidemiology of malaria rapidly
and profoundly, the stratification of national malaria maps should be revised
frequently, for example at the end of each transmission season or at an appropriate
month of each year.
Geographical units are categorized on the basis of their receptivity (defined as
the ability of an ecosystem to allow transmission of malaria) and the intensity of
transmission (as described in section 1). Stratification should initially be done at the
lowest geographical level for which operational decisions can be made, such as a
district, sub-district, village or health facility catchment area. Stratification begins with
categorization of each selected geographical unit into a stratum, according to the
sequence shown in Fig. 4.
FIG. 4.
Sequential stratification according to receptivity and transmission intensity of a diffuse or focal
geographical area targeted for malaria elimination
1st stratification
Receptive vs non-receptive
2nd stratification
Receptive with and without
transmission
3rd stratification
Transmission with or
without foci
4th stratification
Degree of transmission
in diffuse or focal areas
Non-
receptive
Non-
receptive
Receptive
Receptive,
but no
malaria
Receptive,
but no
malaria
Receptive
+ malaria
transmission
Non-
receptive
Non-
receptive
Very low
transmission
Malaria without
defined foci
Malaria in
active foci
Cleared foci
Active foci
Low
transmission
Receptive,
but no
malaria

24
The first categorization differentiates receptive from non-receptive areas; the second
distinguishes receptive areas without malaria transmission as a result of interventions;
the third identifies receptive areas with widespread transmission and areas with
transmission only in discrete foci; and the fourth stratifies areas with persistent
transmission by transmission intensity to guide targeting of interventions.
Areas with no vectors are not receptive to malaria and should be categorized as such.
In practice, in some settings, non-receptive areas are identified as those that have had
no vector control and no locally transmitted malaria cases but have had high-quality
surveillance for several years. In some countries, certain areas can be categorized
as non-receptive on the basis of their landscape. If the smallest geographical unit of
stratification comprises both receptive and non-receptive areas, it must be classified
as receptive. While vector control is not required in non-receptive areas, cases may still
be imported; therefore effective case management will always be required.
At sites in which there is some malaria receptivity but no current transmission,
continued measures may be required to prevent re-establishment of transmission.
The extent of such measures should be commensurate with the risk for reintroduction
of malaria from elsewhere; this risk is known as the “vulnerability” of an area.
Vulnerability can be measured directly as the incidence of imported cases in an area
or estimated indirectly as the population flow from endemic areas. Receptivity and
vulnerability are discussed further in section 4.
The progression from low transmission to elimination passes through a phase in
which fewer, more discrete malaria foci are identified, investigated and cleared. In
“low transmission” areas, transmission may still be too high for observation of discrete
foci; in this case, an appropriate package of interventions should be used, comprising
either better quality and coverage or the addition of new interventions, to further
reduce transmission. In settings with “very low” transmission, cases will increasingly
be clustered, and the surveillance system must be sufficiently sensitive to identify such
clustering in health facility catchment areas or individual villages, to characterize it fully
and to clear the infections and remaining transmission. The surveillance programme
must be strengthened well in advance so that the staff and systems are fully prepared
to undertake this work, which is required for the achievement and documentation of
elimination.
2.3 Enhancing and optimizing vector control
Two core vector control strategies are currently recommended by WHO: universal access
to and use of ITNs/LLINs or universal access to IRS for populations at risk for malaria.
2.3.1 Core vector control interventions
ITNs/LLINs and IRS are core interventions for reducing the human biting rate and
vector survival, which significantly reduce vectorial capacity and transmission.
ITNs/LLINs provide protection for the occupants of houses against biting malaria
mosquitoes by killing them before they can take a blood meal, whereas IRS kills
mosquitoes that rest indoors after they have taken a blood meal.
While the effectiveness of both these interventions is maximal with high coverage
and use, their impact is temporary and depends on their maintenance. Premature
withdrawal of ITNs/LLINs and IRS can result in a rebound of malaria transmission to
pre-existing levels (see section 2.3.4).

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
25
Optimal coverage of ITNs/LLINs or IRS should be maintained in strata that are both
receptive and vulnerable to malaria transmission. The receptivity of an area is not
static but is affected by determinants such as environmental and climate factors.
The many anopheline vectors around the world differ in the efficiency with which
they transmit malaria. Thus, some, such as the nocturnal indoor-biting and indoor-
resting mosquitoes in sub-Saharan Africa, are more amenable to control by indoor
interventions. Earlier and/or outdoor biting and resting anophelines in other continents
may be less so, although some will enter houses and be killed by the interventions. Thus,
ITNs/LLINs and IRS continue to be relevant both in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere.
2.3.1.1 ITNs/LLINs
High coverage of ITN/LLIN can be achieved and maintained most rapidly by a
combination of mass free-distribution campaigns and continuous distribution channels
(19). Distribution campaigns with a target of one net for every two people or one net
for every sleeping space can rapidly achieve high coverage. As many households have
an odd number of occupants, an overall ratio of 1 ITN/LLIN for every 1.8 people in the
targeted population should be used to calculate overall ITN/LLIN procurement (20).
The frequency of mass campaigns should be decided on the basis of net durability,
and only WHO-recommended ITNs/LLINs should be procured and distributed.
Programmes should consider maintaining stocks of ITNs/LLINs for local replacement,
which requires a modest additional number of ITNs/LLINs over that calculated for the
campaign and continuous distribution schemes.
Continuous or routine distribution channels include: antenatal, child health and vaccination
services; schools, places of worship and community networks; work sites (e.g. plantations,
military facilities, mines and farms) and the private or commercial health sector.
2.3.1.2 IRS
All programmes for malaria elimination should establish and maintain their capacity
to conduct IRS for rapid clearance of transmission foci and as an adjunct or targeted
control measure, even where ITNs/LLINs are the core vector control strategy, especially
in areas in which the vectors are resistant to pyrethroids. A significant advantage of
IRS for the containment of malaria foci is that it does not require human behavioural
change, except when people refuse access to their houses or re-plaster their walls
soon after spraying; such problems can sometimes be solved by using a more
acceptable insecticide. Unlike ITNs/LLINs, which remain effective during several
transmission seasons, IRS may be effective for only two to six months, depending on
the insecticide formulation and spray surface.
Failure to achieve high coverage and high-quality implementation of either ITNs/LLINs
or IRS should not be compensated by adding the other intervention (5). Continued use
of ITNs/LLINs is recommended even in areas where vectors are moderately resistant to
the ITN/LLIN insecticide. In areas with vectors resistant to pyrethroids, where
ITNs/LLINs are the primary intervention, IRS with application in rotation of different
classes of insecticide should be used to manage resistance (21).
2.3.2 Supplementary vector control strategies
While factors that may limit the effectiveness of existing vector control interventions
must be addressed, even full implementation of core interventions cannot halt
malaria parasite transmission in all settings. Evidence from various areas indicates
that residual malaria parasite transmission occurs even with good access to and use

26
of ITNs/LLINs or well-implemented IRS, as well as in situations where ITN/LLIN use or
IRS are not practical (22). The behaviour of both humans and vectors is responsible
for residual transmission, such as when people live in or visit forest areas or do not
sleep in protected houses or when local mosquito vector species have one or more
characteristics that allow them to avoid the IRS and ITN/LLIN intervention tools.
Additional vector control interventions should be practised to supplement ITNs/LLINs
and/or IRS on the principle of integrated vector management and evidence-based,
WHO-recommended strategies. Such supplementary interventions can accelerate a
reduction in transmission intensity. They should be implemented concurrently with, but
not in lieu of, optimal coverage with ITNs/LLINs or IRS.
2.3.2.1 Larval source management
Larval source management consists of the management of water bodies that are potential
sites for anopheline oviposition (23) in order to reduce the production of adult vectors,
either temporarily or permanently. This intervention is recommended in areas where
larval habitats are “few, fixed and findable” (24), i.e. close to houses; such conditions are
likely to exist when transmission has become increasingly focal. Effective larval source
management requires understanding of the ecology of larval habitat productivity and
effective monitoring of both the larval and adult stages of the vector in order to determine
the effectiveness of the intervention. Larval source management can be categorized
as habitat modification, habitat manipulation, biological control or chemical larviciding
(including the use of insect growth regulators). Use of the last three categories can
temporarily reduce vectorial capacity and contribute to malaria elimination in some
settings; however, permanent removal of larval habitats (habitat modification) will
reduce potential re-establishment of transmission once malaria has been eliminated, by
permanently reducing the density of the vector population and proportionally reducing
vectorial capacity. Reintroduction of malaria parasites into an area with effective habitat
modification will be less likely to result in local malaria transmission.
2.3.2.2 Additional strategies
Additional strategies may be required to reduce the disease burden caused by vectors
that feed outdoors or early in the day or are resistant to insecticides. The value of
innovation and research in creating such strategies and in the development of new
insecticides for ITNs/LLINs, IRS and larval source management and the means for
their implementation are recognized as one of two supporting elements in the GTS,
Harnessing innovation and expanding research. Use of new vector control strategies
and new products that are under development (see section 6) may be considered
once information on their effectiveness is available and the products are approved for
use in programmes.
2.3.3 Vector control activities in active transmission foci
As malaria incidence falls and elimination is approached, increasing heterogeneity in
transmission will result in foci with ongoing transmission, in which vector control should
be enhanced (25). Such foci may be due to particularly intense vectorial capacity,
lapsed prevention and treatment services, changes in vectors or parasites that make
the current strategies less effective, or reintroduction of malaria parasites by the
movement of infected people or, more rarely, infected mosquitoes.
The vector species should be identified and their susceptibility to currently used
insecticides evaluated. Supplementary vector control may be justified in some settings,

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
27
such as for vectors that are not vulnerable to ITNs/LLINs or IRS due to physiological
or behavioural resistance. Supplementary vector control should be based on
WHO-recommended strategies and with products approved by the WHO Pesticide
Evaluation Scheme (http://www.who.int/whopes/en/).
2.3.4 Vector control activities after elimination or prevention of
re-establishment (10)
Soon after elimination has been achieved, vector control coverage should be
maintained in receptive areas where there is a substantial risk for reintroduction
(vulnerable areas). An assessment in 2015 by the WHO Vector Control Technical
Expert Group indicated that discontinuing vector control increases the risk for
malaria resurgence, even in areas with substantially reduced transmission, and the
risk increases with increasing receptivity and importation rates and low coverage of
active disease surveillance and case management. WHO therefore recommends the
following.
• In areas with recent local malaria transmission (residual non-active foci), a
reduction in vector control is not recommended. Optimal coverage with effective
malaria vector control (including the use of new tools when they become
available) of all people in such areas should be pursued and maintained.
• In areas where transmission has been interrupted for more than three years
(cleared foci), any reduction in vector control should be based on a detailed
analysis, including assessment of the receptivity and vulnerability of the area and
the capacity for active disease surveillance and response.
• Countries and partners should continue to invest in health systems, including
continuous support for malaria surveillance; when receptivity is reduced, a
reduction in vector control may be considered in some geographical areas.
Vector control programmes should assess the receptivity of a geographical area from
data predating increased use of ITNs/LLINs and IRS and should also consider the
dynamic nature of receptivity. Changing land use patterns (including urbanization),
climate, housing quality and use of strategies that permanently reduce vectorial
capacity (e.g. environmental modification) may dramatically reduce malaria
receptivity. Changes that increase receptivity may be less common but might include
the introduction of agricultural, mining or forestry activities that multiply vector
breeding sites.
2.3.5 Monitoring and evaluating vector control
Monitoring the coverage, quality and impact of vector control interventions is essential
to maintain the effectiveness of control (see illustrative list of indicators in Annex 3). Each
programme should identify and use relevant indicators according to their priorities,
especially process indicators, in accordance with strategic and operational plans. Any
indicator measured should generate data that can be used for response. Monitoring
and evaluation of vector control should include all ecological and epidemiological
scenarios, including areas from which malaria has been eliminated but which remain at
risk for re-establishment of transmission.
The numbers of ITNs/LLINs distributed and of houses sprayed and vector breeding
sites should be determined by geo-positioning and mapping in order to evaluate
intervention coverage and its effect. Interventions directed at either the adult or

28
the larval stage should be evaluated by monitoring relevant changes in vector
characteristics, such as susceptibility to the insecticide, vector density and the
behaviour of the adult vector population. Malaria vector control programmes should
quickly detect and respond to such changes if necessary.
• The effectiveness of anti-larval campaigns should be evaluated by their impact on
adult mosquito populations; larval surveys alone are not sufficient (23).
• The effectiveness of ITNs/LLINs and IRS depends on the timing and location of
blood meals. Strategies for sampling adult vectors are not effective for all vector
species and do not work equally well indoors and outdoors, with the exception of
human landing catches.7
Paired (indoor and outdoor) all-night landing catches
at the times of peak vector population enable simultaneous determination of
the relative frequency of outdoor- and indoor-biting and the time of biting. The
samples collected can be used to determine the vector species present, to estimate
survivorship and to determine susceptibility to insecticides.
• Residual malaria transmission can occur even with good access to and use of
ITNs/LLINs or well-implemented IRS as well as in situations where ITN/LLIN use
or IRS are not practical. Good understanding of the behaviour of local vector
species (feeding, resting and breeding preferences) and of the human population
(sociocultural factors such as mobility, extent of uptake of preventive measures by
vulnerable populations such as forest workers, and difficulty in achieving optimal
adherence to anti-malarial treatment) should be the basis of a plan to control
malaria in such areas of residual transmission.
2.4 Enhancing and optimizing case detection and case
management
As transmission decreases, it becomes essential to enhance8
case detection and case
management to find all suspected malaria cases, test for confirmation of malaria
infection, treat all cases according to national treatment policies to clear infections,
characterize and classify infections by their most likely place of origin and report cases
and actions taken to the national surveillance system.
2.4.1 Case detection
Cases can be detected by passive case detection (PCD), when patients seek care
for their illness from health workers; active case detection (ACD), which requires
extension of testing with or without screening to high-risk, vulnerable groups, hard-
to-reach populations or low-transmission settings; and reactive case detection (RCD),
which involves an active response to a case detected by either PCD or ACD. Testing
should be conducted with a high-quality diagnostic test and the case reported after
confirmation. When people are screened for symptoms before testing, cases are
suspected when they occur in people with fever or a recent history of fever, a history of
malaria, anaemia of unknown cause or splenomegaly. In areas with low, very low or
7
Human landing catches do not increase the risk of the collectors for malaria over that of the general
adult population when collection is undertaken by recommended practices; e.g. collectors are provided
with prophylaxis and are recruited from the local adult population. Human landing collections are not
recommended in areas with active arbovirus transmission.
8
The concept of “enhanced” interventions suggests tailoring access to and coverage and use of an
intervention to address the epidemiological situation optimally. Even if all health facilities have the capacity
to confirm diagnoses and treat cases, the need for and opportunity to extend the services to communities
should not be ignored. “Optimization” requires local assessment of what can be done and planning to
achieve the best possible results aggressively.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
29
no transmission, a history of travel to an endemic area is a strong criterion for testing.
Examples of the information required on cases are given in Annex 7.
2.4.1.1 Passive case detection
Clinical malaria cases are usually initially identified by health workers in health facilities
or by community health workers in villages by PCD, as part of the routine diagnostic
and treatment services provided to the population. If the population has good access
to health care workers, PCD can result in early identification and treatment of cases
and reduce the risk for ongoing transmission.
Effective PCD services have become much more common and less costly since RDTs
and electronic data recording and transmission became available. The services can
be provided by health workers or volunteers in health facilities or in the community and
are a priority for all malaria programmes. PCD in areas in which elimination is being
undertaken should cover the entire population, including people living in remote areas,
to increase the probability that any case of illness that might be malaria will be rapidly
tested, treated and reported. Programmes should identify, by mapping or another
means, any communities in receptive areas that are far from public health facilities
and add additional health posts or community health workers to those locations to
extend the reach of the PCD network. Imported malaria cases can occur in non-
receptive areas and should also be correctly managed.
Confirmed cases should receive the full recommended treatment (including
radical treatment for P. vivax to clear persistent liver-stage parasites and single-
dose primaquine for P. falciparum to clear gametocytes) and be followed up at
recommended intervals to ensure complete cure. All confirmed cases must be
reported to health information systems (see Annex 7). It is advisable that both negative
and positive results be reported to demonstrate whether testing is sufficient in all at-
risk populations.
2.4.1.2 Active case detection
ACD requires extra effort to find malaria cases among people who do not present to
health facilities, for various reasons, including living in a remote area, populations such
as migrants and refugees who may not use or have access to routine health care and
asymptomatic infections. ACD can play an important role in elimination programmes
by detecting infected people who may risk transmitting malaria but are not detected
by PCD. As in PCD, all patients with confirmed malaria should receive the full
recommended treatment, be followed up to ensure that the infection is cleared and be
reported to health information systems.
If ACD is conducted because of limited or under-utilization of health care services,
it may comprise initial screening for symptoms, followed by appropriate laboratory
confirmation. In low-transmission settings or as part of a focus investigation, ACD
may consist of testing of a defined population group without prior symptom screening
(population-wide or mass testing) in order to identify asymptomatic infections.
ACD has limited benefit for P. vivax malaria, because liver-stage hypnozoites cannot
be detected with current testing methods. In subtropical areas (and, more markedly
in the past, in temperate climates), vivax malaria often has a seasonal pattern.
Intensified case detection could be a rational choice for ensuring detection of relapses
and delayed primary attacks during those seasons.

30
2.4.1.3 Reactive case detection
ACD may also be conducted in a targeted, reactive fashion after identification
(by either PCD or ACD) of a local or imported case. The rationale is that, at low
transmission intensity, malaria cases are highly aggregated; thus, where there is one,
there will be more. RCD is an important component of an elimination strategy at low
transmission intensity and is related to the concept of focus investigations. The type of
RCD is determined by how the case is identified, how wide the net is cast around the
index case and who is tested; the strategy chosen for a given area depends on local
epidemiology and the health system. Table 2 illustrates the roles of different types of
case detection.
TABLE 2.
Roles of different types of malaria case detection
TYPE OF CASE
DETECTION
WHERE MOST
APPLICABLE
HOW CASES ARE
IDENTIFIED
USEFULNESS
Passive case detection
(PCD)
Areas with good access
to and use of health care
services in either facilities
or the community
Testing of symptomatic
individuals seeking
treatment
Usually the easiest type
of case detection and
that best suited to higher
levels of transmission. PCD
is not sensitive enough
to be the only means of
detecting cases as areas
approach elimination,
but information from
PCD may be useful in
low-transmission settings
for identifying areas with
ongoing transmission.
Active case detection
(ACD)
• Areas or populations
with limited access to
health care
• Populations that under-
use health care services
(e.g. migrants and
other hard-to-reach
populations)
• “High-risk” settings such
as refugee camps
• Areas approaching
elimination
• For detection of
asymptomatic infections
One of two approaches,
depending on the context:
• Where there is limited
access to or under-use
of health care services,
ACD may include initial
screening for symptoms
and/or risk factors,
followed by testing.
• When the goal is
identification of all
infections, including
those that are
asymptomatic, ACD
involves testing all
individuals.
ACD may not be feasible
when transmission
intensity is high, but it
may be the only method
available for identifying
cases in areas or
populations for whom
health care services
are not available or are
under-used. As areas
approach elimination
and asymptomatic
infections are targeted,
ACD becomes increasingly
important. ACD can be
used to map transmission
in a focus or identify high-
risk groups.
Reactive case detection
(RCD)
After identification of a
local or imported case in
a receptive area where
transmission intensity is
low or assumed to be
interrupted
• Testing of family
members, neighbours
and community
members in a specified
radius, co-workers,
people in areas
recently visited by
the index case or
others as appropriate,
irrespective of
symptoms.
• May be initiated as a
component of a focus
investigation.
Not feasible at higher
transmission intensity but
is particularly important
as intensity decreases. The
most efficient, sensitive,
feasible radius for testing
around the index case
will depend on the
epidemiology and health
system.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
31
2.4.2 Parasitological diagnosis
Malaria infection is detected in symptomatic cases primarily in blood by RDTs or
microscopy.
• RDTs allow detection of parasite antigens, and some tests differentiate species. They
are easy to use in communities by both health workers and trained volunteers.
• Microscopy allows direct visualization of parasites, determination of species and
stages and quantification of the density of parasites. It requires well-trained staff
and laboratory support.
Therefore, RDTs should be available at all levels in health facilities and community
services, while quality-assured microscopy should be available in hospitals and
designated laboratories. RDTs should be available even at health facilities with good
laboratories, because they allow rapid diagnosis when laboratory personnel are
absent. RDTs and microscopy can be used to detect almost all symptomatic infections
and many but not all asymptomatic infections.9
More sensitive diagnostic methods, such as polymerase chain reaction and other
molecular techniques, are used to detect asymptomatic infections with very low
parasite densities. These tests may be useful in surveys for mapping submicroscopic
infections, but their value depends on the epidemiological significance of low-density
infections, which is not yet sufficiently defined. Currently, most molecular methods can
be performed only in laboratories with sophisticated equipment and skilled personnel;
they are not recommended for routine case management or surveillance.
Both RDTs and microscopy must be supported by a quality assurance programme.
More information on malaria diagnosis in low-transmission settings is given in
reference (26).
2.4.3 Treatment
Malaria treatment should follow national policies and WHO guidelines (8). Treatment
that fully clears malaria infection is required in the context of malaria elimination. Thus,
for cases due to P. vivax or P. ovale, in addition to clearance of the blood infection,
anti-relapse therapy (primaquine) is required to clear liver-stage parasites; and, for
all infections caused by P. falciparum, a gametocytocidal drug (primaquine) should be
administered in addition to treatment for the blood stage to reduce and eventually halt
transmission.
Treatment should be provided through all channels of service delivery: public facilities,
private facilities and community outreach. The optimal mix will depend on the country.
As transmission and malaria incidence are reduced, increased coverage and better
access to high-quality care should be ensured through all three channels.
2.4.3.1 The public health sector
All health institutions in the public sector should serve as diagnosis and treatment
centres for malaria. Free-of-charge malaria testing and treatment should be
9
RDTs may be less sensitive for detecting P. ovale and P. malariae than P. falciparum and P. vivax;
microscopy should be considered for detection of these infections when necessary.

32
encouraged in order to cover all population groups with malaria who contribute to
ongoing transmission, including illegal residents.
2.4.3.2 The private health sector
This sector comprises a wide range of health care providers: medical practitioners,
licensed pharmacies, unlicensed drug vendors, authorized services for the employees
of private companies and not-for-profit services, such as nongovernmental
organizations and faith-based organizations. Depending on national policies and
regulations, all may be involved in malaria diagnosis, treatment and surveillance.
Their engagement requires that the public sector invest in communication, training,
monitoring and, in many cases, provision of quality-assured diagnostics and
medicines. The not-for-profit private sector often provides high-quality services.
The informal private sector, however, may be a major source of irrational treatment,
substandard medicines and under- or no reporting of malaria cases. When elimination
targets are set, the informal private sector may require specific attention. Each country
should develop a strategy for determining the most appropriate role for various types
of private providers.
2.4.3.3 Community services
Many countries have well-established community case management services
that provide diagnosis, treatment and reporting of clinical cases of malaria free
of charge. Technically, community service providers are part of public services,
but the providers themselves are often volunteers, who depend on support from
health workers in peripheral health facilities, their community or nongovernmental
organizations. In some countries, community workers receive regular remuneration.
Because community services are often the best solution for people living in remote
areas, countries should consider how to ensure high-quality community outreach that
includes testing and treatment for malaria.
The quality of care relies on appropriate diagnosis, treatment and counselling
of patients and carers, applied with clear protocols and monitoring systems. The
administration of medicines under supervised treatment (sometimes referred to as
directly observed treatment, or DOT) may improve patient adherence to treatment
and allows close patient monitoring during treatment. Until more evidence is available,
programmes should apply the supervised treatment that is most appropriate to their
context.
Strategies and treatment guidelines for P. falciparum and P. vivax malaria are
described in Annex 2.
2.4.3.4 Detecting and treating asymptomatic infections
A complex set of factors and mechanisms, such as innate or acquired immune
response, a functioning spleen, genetic factors, including deficiency for
glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) and haemoglobinopathies, determine
the timing and extent of malaria symptoms after infection.
In general, in areas of high transmission, people usually experience repeated infections
from early in life and develop a significant degree of immunity with increasing age

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
33
and exposure. That is why, in such areas, the risk of clinical malaria and death tends
to be concentrated in younger children. Acquired immunity tends to limit parasite
replication but rarely leads to sterilizing immunity. As such, in areas with significant
levels of acquired immunity, a high proportion of the population can harbour parasites
in the absence of significant clinical manifestations. This same epidemiologic picture
applies to areas that have only recently reduced transmission as acquired immunity to
malaria can last for many years.
In contrast, in areas of very low transmission where the risk of infection throughout
life is low, few people develop any significant level of immunity. Those infected, even
at very low parasite densities, will exhibit clinical signs and symptoms. Therefore, the
proportion of the population infected in the absence of clinical manifestations would
tend to be very low.
While all malaria elimination programmes must provide timely diagnosis and
treatment for all malaria cases, they should consider the local transmission dynamics
and determine whether, when and where to seek and treat asymptomatic individuals,
who do not present to health facilities for care. Such an approach should be
considered only in the context of persistent transmission in spite of intensified vector
control and efficient surveillance systems.
If local malaria transmission persists despite intensive vector control and universally
good case management, the programme may consider undertaking special studies to
evaluate the distribution and frequency of infections in the asymptomatic population.
If the programme decides that all symptomatic and asymptomatic infections in an
active focus must be cleared, the work must be well planned and all efforts made
to reach the entire targeted population, including ill and apparently healthy people,
young and old. Special consideration should be given to the treatment of specific
populations (e.g. pregnant women, newborns, mobile populations).
The following points should be considered.
• Currently available point-of-care tests for malaria have little capacity to detect
low-density infections; thus, consideration should be given to treating the entire
population, regardless of test results and regardless of symptoms.
• All people should be treated with safe, effective anti-malarial medicines that will
clear all asexual stage parasites.
• For P. falciparum infections, treatment to clear sexual stage parasites
(gametocytes) should also be given. Currently available artemisinin-based
combination therapy (ACT) is effective against developing stages 1–4 gametocytes
but not the infectious stage 5 gametocytes, which require a gametocytocide
(i.e. single-dose primaquine at 0.25 mg/kg of body weight) (27),10
which can
prevent the transmission to mosquitoes of sexual stage parasites present in the
blood.
10
The recommendation includes the following: In low-transmission areas, give a single dose of 0.25 mg/
kg of body weight primaquine with an ACT to patients with P. falciparum malaria (except pregnant women,
infants aged < 6 months and women breastfeeding infants aged < 6 months) to reduce transmission. Testing
for G6PD deficiency is not required.

34
• For confirmed P. vivax (and the much less common P. ovale), treatment should include
both schizontocidal medicine and anti-relapse therapy to clear their dormant liver-
stage parasites (hypnozoites). Ideally, treatment should be administered only after
G6PD testing is performed; the appropriate dose and duration of primaquine can
then be selected (see Annex 2). Such treatment dramatically reduces the frequency of
relapses and their contribution to transmission.
2.5 Role of quality assurance and reference laboratories in
malaria elimination (28,29)
Quality assurance within national malaria control programmes and national malaria
reference laboratories ensures high-quality laboratory diagnosis and treatment of
malaria in a country.
2.5.1 Quality assurance (30)
As malaria programmes seek elimination, consistent quality of work is essential,
particularly for detecting, confirming, treating, tracking and reporting on malaria
cases. The core of this work is preparation of standard operating procedures and
training, including re-training and continuing education, and supervision, including
monitoring of performance. Various examples of guidance for ensuring the quality of
care in health service delivery are available on the WHO website (http://www.who.int/
management/quality/en/). Specific guidance for malaria programmes emphasizes
high-quality laboratory testing for malaria.
2.5.2 Malaria reference laboratories
Reference laboratories are essential for ensuring the quality of malaria services. They
are generally identified by the ministry of health and may be based in a research
institute, a medical school or a large hospital; they collaborate closely with the national
malaria elimination programme. A national reference laboratory should have the
necessary laboratory space, equipment, reagents and consumables and a sufficient
number of expert microscopists and should participate in international external quality
assessment programmes. WHO has established a programme for testing the proficiency
of national reference laboratories for several diseases, including malaria (31).
Examples of activities carried out by national reference laboratories include:
• developing and using guidelines for diagnostic policy, with supportive training,
accreditation and supervision;
• preparing standard operating procedures for testing, laboratory techniques and
equipment specifications, disseminating them to national or regional laboratory
networks and providing technical assistance for national use;
• overseeing internal and external quality assurance, including comparing the
sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of all tests used in the country and
evaluating diagnostics for all human malaria parasite species (Annex 2 shows
evaluations for P. falciparum and P. vivax infections);
• coordinating the servicing and maintenance of equipment in the laboratory
network;

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
35
• liaising with procurement agencies and tender boards to ensure that the
diagnostic equipment and reagents procured meet the recommended minimum
criteria and arrive on time;
• coordinating the referral of samples from district laboratories and providing
confirmatory testing and special testing services (e.g. molecular and serological
tests, expert microscopy); and
• establishing and standardizing information management protocols and practices
for collecting laboratory data in multiple information systems (i.e. DHIS2).
Reference laboratories could also participate in operational research or activities
such as assessing the diagnostic performance and utility of new tools and supporting
programmes in their introduction and dissemination.
2.6 Surveillance
This section describes the core elements of a surveillance system that will allow
countries to achieve malaria elimination. Surveillance of malaria infection in the
human population is the backbone of malaria elimination.11
Identifying where
transmission is occurring with increasing accuracy will permit targeted, effective
responses where they matter most. Steady improvements in the quality, timeliness and
use of surveillance information must begin early in malaria programmes to ensure that
elimination work is well directed and monitored. Ultimately, surveillance will become
part of the intervention, focused on case characterization, treatment and investigation
and on identification, management and clearance of transmission foci.
Malaria surveillance systems are described extensively in operational manuals on
malaria elimination (32) and malaria control (33) issued by WHO. Both manuals will be
revised in 2017; see the WHO GMP website for updated information.
2.6.1 Increasing sensitivity of surveillance systems for
elimination
In areas of high and moderate transmission intensity, aggregated data are usually
sent from level to level (health facility to district to province to national level), and most
analysis of distribution and trends is done at higher levels.
As case-loads are reduced and capacity is built, surveillance should include data on
individual cases, characterized and classified according to their most likely place of
origin. Cases should be geo-located to understand where transmission is occurring.
Staff at all levels should be trained to examine and evaluate surveillance data, on both
disease and operations, and to monitor programme progress, target interventions and
detect problems that require action.
The surveillance system must be sufficiently robust to capture all infections (probably
with increasing community outreach) as the number of cases falls and clinical
cases and asymptomatic infections are identified, and sufficiently sophisticated to
fully characterize each infection and direct local investigations and clearance of
transmission.
11
Monitoring of vectors and vector control is also important and is described in section 2.3.5; this section
addresses malaria infections in humans.

36
2.6.2 Surveillance as an intervention to eliminate malaria
Surveillance was recognized as an intervention for malaria eradication in and of itself
in the initial Global Malaria Eradication Programme. In elimination settings, malaria
surveillance comprises a set of responses that should allow (i) detection of all malaria
infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic) as early as possible; (ii) prevention of
onward transmission from each case through rapid, radical treatment and vector
control; and (iii) identification, investigation, classification and management of all
transmission foci with appropriate measures to terminate transmission as soon as
possible.
The key activities of elimination surveillance systems are:
• ensuring that an entire area (national or subnational) targeted for elimination is
covered, with particular attention to areas with on-going or recent transmission;
• quality-assured diagnostic testing;
• testing of all cases of suspected malaria, reporting of all confirmed cases,
investigation of all cases and foci and recording of all tests and investigations;
• case detection activities to:
o
o ensure rapid, complete treatment for parasite clearance in as many cases as
possible to minimize the time during which cases can infect vectors; and
o
o provide information to monitor the programme’s progress;
• following standard operating procedures for all components of surveillance and
monitoring compliance in real time; and
• participation of all health care providers treating malaria cases in the surveillance
system.
For malaria elimination programmes to use surveillance as an intervention, there are
certain requirements.
• There are sufficiently few cases and an adequate health staff to characterize,
classify and follow up each one; the manageable number is likely to be two or
three or fewer cases of confirmed malaria per health centre per week but will vary
by location and the available staff.
• Cases have become clustered such that it is possible to identify and characterize
discrete foci of transmission.
• The surveillance system covers cases detected by all health providers.
• Malaria is a notifiable disease by national legal requirements.
After interruption of transmission, surveillance for malaria may become part of the
broad responsibility of the general health services; however, it should be supported
by regular training and monitoring activities in a national programme to ensure
the surveillance of changes in receptivity and vulnerability. Compulsory, immediate
notification must be maintained.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
37
2.6.3 Case characterization, classification, follow-up and
response
Each parasitologically confirmed malaria case should be evaluated. A case
investigation form is completed for each confirmed malaria case (see example in
Annex 7), which includes characterization of the case: patient demographics, history
of the current illness, including diagnostic test results and treatment, as well as travel
history to assess how and where the infection might have been acquired and the
possibility of onward transmission.
After a case has been characterized, it should be classified as imported, introduced,
indigenous, relapsing, recrudescent or induced, according to the definitions given in
the Glossary (see also Fig. 8 in section 4). Correct epidemiological classification of
malaria cases is the basis for selecting appropriate measures and classifying foci
(see section 2.6.4).
Classification is based on the case characterization and understanding of the different
intervals in the life cycle of malaria parasites (see Table A1 in Annex 1). Especially for
cases detected by ACD, the final classification depends on data on previous cases
in the same locality and a focus investigation. If, for example, the case history is
compatible with both importation and local transmission, the presence or absence
of other locally acquired cases may determine the classification. Staff responsible
for case classification should be trained in classification and investigation during
field exercises and by reviewing case histories. After a case has been characterized,
the response should be based on the classification, although all cases should be
managed according to national treatment guidelines. Additional responses to address
transmission for the different classifications are described below.
2.6.3.1 Imported cases
An imported case is one that is acquired outside the area in which it was diagnosed.
In the elimination phase, the “area” should usually correspond to a focus. Recording
cases imported within the same country may be complicated, as a case may be
considered “imported” from a focus or district but “locally acquired” from a province.
One solution might be to report such cases as “indigenous” in the area in which
they were acquired and not as “imported” in the area in which they were detected.
Subsequently, an adequate response should be made to a case detected in a highly
receptive area where it could generate secondary cases. In reporting to WHO, only
cases imported from other countries should be considered “imported”.
The main concern with imported cases is spread in the local area. The household and
neighbouring households of a case should be alerted and asked to report any suspected
malaria illness. An investigation, with screening and/or testing of people in the case
household and possibly neighbouring households, could be undertaken to identify
additional infections. The finding of other cases (perhaps characterized as “introduced”)
suggests local transmission, and activities to stop transmission should be instituted;
evaluation of the vulnerability and receptivity of the area should be considered.
2.6.3.2 Local cases
Local cases can be introduced or indigenous. It may be difficult to distinguish
between these categories; however, this is not important in the early stages of malaria
elimination, because all such cases indicate the presence of recent local transmission.
The distinction becomes important during the interval just before certification of

38
malaria-free status, when the occurrence of some introduced cases (rigorously
validated) is not an impediment to certification (see section 5).
• An “introduced” case occurs at a biologically plausible spatial and temporal
distance from an observed imported case. As noted above, investigation of an
imported case may result in identification of cases that were probably introduced.
This indicates local transmission, and further activities to stop transmission should
be instituted, including evaluating vector control activities and ACD.
• An “indigenous” case is one that was probably derived from locally transmitted
cases, with no evidence that it was imported or linked directly to an imported
case. Such cases indicate ongoing local transmission, and further work to stop
transmission should be instituted (see above).
2.6.3.3 Relapsing or recrudescent cases
Such cases may be imported or locally acquired. A relapsing or recrudescent case that
was originally imported should be classified as an imported case.
• In elimination settings, a person infected locally before transmission was
interrupted could have a relapse or a late primary attack of P. vivax or P. ovale
malaria. A relapsing case requires radical cure according to national standards,
which usually includes an anti-malarial drug for the asexual stage (chloroquine or
ACT) and primaquine (after evaluation for G6PD deficiency) at a dose of
0.25–0.5 mg/kg body weight daily for 14 days (8). Further investigations can be
undertaken in the case household and neighbourhood, as for imported cases.
• A locally acquired malaria case may be detected after transmission has been
interrupted, because of long latency in the blood. Such cases have been described
for P. malariae and, exceptionally, for P. falciparum malaria. If careful investigation of
such a case provides strong evidence that it was indeed acquired locally by mosquito
infection before the presumed interruption of transmission, it may be classified as
“recrudescent”, and its occurrence should not preclude certification. Recrudescent
cases should be treated according to the national treatment guidelines.
2.6.3.4 Induced cases
A case the origin of which can be traced to a blood transfusion or other form of
parenteral inoculation of the parasite (see Glossary for full definition) is not due to
mosquito-borne transmission. It should be managed promptly. If there is a risk of
ongoing transmission in the area, surveillance staff and the case household and
neighbours should be alerted and asked to report any suspected malaria illness.
2.6.3.5 Other cases
Certain cases cannot be classified and should be reported separately. These include
cases of infection by an infective mosquito inadvertently imported by air or sea and
cases due to laboratory accidents.
Classification of cases as imported, locally acquired, relapsing, recrudescent or
induced is often difficult. Conservative classification (e.g. classification as indigenous
rather than introduced) is recommended, as it ensures that programmes are more
responsive. Classification of malaria cases is illustrated in Fig. 5.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
39
FIG. 5.
Classification of malaria cases
Parasitologically confirmed
malaria infection
Due to
mosquito-borne
transmission
Acquired
abroad or
outside area
Acquired
locally
Not due to mosquito-
borne transmission
Induced
e.g. due to
blood transfusion,
congenital malaria
Indigenous
All cases without
evidence of a direct link
to an imported case
Introduced
First-generation
local transmission;
epidemiologically linked
to proven imported case
Imported
2.6.4 Focus identification, characterization, classification and
follow-up
“Focus” is defined in the Glossary. It should be noted that a focus may not necessarily
have active transmission; foci can be identified only in receptive areas. As discussed
in section 2.2, foci are described and delimited in order to identify areas in which
appropriate interventions should be deployed or maintained. As described below, a
focus investigation is conducted to determine the response measures necessary to
eliminate or prevent re-establishment of transmission.
Relapsing
History of P. vivax
or P. ovale infection
within past 3 years;
no epidemiologically
linked cases in
vicinity
Recrudescent
Recurrence of asexual
parasitaemia of the same
genotype(s) that caused the
original illness, due to incomplete
clearance of asexual parasites
after antimalarial treatment

40
A focus may be identified in several ways. For example, the investigation of an
individual case may lead to the recognition of additional locally transmitted cases
around the case household, and further investigation shows that transmission is limited
to a geographically defined area. Active investigation of areas previously defined as
“at risk” may identify a transmission focus.
Once a focus has been identified, an investigation is launched to delimit and
characterize the area and the populations at risk, and a focus investigation form is
completed (see example in Annex 8). The investigation is more extensive for a new
focus, whereas detection of a new case in known active foci will trigger a new focus
investigation only if its features (e.g. parasite species or location) differ from those of
previously detected cases. The area to be covered is determined by an initial rapid
assessment based on the results of ACD and entomological and community social and
behavioural investigations. The focus investigation will then identify the main features
of the location, including populations at risk, location of actual or potential breeding
sites, likely vectors and, if possible, insecticide susceptibility and behaviour. The
findings may lead to modification of the initial mapping until a clear, stable picture
emerges.
A map should be prepared of the location of case households, geographical features
relevant for malaria transmission (e.g. water bodies, forests and altitude), other
habitations, health facilities and roads, as well as coverage of all interventions.
Although both paper and electronic maps can be used, the increased availability of
user-friendly software and geo-coded data favourizes electronic maps.
2.6.4.1 Practical aspects of focus investigation
Standard operating procedures should be used to determine the timing of initiation
and completion of focus investigations, including reporting and response. An initial
ACD survey, for example, should be completed within seven days of detection of the
focus.
Once the field investigation is completed, the team should be able to determine the
extent of and factors driving local transmission and to characterize the focus. The local
staff member responsible for malaria, in consultation with experts at higher levels, will
prepare a response plan according to the results of the investigation.
Copies of the completed case and focus investigation forms and the line-list of records
of all cases identified in the focus are sent to the national malaria programme and the
reporting health facility. The situation and response plan are communicated to local
health staff, community leaders, community volunteers and relevant local actors.
The district malaria focal point is responsible for ensuring that a register of foci is
established, all foci are investigated and reports on all foci are available and kept up
to date.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
41
2.6.4.2 Classification of foci
Once investigated, the focus may be classified into one of the three types listed in Table 3.12
TABLE 3.
Types of malaria foci with operational criteria
TYPE OF FOCUS DEFINITION OPERATIONAL CRITERIA
Active A focus with ongoing transmission Indigenous case(s) have been
detected within the current calendar
year.
Residual non-active Transmission interrupted recently
(1-3 years ago)
The last indigenous case(s) was
detected in the previous calendar
year or up to 3 years earlier.
Cleared A focus with no indigenous
transmission for more than 3 years
There has been no indigenous case
for more than 3 years, and only
imported or/and relapsing
or/and recrudescent or/and induced
cases may occur during the current
calendar year.
Foci should be recognized and their classification upgraded immediately after
detection of cases. Reclassification should be based on regular review, usually at the
end of the calendar year or of the transmission season.
A register of foci is maintained at district and national levels, which is updated with
new data on interventions and findings as they are accrued. Focus classification is
updated at the end of each calendar year or transmission season, depending on the
programme policy.
Residual non-active foci should remain non-active (no indigenous cases) for three
consecutive years before a programme applies for malaria elimination certification.13
2.6.4.3 Response measures
Response measures to active, residual non-active and cleared foci depend on several
principles.
• Vector control measures are assessed for their appropriateness, coverage and
use and increased according to the characteristics of malaria in the area, with
particular attention to its receptivity.
• PCD services are accessible to all members of the population throughout the year,
with supervision at defined intervals.
12
In a previous WHO document on malaria elimination (32), seven types of focus were identified; however,
experience has shown that these posed difficulties at local level and had minimal operational implications.
Here, we define three types of focus.
13
Identification of an introduced case (with no ongoing transmission) in a non-active foci does not preclude
certification.

42
FIG. 6.
Characterization, classification
and review of malaria foci
Active
focus
RECEPTIVE
AREA
Indigenous
case(s) detected
Indigenous
case(s) detected
Residual
non-active
focus
Cleared
focus
• For active foci, various options exist. First, high coverage of appropriate vector
control should be maintained. ACD (with screening and testing or with testing alone)
can be considered at appropriate intervals, especially just before or during the
transmission season. If testing is chosen and no cases have been found after several
rounds of ACD, the frequency of testing may be reduced or the strategy changed to
passive surveillance for suspected clinical cases that can be tested and managed as
necessary. In some circumstances, mass drug administration may be appropriate.
• For residual non-active foci, ACD may be considered at key times (e.g. the mid
and late transmission season), and people most likely to have malaria (e.g. those
with fever, migrant labourers, those not using prevention) are screened to identify
local cases, indicative of ongoing transmission. If several rounds of ACD reveal no
cases, the frequency may be reduced. If new introduced or indigenous cases are
identified, further evaluation is required to determine whether there is indigenous
transmission, which would require additional action (see Fig. 6).
• For cleared foci, the programme should rely on the surveillance system to rapidly
identify any cases of suspected malaria and determine whether local transmission
has resumed.
2.6.5 Special surveys
In many programmes, it may be necessary to triangulate case detection data with
information from other surveys. In the early stages, data from malaria indicator
surveys, demographic and health surveys and multiple indicator cluster surveys may
provide useful information on disease burden and intervention coverage. As the
prevalence of malaria decreases, such surveys play a smaller role in assessing the
burden of disease and infection.
The most important surveys or special assessments in the late stages of a programme
may be those on operational factors, such as coverage of key prevention interventions,
the quality and availability of diagnosis and understanding of how to identify
and manage a suspected case and how to investigate a confirmed case.14
Where
appropriate, population-level information on intervention coverage and use can be
collected during the process of case and/or foci investigation. Health facility surveys
may be used to investigate the quality of diagnosis and treatment of malaria.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
43
2.6.6 Data management, analysis, feedback and decision-making
In the final steps of elimination, clinicians and laboratories should consistently and
immediately notify the district team and national malaria programme of all confirmed
malaria cases by the fastest possible means and include basic demographic, clinical
and parasitological data. Case and focus investigation reports are controlled for
quality in the district and centrally, and direct feedback is sent to the person or team
that prepared the report.
Regular data (immediate, weekly, monthly) should be available at the local level for
evaluation and should be disseminated to districts or to intermediate level, the national
malaria programme and the national reference laboratory. As a country sets elimination
targets, a computerized geo-referenced database should be established that covers all
cases, including those seen outside the public health system. This database will support
programme management and can be used for in-depth analysis and response.
Repositories of all malaria reports, records of case detection, entomological monitoring
of vector behaviour and intervention quality and focus investigations, special surveys,
case registers and focus registers, should be maintained at district and central levels.
See the operational manual for disease surveillance for malaria elimination published by
WHO (32) (to be updated in 2017) and section 5 of this framework.
2.6.7 Monitoring drug efficacy
Up-to-date, good-quality data on the efficacy of the recommended malaria
treatment ensure that patients are cured and progress is made towards malaria
elimination. As countries progress to very low numbers of indigenous malaria
cases, monitoring of drug efficacy should be integrated into national malaria
case surveillance, replacing regular studies of therapeutic efficacy. Once efficacy
monitoring has been integrated into overall case surveillance, treatment should be
given to all patients (regardless of age and parasitaemia) under direct observation.
At a minimum, the patient should be assessed clinically and parasitologically daily for
the first three days and weekly thereafter (until day 28 or day 42 for ACT containing
a partner drug with a long half-life). Integration of surveillance of drug efficacy into
overall malaria case surveillance facilitates the collection of information on efficacy;
complementary information on molecular markers of drug resistance is also useful.
2.7 Accelerating activities towards elimination
Progression towards malaria-free status is continuous and not a set of independent stages.
Countries, subnational areas and communities are at different stages in malaria elimination;
their rate of progress depends on their level of investment, biological determinants (of the
affected population, the parasites and the vectors), environmental factors, the strength and
performance of the health system and social, demographic, political and economic realities.
Thus, the time that each country will take to reach elimination depends strongly on contextual
factors. Probably the two most important factors that can be acted upon are a political
decision to accelerate activities and ownership and the performance of the national health
system and its adaptability to new opportunities. If these two factors are in place, the time
a country takes to achieve elimination depends on effective universal health coverage with
the core malaria interventions (pillar 1 of the GTS) and an effective health management and
14
In some settings and in certain research projects, surveys have been conducted with highly sensitive diagnostic
tests or serology in certain at-risk populations to obtain complementary information on infection clearance.
Pending further evaluation, WHO does not currently recommend these approaches for evaluating elimination
but, instead, stresses the quality and the sensitivity of the surveillance system for finding and responding to cases.

44
information system that allows national malaria control programmes to direct resources,
identify gaps in coverage, detect outbreaks and assess the impact of interventions (pillar 3
of the GTS). It is through these approaches that countries such as Sri Lanka have achieved
elimination, and often accelerated it.
2.7.1 Population-wide medicine-based strategies
There are few additional WHO-endorsed strategies for accelerating a reduction
in transmission at population level. Population-wide medicine-based strategies to
eliminate parasite reservoirs within a short time are being explored. Currently, only
mass drug administration can be considered in a few, specific settings to accelerate
P. falciparum elimination. This strategy has several key components.
• It should achieve high coverage in the target population, be time limited, and be
used in the context of high-quality coverage of all other core malaria interventions
in the path to elimination.
• It should not replace the responsibility for achieving high coverage of all core
malaria interventions or resolve failures in implementation of those core
strategies.
• It should be directed to the entire population at risk in a given location.
• The drug used should have a very high safety profile. The reduction in transmission
is expected to be higher if the therapeutic levels of a medicine last longer;
therefore, clearance of existing parasites and a prophylactic period render people
insusceptible to new infections.
• The drug may be directed against asexual stages (e.g. ACT) or may also target the
sexual stage (e.g. low-dose primaquine).
Recent reviews of mass drug administration and MPAC recommendations on its use
are available (34,35).
2.7.2 Additional interventions to accelerate malaria elimination
Vector control (ITNs/LLINs and IRS) affects the biting rates and survival of vector
populations. Beyond ITNs/LLINs and IRS, many new strategies are being developed,
but, at present, none has proven wide applicability or the capacity to substantially
reduce malaria transmission. Certain vector control tools may be relevant in some
locations in which there is local understanding of vector transmission dynamics
(see section 2.3.2).
Acceleration of elimination of malaria will require strengthening of information and
surveillance systems and rapid adaptation for tracking the acceleration effort
(see section 2.6.2 for further information).
In the future, malaria vaccines may have a role in elimination if they specifically reduce
transmission. Issues in vaccine development are briefly described in section 6.
While other interventions may appear in the future, medicine-based parasite clearing
strategies given in combination with vector control, case management and effective
surveillance remain the only tested, proven tools available at this time.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
45
3. Management and planning
Eliminating malaria requires a well-trained workforce, engagement in multiple sectors,
strong community involvement and commitment at the highest levels of leadership. An
elimination programme is not an intensified version of the approach of “scaling up for
impact”. Deployment of interventions becomes more complex, and programmes must
increase their understanding of the biological, environmental and social determinants
of malaria transmission in order to plan and determine the best mix of interventions for
specific areas. Considerations for managing and planning an elimination programme
are listed in Box 5.
BOX 5.
Management and planning: key points
• Planning for elimination should begin with an assessment of the
epidemiological, operational, and financial situation of the malaria
programme.
• Several plans should be made: strategic, elimination, operational and
monitoring and evaluation.
• Strategic plans should be costed to inform and facilitate resource mobilization.
• Elimination programmes must constantly monitor critical metrics, regularly
validate and analyse the collected data and adjust programmes in response.
• Elimination programmes require strong management and structures that
encourage hiring, training and retention of staff with core skills and reliable
supply chains.
• Establishment of an independent national malaria elimination advisory
committee is recommended to provide an external view of progress and any
gaps.
• Elimination programmes benefit from a supportive enabling environment,
which can consist of political commitment from national leaders, the
enactment of necessary legislation, strategic partnerships across sectors and
community engagement.
3.1 Planning process
Planning for elimination should be linked with national and local planning. It should begin
with an assessment of the epidemiological, operational and financial situation of the
malaria programme, including what is currently working well and any gaps and challenges.
The epidemiological assessment addresses the current malaria situation and stratification
(see section 2.2), including trends over time and the tools that have most influenced them.
The assessment should also characterize the affected populations and seek to determine
the economic, social and behavioural dynamics that affect disease transmission. It should
also confirm and evaluate the effectiveness and cost–effectiveness of malaria control
interventions. The effectiveness of the programme can be evaluated in epidemiological
surveys and/or in studies of the efficacy of medicines or insecticides.

46
The purpose of an operational assessment is to identify gaps in programmes and
what should be strengthened to achieve the desired objectives within the given
timeframe. It includes structure, staffing and achievements as well as weaknesses that
might prevent achievement of the objectives.
The financial assessment should involve a costing of malaria programmes and a
review of the funding situation, both current and anticipated. It should include the total
budget of the current programme, whether funding is sufficient to implement current
operational and strategic plans, whether the available funding could be used more
efficiently and how sustained domestic funding could be secured and augmented as
required.
3.1.1 Strategic planning
Strategic planning is “owned” by the national malaria programme and supported by
stakeholders and partners. Strategic plans should be costed to inform and facilitate
resource mobilization. Although the aim of all programmes is ultimately to obtain
malaria-free status, the time-bound nature of a strategic plan may indicate a different
goal, such as reducing the prevalence of malaria below a certain threshold. Different
goals may be set for subnational regions with different contexts, such as a highly
endemic province or district or one in which malaria transmission is low.
Elimination plans should define the objectives to be achieved along the path to the
goal. The objectives may be epidemiological, operational or financial. For each
objective, the activities or actions required should then be included in an operational
plan, and indicators for assessing progress should be defined in a monitoring and
evaluation plan.
3.1.2 Operational planning
An operational plan is more detailed than a strategic plan, as it defines who will do
what, when and how. The operational plan should delineate all activities and sub-
activities to be implemented for each strategic programme component (e.g. vector
control), define their geographical scope, assign responsibilities for implementation
and set timelines and deadlines.
The documents that will be required are likely to include:
• standard operating procedures;
• a monitoring and evaluation plan, which defines indicators and targets for
measuring programme progress and the system used to collect and report them;
• national diagnosis and treatment guidelines;
• vector control guidelines and the insecticide resistance monitoring plan;
• a surveillance manual;
• the procurement and supply management plan, which defines the systems
and processes for procuring and supplying all commodities necessary for the
interventions; and
• a communications and advocacy plan.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
47
3.1.3 Resource mobilization
An elimination programme will require a short-term infusion of funding to intensify
activities and a commitment to longer-term funding to ensure continued surveillance
and control even after malaria has been eliminated, to prevent reintroduction and
resurgence.
An increase in the overall malaria budget may also be necessary to achieve
programme goals. All objectives in the strategic plan should be costed in detail to
inform the resource mobilization strategy, which should include both advocating for
increased domestic contributions and applying for external funds. Traditional and new
donors in the public and private sectors should be targeted, and innovative financing
mechanisms to expand the donor base should be explored. Domestic financing
may be more sustainable, especially as malaria transmission is reduced; this is
recommended where possible.
3.2 Informed decision-making
Decisions on programme policies, strategies, approaches, structures and priorities
must be based on the best available evidence to ensure maximum impact with the
available resources, improve the results that programmes can achieve and enhance
accountability. An elimination programme should monitor metrics constantly and
measure various components of programme performance, including input indicators
(e.g. the fraction of targeted households that received IRS, the number of ITNs/LLINs
purchased), intermediate indicators (e.g. impact of an intervention on vectors) and
outcome indicators (e.g. malaria incidence) to produce data for decision-making.
Processes should be set up to validate the collected data regularly, analyse it and
adjust programmes in response.
Leaders at all levels of the malaria programme should be empowered to collect and
analyse data regularly. Centrally, programme managers require information on overall
performance to track progress and report to their government and donors; they also
require measures of the availability of commodities to ensure timely distribution of
pharmaceutical products and avoid stock-outs. At provincial level, malaria managers
require analysis of intervention coverage in order to hold implementers accountable,
adjust strategies to cover underserved areas and evaluate the effectiveness of tools.
Individual health facilities should receive feedback on their testing and reporting rates
and how they compare with those elsewhere. All staff should be trained in recognizing
the importance of data, and the results of analyses should be shared with the people
who collected the data in order to demonstrate its value.
3.2.1 Monitoring and evaluation
As for control programmes, monitoring (systematic tracking of programme actions
over time, including budget allocations and adherence to standard operating
procedures) and evaluation (examining progress and its determinants) are essential
for measuring how well an elimination programme is operating over time and
whether it is achieving its milestones and goals. In the context of “scale-up for
impact”, monitoring and evaluation consist of evaluating the reduction in burden. As
transmission is reduced, however, monitoring and evaluation with strong surveillance
systems (see section 2.6.6) should consist of detecting infections and measuring
transmission dynamics (12). A detailed monitoring and evaluation plan should
include a manageable set of the most important indicators, determined according
to programme goals and interventions used. While the coverage indicators used in

48
control programmes remain useful, some will have to be adapted and new indicators
introduced. Some recommended indicators for elimination programmes are listed in
Annex 3. Planning of monitoring and evaluation should include the sources of data
that will be used to measure the indicators, how and when metrics will be reported
and how the programme will verify the accuracy of reported information and ensure
accountability for timely, complete reporting.
3.2.2 Data quality
Monitoring and evaluation can be compromised if poor-quality information is
provided for decision-making, thus preventing programme managers from seeing
programme strengths and weaknesses and reducing confidence in the data. The six
components of data quality are:
• validity: Do the data accurately reflect the intended measure?
• reliability: Are the data collected regularly, with the same method?
• integrity: Have the data been manipulated in some way, consciously or
unconsciously?
• precision: Are the measurements reproducible and free of excessive random error?
• timeliness: Are data collected and reported within appropriate time lapses? This
is especially important in elimination programmes, as reported data must be
analysed rapidly to assess trends over time and place, particularly as transmission
decreases and the distribution of cases of infection becomes increasingly focal.
• completeness: Are data missing?
Data quality can be maximized by ensuring strong, well-functioning information systems
that facilitate the collection and reporting of the required information by programme
staff. Procedures for reviewing data at all levels and performing regular audits of quality
should be specified. Technological solutions can be helpful; for example, reporting by
mobile phone can increase timeliness, while electronic data entry can minimize later
transcription errors and obviate the entry of contradictory information.
3.2.3 Data management
The data management system influences both the quality of the information collected
and the ease with which it can be analysed and used for decision-making. A high-
quality data management system facilitates entry of indicators by field workers,
improves quality by allowing data checks and validation, ensures rapid, faithful
transmission to central levels, allows cross-referencing and analysis of metrics from
various programme components and ensures feedback to all levels of the data
collection system to encourage participation and improve performance. As mentioned
in section 2.6.6, elimination programmes are advised to establish a computerized,
geo-referenced database that includes all cases.
The collection of data directly in electronic form, such as on mobile phones, tablets or
computers, tends to be more rapid and results in fewer errors than use of paper forms,
questionnaires or registries. Not all electronic systems are user-friendly, however,
and if electronic devices break, run out of power or are stolen, monitoring may break
down. The local context must be carefully considered in designing any system, and no
one system is suitable everywhere.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
49
Data entered into the system should be checked regularly, including for:
• completeness: Have all the required fields been filled, and have all staff and
facilities reported?
• consistency: Are contradictory results reported in different fields (e.g. a patient is
reported to have no travel history but the case is classified as imported), which call
the metric into question?
• plausibility: Are the values (e.g. patient age) within the expected range?
• duplication: Has each report been entered only once, and are reports referring to
the same individual or household properly linked?
When all data are stored locally rather than on a “cloud”, procedures should be
established for backing them up.
3.3 Programme structure and management
The structure of a malaria programme varies from country to country; however, all
programmes require a central structure to provide technical leadership, set policies
and guidelines, coordinate national training, communicate with donors and evaluate
overall progress. Regardless of the structure, accountability should be ensured at each
level. If milestones are not met, processes must exist for detecting and responding to
challenges and ensuring that similar problems do not occur again. If operations are
conducted by provincial programmes, a system should be in place to ensure that they
are aligned with the national strategy and well coordinated by the central leadership.
Health care systems can be strengthened; integration with existing systems, especially
at the community level and across multiple national and subnational regional levels
will be important in the structure and management of elimination (36,37).
3.3.1 Programme management
Programme management involves managing the people, processes and resources
that contribute to achievement of a strategic goal. Good management is necessary at
all levels of a health system and especially in an elimination programme, as operations
will have to be adjusted over time in response to changing circumstances. Anticipating
challenges before they arise, planning time to account for inevitable delays and strong
internal and external communication will be required.
3.3.2 Programme staffing
The achievement of goals requires a programme structure designed to support
execution of the operational plan, including clear understanding of roles and
responsibilities in the malaria programme. The staffing requirements for a malaria
programme are likely to vary according to context; nevertheless, a core set of staff
required in nearly every malaria programme can be considered:
• a programme manager or director: an experienced person to oversee the national
programme, with the authority and freedom to make decisions without political
interference;
• an epidemiologist: an expert in monitoring and evaluating patterns in malaria
prevalence and its causes and in assessing the effectiveness and cost–
effectiveness of interventions;

50
• an entomologist: an expert on the mosquito vectors of malaria, who can ensure
that the optimal interventions are being used and who can monitor the impact of
the interventions on vectors and their behaviour to ensure a continued impact;
• laboratory technicians: people with skills at various levels, according to the
national policies for diagnostic testing and its quality assurance;
• an expert in information systems: a person with thorough knowledge of
geographical information systems, who can set up a national platform for
mapping malaria cases, foci, population movement and other risk factors, and
identify operational progress and gaps;
• a data systems specialist: an expert in data systems who can ensure that information
from surveillance flows appropriately and is readily available to the programme;
• a communications specialist: an expert in health education and public relations
who can oversee outreach to communities and others;
• a logistician: an administrator who can oversee accounting, procurement,
transport and other systems;
• operational staff: depending on the interventions used, these may include IRS
spray personnel, surveillance officers, environmental health officers, sanitary
engineers, community health workers, net distribution teams, drug distribution
teams and district elimination coordinators; and
• health care workers: doctors, nurses and other health facility staff and, in countries
with problems of access to health care, community health workers.
Depending on the overall programme structure, some of these positions may be
duplicated at central, provincial and district levels.
3.3.3 Training and retaining staff
Targeted training and continuous mentoring and supervision will ensure that staff
understand their roles in the elimination programme and the importance of their
activities for success. Rather than train entire cadres of staff at routine intervals with
a standard curriculum, tailored training should be conducted in accordance with
the heterogeneity of malaria transmission intensity in the country or when guidelines
are changed. Between formal courses, routine supportive supervision and targeted
feedback can be effective for honing staff skills and empowering them to trust the
tools and systems they are using.
To ensure that experienced staff who are of great value to the programme are
retained, they should be paid sufficiently attractive salaries for their jobs, to motivate
them to continue. Retention programmes, including incentives and career promotions
to discourage attrition, should be considered. If staff are advised of the expected
tenure of the position before they are hired, they may be encouraged to stay with the
programme longer. Training many staff to perform important tasks and requiring
documentation of experience and lessons learnt will mitigate any transitions that occur.
3.4 Supply chain systems
Strong supply chain systems that allow reliable quantification, timely procurement and
appropriate storage and distribution of commodities for malaria interventions are
essential for malaria elimination. For case management, all points of care must have
proper stocks of diagnostic and treatment commodities; for ACD surveys, commodities

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
51
must be accurately quantified to ensure sufficient coverage of at-risk populations. In
all cases, stocks must be adequate to adjust for changing dynamics of transmission
and intervention coverage.
As the prevalence of malaria decreases, transmission becomes unstable, and countries
are at increasing risk for epidemics. Epidemic preparedness plans are therefore
necessary, with stockpiles of malaria commodities (diagnostic tests, anti-malarial
medicines and insecticides and equipment for IRS) for epidemic response.
Even countries in which malaria transmission is very low must maintain a minimal stock
of products at each level of the health care system, so that, if a case presents for care,
it can be appropriately treated. In a successful elimination programme, some stock
may never be used; however, expiration of unused medicines is the price to pay for
ensuring that the health system is prepared for an unexpected outbreak of malaria.
3.5 Independent national malaria elimination advisory
committee
It is recommended that an advisory committee be established to provide an
external view of progress and gaps in a malaria elimination programme. The
committee should be convened regularly to review epidemiological trends and
operational progress. It should be clearly independent from the national malaria
programme. It could comprise academics, health system experts, staff in other
disease control programmes and representation from non-health sectors.
Reports from the committee may be valuable documentation for eventual WHO
certification. It should also be responsible for supporting audits of data to validate
information and could play a role in verification of subnational elimination. Generic
terms of reference for an independent national malaria elimination advisory
committee are provided in Annex 10.
3.6 Creating an enabling environment
3.6.1 Political commitment
Leaders at the highest levels must make elimination a priority, especially as the
malaria burden falls and other public health issues compete for resources and
commitment. High-level political involvement is necessary to secure domestic funding,
to ensure flexibility in programme decision-making and to demonstrate that the
government is willing to do what it takes to ensure elimination and maintain it once
it has been achieved. For subnational elimination, engagement with local political
leaders is important. Verified malaria elimination should be of considerable interest
for a provincial governor or a state prime minister in view of the benefits for the
population and the health services, in addition to economic and political aspects.
3.6.2 Enact the necessary legislation and regulations
New legislation may be required to support elimination programmes in some contexts
and programme requirements. For example, programmes should ensure compulsory
notification of all confirmed cases of infection detected in both public and private
health care facilities. Additionally, strengthened regulatory systems may be required
for careful approval of products and tools and their use in the country; regulations can
increase the availability and clarity of information and indicate the training that will be
required for delivering the interventions (see also section 6.3).

52
3.6.3 Strategic partnerships across sectors
Malaria elimination is unlikely to be achieved only by the conventional health system:
many parts of government and society will have to work together. In addition, success
in one country depends on that of its neighbours: elimination is possible only with
regional coordination and collaboration.
Once partners are identified, the national malaria programme should act as the
central coordinator to ensure that there is no duplication of work and that the activities
of partners are fully aligned with the national strategic plan. In planning multi-year
and annual operations, the government should establish a common work plan with its
partners and integrate their activities and milestones into the action plan. The ministry
of health should meet all partners regularly to ensure that activities are aligned, do not
duplicate each other and support the national strategic plan.
3.6.3.1 Collaboration with other government sectors
Government partners that may be relevant for malaria elimination include the various
departments of the ministry of health, including the national laboratory and central
medical stores, and other ministries, such as those for education, the environment,
public works, statistics, finance, agriculture and defence. Further considerations on
collaborative responsibilities are discussed in a comprehensive review of disease
eradication (38).
3.6.3.2 Collaboration with the private sector
Many entities in the private sector have roles to play in the various facets of
elimination. The agricultural sector and extractive industries may rely on migrant
labourers, who are sometimes at high risk for infection with malaria parasites, and
agriculture, construction and mining may create breeding sites for certain mosquito
vectors. Partnership with these sectors will help ensure a healthy, productive
workforce. In some countries, the tourism industry has a strong incentive to invest in
anti-malarial activities.
Private health facilities like hospitals and private clinics provide much of malaria
treatment in many countries. If patients who receive malaria treatment in such
locations are not reported in surveillance systems, the programme may miss areas
of active or potential transmission. Finding ways to enforce notification and reporting
from the private health care sector will ensure good case management of those who
are treated and ensure complete coverage of surveillance.
3.6.4 Community engagement
Engaging the communities targeted for interventions is important for malaria
elimination. The required level of coverage, particularly as malaria prevalence is
reduced to very low levels, can be achieved and sustained only if communities are fully
supportive. If communities feel that they “own” programmes and are actively involved
in their implementation, activities will be easier to implement, and coverage targets
will be more likely to be reached.
Community members should play meaningful, active roles in project development and
decision-making. The objectives of community participation should include:

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
53
• encouraging appropriate health-seeking behaviour;
• strengthening community access to malaria testing, treatment and reporting;
• promoting acceptance and appropriate use of vector control tools;
• empowering communities to strengthen self-monitoring and decision-making
about malaria;
• building community and local political support for eliminating malaria; and
• increasing active community participation in elimination activities, including a
surveillance system linked to district and other systems up to national level.
Achieving these objectives may involve explaining the rationale of the strategies
and their benefits to the community, offering training to permit active participation,
explaining the indicators to be used to evaluate success and receiving feedback on the
results of interventions or strategies.
3.6.5 Health system effectiveness
Malaria elimination depends on a high-performing health system that can deliver
malaria interventions of good quality and coverage. Effective coverage depends not
only on access to the intervention but also on provider compliance, patient adherence
and individual benefit (39). Thus, a highly effective intervention (as determined
in controlled trials) can result in low overall programme effectiveness because of
suboptimal access to the intervention, inadequate programme targeting due to supply
shortages, incomplete provider compliance or poor patient adherence. Fig. 7 shows
an example of systematic decay of overall programme effectiveness even when the
individual components appear to be of acceptable quality. For elimination programmes
to succeed, health systems should be evaluated for their readiness to optimize novel
programmes, systems or other interventions and for their continuing performance in all
aspects (40).
FIG. 7.
Example of decay in overall programme effectiveness due to sequential imperfect delivery of
individual components
Efficacy
98%
x Access
x60%
x
Diagnostics
x95%
x Provider
compliance
x95%
x Patient
adherence
x70%
HEALTH
SYSTEM
FACTORS
Effectiveness
=37%

54
4. Prevention of
re-establishment of malaria
The consequences of importation of malaria to malaria-free countries or areas
are mainly clinical (uncomplicated to severe illness, death and disability) but also
epidemiological (potentially resulting in introduced and indigenous cases) and
economic (work days lost to the disease and costs of malaria control activities).
Means for preventing the re-establishment of malaria are summarized in Box 6.
BOX 6.
Prevention of the re-establishment of malaria: key points
• Re-establishment of transmission is defined as the occurrence of three or
more indigenous malaria cases of the same species per year in the same
focus for three consecutive years.
• After malaria has been eliminated, a programme for the prevention of re-
establishment should continue until malaria eradication, defined as complete
interruption of transmission of all forms of human malaria throughout the
world, is achieved.
• Preventing the re-establishment of malaria transmission requires proper
management of receptivity (the ability of an ecosystem to allow transmission
of malaria) and vulnerability (the probability of malaria parasite importation
into a country or area).
• In order to manage the risk for re-establishment of malaria transmission
effectively, a high-performing health system should be maintained to
ensure early detection, mandatory notification and prompt treatment of all
malaria cases; determination of the probable causes of re-establishment;
immediate action in the event that local malaria transmission is detected;
and measurement of the risk for malaria re-establishment by monitoring of
receptivity and vulnerability.
• Once malaria has been eliminated from a country or area, political and
financial commitment at national and subnational levels should be sustained.
• Once malaria elimination has been achieved, the malaria programme
should be integrated into public health programmes in order to maintain the
necessary technical expertise, even if the responsible staff no longer work
solely on malaria.
Countries or areas that have eliminated malaria should have a plan for preventing re-
establishment of transmission when indigenous malaria cases are no longer observed
but imported and introduced cases may continue to be reported. This is also important
for countries and areas that are aiming for or have achieved WHO certification or
subnational verification of malaria elimination, as described in section 5.
Fig. 8 depicts the differences between imported, introduced and indigenous cases and
the notion of re-establishment of transmission.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
55
≥3
cases
per
year
for
3
consecutive
years:
malaria
is
re-established
in
country
(or
area)
INTRODUCED
CASE
(F1)
1
st
generation
INDIGENOUS
CASE
(F2)
2
nd
generation
IMPORTED
CASE
IMPORTED
CASE LOCAL
CASES
FIG.
8.
Imported,
introduced
and
indigenous
cases
and
the
notion
of
re-establishment
of
transmission
This
figure
depicts
a
locality
within
a
malaria-free
area
or
country
in
which
malaria
is
diagnosed
in
an
individual
who
recently
travelled
to
a
malaria-endemic
area
or
country
(imported
case).
F1
and
F2
are,
respectively,
introduced
and
indigenous
cases
(both
by
local
transmission).
While
malaria
reintroduction
is
the
occurrence
of
introduced
cases
(cases
of
first-generation
[F1]
local
transmission,
epidemiologically
linked
to
a
confirmed
imported
case)
in
a
previously
malaria-free
country
or
area,
re-establishment
of
transmission
is
the
occurrence
of
three
or
more
indigenous
malaria
cases
of
the
same
species
per
year
in
the
same
focus
for
three
consecutive
years.

56
After malaria has been eliminated, prevention of re-establishment should continue
until malaria eradication is achieved. As achieving malaria elimination relies on strong
systems, it is expected that elimination will be durable or “sticky” (41).
4.1 Risks for re-establishment of malaria
Malaria elimination is more likely to be sustained where vectorial capacity is naturally
low or is decreased by improving socio-economic factors and in geographically isolated
areas with limited cross-border population movement and importation of parasites.
Therefore, preventing the re-establishment of malaria transmission relies on proper
management of receptivity and vulnerability. “Receptivity” is defined as the ability of an
ecosystem to allow transmission of malaria, while “vulnerability” refers to the probability
that malaria parasites will be imported into a country or area (see also section 2).
4.1.1 Measuring the risks
An indication of the receptivity of an area may be derived from the history of malaria,
in particular:
• the original endemicity, if data are available;
• the vectorial capacity before and after intensive vector control. In reality, there are
very few data on vectorial capacity anywhere, in the past or recently. Data on the
distribution and abundance of specific vectors and the entomological inoculation
rate may give some idea of vectorial capacity. In most areas, data on malaria
prevalence from cross-sectional surveys give an indication of the intensity of
transmission.
• environmental changes resulting from development, which may affect the vector
population; and
• the stability of or changes in health system responsiveness (e.g. to vector-borne
diseases).
Although past information can help in assessing receptivity, it may no longer be
relevant, so that vector surveillance is the basis for preventing re-establishment.
Receptivity to malaria transmission depends on the presence of local vectors and
environmental and climatic conditions favourable to malaria transmission. The major
determinants of receptivity, as observed in vector surveillance, are the abundance of
local vectors and their ecological requirements, their degree of anthropophily, the life
expectancy of the mosquitoes and the time required for parasite development in the
mosquito in the climatic conditions of the area.
An indication of the degree of vulnerability can be derived from traditional patterns of
travel and population flow in the area and also from unexpected patterns that result
from conflicts or a sudden influx of refugees or internally displaced people. These
can be determined by epidemiological investigation of cases and foci, surveys from
a department of immigration or tourism or from agencies that monitor refugees and
internally displaced people. Malaria is imported by the arrival in a country or area of
people infected with malaria parasites. This has become common in recent decades
as a result of easier, more frequent international travel and increasing flows of
immigrants and refugees. Malaria can also be imported when malaria parasites are
brought into an area by mosquitoes that either fly across the border or are passively

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
57
transported, usually in aircraft or ships. Information on factors that can change
vulnerability, such as the number of people arriving, travel history, categories of
people arriving, local destination and length of stay, can be communicated promptly
by mobile phone.
The combined effect of receptivity and vulnerability, and thus the risk for re-
establishment of malaria transmission in a country, depends on ecological, climatic,
socio-demographic, epidemiological, entomological, health system and other factors.
Assessment of the risk, of its components and of the relations among them forms the
basis for strategic and practical plans to prevent malaria re-establishment in the
country. A detailed analysis of risk factors throughout the country could be used as the
basis for stratifying the country, and designing surveillance activities appropriate for
each stratum.
Receptivity and vulnerability are poorly or not correlated. Receptivity determines the
possible onward transmission of malaria in a country after elimination of the disease,
whereas vulnerability determines the risk for introduction of malaria parasites into
a country or area in which they are not present. Juxtaposition of the two factors,
however, makes it possible to identify where there is a risk for re-establishment of
transmission and to simulate scenarios. If the value of one factor is 0, the possibility of
malaria re-establishment is null even when the value of the other is high.
In order to maintain the malaria-free status of an area or country, the health system
and the malaria programme should retain the ability to undertake one or more of the
following activities:
• early detection, mandatory notification and prompt treatment of all malaria cases;
• determination of the probable causes of re-establishment of malaria transmission;
• immediate action in the event of detection of local malaria transmission; and
• determination of the risk for malaria re-establishment by regular monitoring of the
receptivity and vulnerability of the area.
Maintaining capability requires funding, adequate human resources and sustained
commitment at the highest level of the ministry of health.
4.1.2 Managing the risks
The programme should set detailed goals and use appropriate activities to assess the
local situation and the corresponding receptivity and vulnerability.
4.1.2.1 Reducing and mitigating receptivity
The suitability, effectiveness and quality of vector control activities should be
determined from an entomological surveillance system that operates throughout the
country to monitor populations of adult Anopheles mosquitoes (see also section 2)
and changes in transmission risks. Vector larval sites should also be monitored, with
estimates of the abundance of larval habitats and the density of larvae and adult
mosquitoes (both indoors and outdoors), insecticide resistance and meteorological
indicators such as the average daily temperature and rainfall. Entomological
assessments should be a priority in vulnerable areas where the receptivity is not clear,
to determine whether pre-emptive vector control is needed and, if so, the strategies to

58
be used either pre-emptively or reactively. To reduce receptivity, vector control should
be maintained and adapted to local environmental conditions and vector behaviour.
It should be coordinated with other programmes, local authorities and relevant
services in neighbouring countries in order to reduce transmission and protect the local
population on both sides of the border. Vector control should be targeted to high-risk
foci, including the last ones to be cleared before elimination.
Depending on the vector, environmental management can reduce the oviposition sites
of Anopheles mosquitoes and reduce malaria transmission by reducing the number and
availability of larval habitats or rendering them less attractive to gravid anophelines.
In malaria-free receptive areas, individual and collective methods for protecting the
population should be promoted.
4.1.2.2 Reducing and mitigating vulnerability
In malaria-free countries or areas, malaria awareness should be maintained in the
local population by various educational programmes or campaigns. Opportunities to
include messages about malaria into communications in other vector-borne disease
programmes or campaigns should be considered.
To limit the consequences of malaria importation, immigrants, travellers and other
groups arriving from malaria-endemic areas should benefit from early detection,
quality-assured diagnosis, effective treatment and follow-up, with detailed
epidemiological investigation of malaria cases. People with malaria who are planning
to stay for some time or live in area with high receptivity may be provided with
preventive measures such as ITNs/LLINs.
Migrant workers and travellers exposed to malaria may receive diagnostic testing
and treatment of symptoms at health centres, ideally free of charge. Likewise,
prophylaxis should be distributed for free to local people travelling to endemic places,
or, at the least, they should be informed of malaria prevention measures. At points of
entry, immigrants from malaria-endemic countries or areas should be given printed
materials on malaria, including information about what to do in case of suspected
malaria.
4.2 Maintaining a strong health system
To manage the risk for re-establishment of malaria transmission effectively, a high-
performing health system should be maintained, to:
• provide free diagnosis and treatment of malaria, with quality-assured microscopy
and RDTs, in public health facilities;
• ensure that all suspected and confirmed malaria cases, whether treated in the
public or the private sector, are notified;
• use a standard electronic form for early, mandatory notification to the ministry of
health of all confirmed malaria cases in the public and private health sectors;
• investigate all confirmed cases and foci epidemiologically and entomologically; and
• establish an effective system for early detection of and response to malaria
epidemics.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
59
Once malaria has been eliminated from a country or area, the challenges
are sustaining effective case management in order to maintain zero malaria
deaths and ensuring continuous political and financial commitment at all
national levels. These are prerequisites for adequate allocation of funds to
the malaria programme to ensure continuing activities, including diagnostic,
treatment and surveillance capacity. Funding will also ensure that the supply
chain is fully operational and malaria commodities are available at all times,
with proper management of safety stocks of essential medicines for diseases
that occur at low incidence.
4.3 Integrating malaria activities into general health
services
Once malaria elimination has been achieved, maintaining the necessary
technical expertise to prevent re-establishment of transmission may
be challenging. Programmes should consider integrating the malaria
programme into public health programmes (see above and references in
section 3); in such a transition, however, it is essential that expertise and
functions remain operational, even if the responsible staff no longer work
solely on malaria.
If a very low prevalence of malaria persists, most of the functions of what
was previously a dedicated malaria programme will probably be integrated
into the broader health system. Malaria will remain a notifiable disease
in health reporting systems, and special studies should be integrated into
the investigation systems for other emerging and epidemic vector-borne
diseases. It will be important to maintain national expertise, coordinating
function and capacity to react to reported malaria cases and to maintain
skills in fields such as laboratory science, epidemiology, vector biology and
control and informatics.
At the peripheral level, if possible, a staff member of the ministry of health
with expertise in surveillance and response should be appointed as a
malaria focal point. Staff who have expertise in malaria should be kept in
the health system, their positions being moved to other departments. In
order to keep staff motivated, all workers should be assured that elimination
will not result in them losing their job.
Once elimination has been achieved, the central functions that must be
maintained are limiting the consequences of malaria importation, with early
detection, quality-assured diagnosis, effective treatment, epidemiological
investigation of cases and foci and coordination of responses to prevent
indigenous cases. A central reference laboratory with expertise in malaria
diagnostics, including blood slide reading, should be maintained.

60
5. Certification and
verification of malaria
elimination
This section presents the prerequisites and process for WHO certification of national
malaria elimination; it also describes the new concept of verifying subnational malaria
elimination, a country-owned, step-wise process for documenting elimination of local
transmission of malaria in a province, region, island or other subnational area. The
latter undertaking is an option for large countries that have achieved interruption
of local transmission in certain states, regions or provinces and will contribute to the
detailed documentation required for WHO certification of national malaria elimination.
Key points in the certification and verification of malaria elimination are listed in Box 7.
BOX 7.
Certification and verification of malaria elimination
• WHO certification of malaria elimination requires proof that:
o
o local malaria transmission by Anopheles mosquitoes has been fully
interrupted, resulting in zero incidence of indigenous cases for at least the
past three consecutive years, and
o
o an adequate surveillance and response system for preventing re-
establishment of indigenous transmission is fully functional (in particular
the curative and preventive services and the epidemiological service)
throughout the territory of the country.
• Certification of malaria elimination involves:
o
o preparation by the requesting country of a national elimination report with
supporting documentation;
o
o evaluation by an independent WHO Malaria Elimination Certification Panel
(MECP) of the national elimination report and documentation, and
o
o submission by the MECP of a final report and recommendation to
the WHO MPAC, which sends a summary report to the WHO GMP for
submission to the WHO Director-General.
• Subnational verification of malaria elimination is an option for large countries that
have achieved interruption of local transmission in certain parts of the country. This
can be useful for countries with geographically isolated territories, such as islands.
• Documentation of elimination of local malaria transmission at subnational
level will be “owned” and managed only by the national health authorities of
the country concerned.
• Subnational targets for eliminating transmission are important internal milestones,
which can enhance public and political goodwill and attract additional
government and donor funding for national malaria elimination and certification.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
61
15
P. knowlesi and other zoonotic parasites are not currently included among human malaria species, even
though they can cause serious human disease. The list of species that should be excluded in order to obtain
certification should be re-evaluated when there is proof of human-to-mosquito-to-human transmission of
the zoonosis.
Once elimination status is obtained, post-certification activities include annual
reporting of cases to WHO and demonstration of continuous surveillance and response
to imported cases.
5.1 WHO certification of malaria elimination – general
WHO certification of malaria elimination is official recognition of the elimination
for all four human malaria parasite species (P. vivax, P. falciparum, P. malariae
and P. ovale)15
in the country as a whole. This achievement is of great importance
for the international community and even more for the country concerned, as the
political, social and economic impacts on sectors such as tourism and business are
considerable. It is nevertheless the prerogative of national governments to decide to
request certification of malaria elimination.
5.2 WHO certification of malaria elimination – procedure
The burden of proof of malaria-free status falls on the national authorities that are
requesting WHO certification through their minister of health. The steps in certification
of malaria elimination, managed by the WHO GMP applying standard operating
procedures, are summarized in Box 8.
BOX 8.
New steps in certification of malaria elimination
1. The country, after reporting zero indigenous malaria cases for at least the
past three years through a sensitive and robust national surveillance system,
can submit an official request for certification to the WHO Director-General
through the WHO Regional Director. The country should contact WHO about
certification only when it believes it has eliminated mosquito transmission of all
human malaria parasites within its borders.
2. The country, in consultation with the corresponding WHO regional office and
the GMP, formulates a plan of action and timeline for the certification process.
This takes place during an initial WHO assessment mission.
3. The country finalizes the required national elimination report and submits it to WHO.
4. A team of the independent Malaria Elimination Certification Panel (MECP),
established by WHO, i) reviews the national elimination report and other key
documents indicated in Annex 5, ii) conducts field visits to verify its findings,
and iii) develops a final evaluation report.
5. The final evaluation report is reviewed and finalized by the MECP and
submitted to the WHO MPAC with a recommendation to certify malaria
elimination or to postpone certification with details on the extra evidence
required to demonstrate that malaria elimination has been achieved.
6. The WHO MPAC makes a final recommendation on granting malaria-free
status and provides a summary of the final evaluation report to the WHO GMP
for subsequent submission to the WHO Director-General.
7. The WHO Director-General makes the final decision and officially informs the
national government.

62
8. When granted, WHO publishes the certification in the Weekly epidemiological
record, International travel and health and the World malaria report and
the country is listed in the official WHO Register of areas where malaria
elimination has been achieved.
9. The country continues its efforts to prevent the re-establishment of malaria
transmission and reports annually to WHO in order to maintain its malaria-
free status.
5.2.1 National elimination report
The country requesting certification provides proof of the absence of mosquito-borne
malaria transmission and its ability to detect and respond to any malaria case in a
national report. The report is a comprehensive summary of national documentation (for
a detailed outline, see Annex 6), including the existence of an adequate surveillance
system and a complete history of national malaria epidemiology and of the programme.
It provides evidence that human malaria transmission has been interrupted in the
country, indicates that the country has met the prerequisites for certification (see below)
and includes a description of how the country plans to maintain its malaria-free status.
The national report should be provided to WHO preferably in English or French; it may
be provided in one of the other four official WHO languages.
The country also submits the database for the national elimination report, which includes:
• a national malaria case register, with individual case and focus investigation
forms (see Annexes 7 and 8), for at least the previous five years, showing that no
indigenous malaria infections were detected in the country during at least the past
three years;
• annual malaria surveillance reports covering the previous 10 years;
• full information about active malaria foci in the five years before the last
indigenous case;
• reports of quality assurance of diagnoses; and
• the existence of a central repository of information on entomological surveillance
and application of selected vector control interventions in the five years before the
last indigenous case.
5.2.2 Activities of the Malaria Elimination Certification Panel
WHO arranges for members of the MECP to review the national report and other
relevant documentation and then to visit the country (the number of people is
determined by the size of country) to gather any additional information required (see
Annex 4 for terms of reference, rules and composition of the MECP).
Members of the panel evaluate whether the following prerequisites have been
satisfactorily fulfilled:
• a malaria surveillance system of high quality covering all the geographical areas
of the country;
• evidence of no indigenous malaria cases for the past three years (based on
comprehensive case investigation forms);

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
63
• an adequate system for early detection and effective treatment of malaria
cases and for subsequent clinical and epidemiological monitoring, supported by
continuing education on malaria for health workers, including in the private sector;
• laboratory services that provide prompt, quality-assured parasitological diagnosis of
malaria throughout the country, including the most remote and inaccessible areas;
• prompt, thorough epidemiological investigation and classification of every malaria
case and focus;
• immediate mandatory notification of all malaria cases by public and private
health services;
• a central computerized database of malaria cases and foci, with a geographical
information system for mapping, and a national register of cases; and
• a comprehensive national plan of action with continuing political and financial
support for activities to prevent re-establishment of local transmission.
Special studies (for instance, molecular epidemiological studies by polymerase chain
reaction techniques to map the distribution of sub-microscopic infections) may provide
additional proof that malaria transmission has been interrupted.
The prerequisites for preventing re-establishment of malaria transmission are:
• an adequate system for early recognition and rapid response to malaria epidemics;
• inter-country information-sharing and functional border coordination, where relevant;
• an efficient malaria surveillance system (which may be integrated into systems for
other communicable diseases);
• effective mechanisms for cooperation among all ministries and agencies involved
in malaria prevention;
• a high-quality system for entomological surveillance, including monitoring
of resistance of malaria vectors to insecticides, especially in areas with high
receptivity; and
• services to raise awareness and provide practical advice on prevention and
early detection of imported malaria (for nationals travelling to or returning from
malaria-endemic countries).
During the field visit, MECP members review the quality and completeness of the
database. The data are cross-checked against the information provided in the
national elimination report. Attention is paid to the classification of individual cases
and foci. MECP members pay particular attention to:
• coverage of populations by health services that provide access to malaria
diagnosis and treatment, especially in former transmission foci and other
entomologically receptive areas;
• the possible presence, in areas at risk for malaria, of treatment sites that do not
always report cases to the surveillance system, including private pharmacies,
private medical practitioners, drug vendors, public and private hospitals that
were not included in the malaria surveillance system, military health services and
services in neighbouring countries;

64
• documentation of surveillance at intermediate and primary levels, including case
and focus registers, entomological surveillance reports and mapping of breeding
sites in receptive foci;
• validation of surveillance reports against health facility records and anti-malarial
drug supply figures;
• surveillance of populations at risk for malaria in time and space, based on a
matrix showing the sizes of the smallest population units and the number of
diagnostic tests (blood slides and/or RDTs) conducted in each of the units by
month during the transmission season;
• the existence and performance of or requirement for special measures to ensure
coverage of mobile populations, including temporary workers, illegal immigrants
and refugees, whose presence and distribution in an administrative unit is variable
or uncertain and who may not habitually use established health services;
• standard operating procedures for quality-assured diagnostic methods (RDTs and
microscopy); an internationally certified, designated national central reference
laboratory; and a national quality assurance system for malaria diagnosis reports;
• the timeliness of diagnosis and treatment specifically for malaria; and
• the timeliness of notification, epidemiological investigation of cases and foci and
reporting.
MECP members also assess whether the systems and activities of the national
programme can be considered adequate to monitor the potential for re-establishment
of malaria into the country, to identify the areas that are receptive to resumption of
transmission, to identify areas that are likely to become receptive, to identify areas
vulnerable to parasitic importation and capture changes in vulnerability, and to take
adequate measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission.
5.2.2.1 Report from the Malaria Elimination Certification Panel
MECP members prepare a comprehensive report of their findings and
recommendations, to answer two fundamental questions.
• Is it proven beyond reasonable doubt that mosquito-borne local malaria
transmission has been fully interrupted in the country, resulting in zero incidence of
indigenous cases for at least the past three consecutive years, and, if so, on what
evidence is this based?
• Can it be stated with full confidence that the national health system, as it is, will be
able to prevent re-establishment of malaria transmission in the country, and, if so,
on what evidence is this claim based?
5.2.2.2 Granting malaria-free status
The report is reviewed by all MECP members. The country will be asked to clarify
any technical issues or respond to questions. After any further clarification or
supplementary information, the MECP submits its final evaluation report to the WHO
MPAC with a recommendation to certify malaria elimination or to postpone it.
The WHO MPAC makes a final recommendation on granting malaria-free status
in a summary report to the GMP which, in turn, informs the WHO Director-General,
who makes the final decision and communicates it in an official letter to the national

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
65
government. When malaria-free status is granted, the WHO publishes the information
in the Weekly epidemiological record, International travel and health and the World
malaria report. In addition, the country is listed in the official WHO Register of areas
where malaria elimination has been achieved, which was established at the request
of Member States. As the Register is restricted to countries and territories that have
eliminated malaria by specific measures, a supplementary list was opened in 1963 for
areas in which malaria never existed or disappeared without specific measures (42).
5.3 Follow-up of WHO certification
Certification confirms to the international community that an entire country has an
adequate system for preventing re-establishment of local malaria transmission. It also
demonstrates an accomplishment made possible by the necessary political will and
vision, the required legislative and regulatory framework, adequate financial and
administrative resources, personnel and technological capacity.
Reliable information on the global distribution of malaria is necessary to assess the
risk of international travellers for exposure to malaria and the epidemiological risk
of importation of malaria parasites into malaria-free areas that are receptive to
transmission. Therefore, certified countries should continue to report to WHO annually
on maintenance of their malaria-free status, providing information on reported
malaria cases and their classification (for more information, see Annex 9).
A minimum indication of possible transmission re-establishment would be the
occurrence of three or more indigenous malaria infections of the same species per
year in the same focus for three consecutive years. Because certification represents
recognition of a considerable operational achievement, a careful national investigation
and consultation with WHO will be conducted before a country’s malaria-free
certification status is lost. As of November 2016, no certification had been withdrawn.
5.4 Subnational verification of malaria elimination
Subnational verification of malaria elimination is an option for large countries that
have achieved interruption of local transmission in certain parts of their territory
(states, regions or provinces). This option may be useful for countries that have
geographically isolated territories, such as islands.
The documentation of elimination of local malaria transmission at subnational level
should be as rigorous as that at national level but is managed only by the national
health authorities of the country concerned. The outline of the subnational elimination
report should be aligned with that of the national elimination report reviewed by WHO
during certification.
5.4.1 General principles for interested countries
Use of the term “subnational certification” of malaria elimination should be avoided
and the term “subnational verification” be used instead. Subnational verification is led
by countries, which assess malaria elimination in subnational areas at their discretion.
WHO can provide technical assistance to Member States, as for other aspects of malaria
control and elimination. In particular, WHO can provide advice on the approach to be
used; however, WHO does not have the resources to participate in verification in all

66
countries. The processes and criteria for subnational verification should follow the WHO
national certification scheme, as this will result in collection of essential information
and establishment of the systems and structures required for certification of national
elimination. Thus, the criteria and assessment procedures used in WHO certification of
national malaria elimination are valid for subnational verification.
A clear distinction must be made between the role of national authorities, who verify,
and that of local authorities in subnational areas, who are the objects of verification.
5.4.2 Suggested process for interested countries
Subnational verification of elimination of malaria transmission should be subjected
to official regulations and/or administrative orders. A higher-level, experienced,
independent national malaria elimination advisory committee should be established
to monitor and verify the work of the national programme and help document it,
including by publishing experiences and subnational verification milestones in the
peer-reviewed literature. The advisory committee has a national political role in
advocating for continuing work until the disease is eliminated.
It is recommended that subnational evaluations be conducted by independent
national evaluation teams, including external international experts if possible, in order
to increase their validity and credibility. The evaluation should include a review of
documents on the malaria situation and the activities of the candidate administrative
area, including validation of the absence of locally transmitted cases, resulting in zero
incidence of indigenous cases for a statutory period (at least three consecutive years),
related information and reports of field visits.
The criteria to be met to be confident that local malaria transmission has been
interrupted in a given area should be defined in official regulations and should
replicate WHO’s criteria for national elimination as closely as possible.
The status of subnational verification of malaria elimination should be rescinded by
national authorities if local transmission is re-established, i.e. the occurrence of three
or more indigenous malaria cases of the same species linked in space and time, due
to local mosquito-borne transmission in the same geographical focus in the same year
for three or more years.
A central database on verification of subnational malaria elimination, with evaluation
reports, should be created and maintained. High-quality surveillance and response
should be sustained and remain efficient in the areas concerned until national
certification is achieved.
Countries are encouraged to report annually to WHO on subnational verification
of transmission elimination, so that this information can be included in the WHO
International travel and health and the World malaria report.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
67
6. Innovation and research
for malaria elimination
Investment in basic science and product development must be sustained to create new
tools and strategies for malaria elimination and its eventual global eradication. The
operational feasibility, safety and cost-effectiveness of new tools and strategies should
be evaluated by context-adapted operational research as a basis for reliable policy
recommendations by national policy-makers and WHO. Efficient national regulatory
processes (approval and registration) can substantially accelerate the introduction of
new medicines, diagnostics, vector control tools and vaccines. Countries are therefore
encouraged to:
• advocate for and/or contribute to continuous funding for basic science and
product development;
• be actively involved in operational research to generate a reliable evidence base
for policy recommendations and strategic planning; and
• streamline national and regional regulatory processes to avoid unnecessary delay
in the uptake of new, high-quality tools and evidence-based strategies and ensure
their safe use.
Key points related to innovation and research for malaria elimination are summarized
in Box 9.
BOX 9.
Innovation and research for malaria elimination
• The research agenda for malaria elimination and eradication has been
defined by consultative groups within the Malaria Eradication Research
Agenda.
• Substantial research and development are currently under way on new
medicines, diagnostics, vector control tools and vaccines for use against
malaria.
• Country-driven operational research is essential for evaluating the operational
feasibility, safety and cost-effectiveness of potential wide-scale use of new
tools and strategies.
• To ensure efficient regulatory review of new tools and technologies,
malaria elimination programmes should proactively evaluate the product
development pipeline and define pathways for regulatory approval and
registration, in close collaboration with the relevant regulatory authorities.

68
6.1 Research and development for malaria elimination and
eradication
The research agenda for malaria elimination and eradication defined by consultative
groups to the Malaria Eradication Research Agenda is available (12), and an up-to date
overview of the product development pipeline for medicines, diagnostics, vector control
methods and vaccines can be found on the WHO Global Observatory on Health RD at
http://www.who.int/research-observatory/analyses/en/ (see malaria section).
6.1.1 Medicines
Substantial work is under way on new medicines to counter the resistance of vectors,
to safely target hypnozoites (radical cure), to clear gametocytes and to prevent
reinfection (prophylaxis). New formulations are being tested to increase patient
adherence and to facilitate mass drug administration with a “single encounter radical
cure and prophylactic” drug combination.
6.1.2 Diagnostics
Researchers are working on new assays for use at points of care to improve the
sensitivity of diagnoses of both P. falciparum and P. vivax malaria and for quantitative
measurement of G6PD deficiency. New assays are also being developed specifically
for detecting gametocytes, identifying past infections (or the absence thereof)
with serological markers, detecting resistant parasites with resistance markers and
analysing parasite “connectivity” or importation by genetic “bar-coding”.
6.1.3 Vector control
Current research and development are focused on new active ingredients for bednets
and IRS that will overcome and prevent resistance to insecticides. New tools for
residual (outdoor) transmission are being developed and field-tested. In collaboration
with other mosquito-borne disease control programmes (e.g. for dengue and Zika
virus disease), genetic modification of the mosquito population is being explored.
6.1.4 Vaccines
Research is under way to improve the efficacy and duration of the RTS,S vaccine and
to develop a transmission blocking vaccine or new anti-infection vaccines. The results
will further define the approach to vaccine use in elimination. More information can be
found at http://www.malariavaccine.org/.
6.2 Operational research
National operational research is essential for evaluating the operational feasibility, safety
and cost–effectiveness of potential wide-scale use of new tools and strategies. It will also
be useful for evaluating specific aspects of the country’s elimination strategy and exploring
potential use of novel tools and approaches that are not formally recommended by WHO.
6.2.1 Operational feasibility
General recommendations often do not account for operational challenges in all
contexts. For example, case investigation and reactive case detection around an

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
69
index case might be easy in settings with a very low case-load and a highly clustered
population but more difficult in higher transmission foci with a scattered population
distribution. Evaluation of operational feasibility in a few pilot areas before wide-scale
implementation can indicate the appropriate strategies for the introduction and long-
term sustainable use of interventions.
6.2.2 Safety
While certain tools might have been approved and recommended by stringent
regulatory authorities, evaluation of their safety might still be warranted if they are to
be used at scale or in asymptomatic populations. Recent examples include evaluation
of the RTS,S vaccine (as per the WHO recommendation) and pharmacovigilance for
the use of ACT in mass drug administration trials. Evaluations of safety should take into
consideration the risks and benefits of the tool in the context of use (e.g. medicines for
malaria treatment and for mass drug administration).
6.2.3 Cost and economic measures
The cost, budgeting, financial management and cost–effectiveness of prevention and
treatment tools and strategies when the goal is elimination depend on the context and are
often poorly understood. For example, surveillance strategies for finding and eliminating the
asymptomatic parasite reservoir can vary from population-wide strategies to targeted case
and focus investigation; and the cost and cost–effectiveness of each approach depends on
the size and spatial distribution of programme activities. The cost–effectiveness of (novel)
vector control measures also depends on the context. As costs may change dramatically
after elimination but not be fully documented in advance, studies of the cost–effectiveness
of a package of elimination interventions are fundamentally different from those of control
scenarios, as they require assumptions of costs and cost reductions after elimination.
6.2.4 Other areas
Operational research can also address novel approaches that are still in the research
phase, and the results can contribute to the evidence base required for national
and global policy recommendations. The approaches include: (1) use of genetic
epidemiology, which is being evaluated for distinguishing local from imported cases
and defining the “connectivity” among parasite populations regionally; and (2) use of
remote sensing satellite imagery and smart phone applications for disease mapping
and reporting for malaria surveillance.
6.3 Regulatory environment for malaria elimination
The impact of new tools and technologies may be substantially reduced if uptake
is slowed by regulatory processes and in-country registration. Malaria elimination
programmes should proactively evaluate the product development pipeline
and define the pathways necessary for regulatory approval and registration,
in collaboration with national and regional regulatory authorities. It is therefore
recommended that national regulatory authorities participate in the national malaria
elimination advisory committee.
Certain countries require local trials of medicines for national registration, with
evaluation in the epidemiological and demographic context of the country. In some
cases, waivers or limited field trials can be used to ensure rapid uptake. Elimination
programmes should work with national regulators to define the most appropriate,
efficient pathway when local trials are required.

70
1. Malaria elimination. A field manual for low and moderate endemic
countries. Geneva: World Health organization; 2007 (http://apps.who.int/iris/
bitstream/10665/43796/1/9789241596084_eng.pdf, accessed 3 February 2017).
2. Control and elimination of Plasmodium vivax: a technical brief.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 (http://apps.who.int/iris/
bitstream/10665/181162/1/9789241509244_eng.pdf, accessed 2 May 2016).
3. World malaria report 2016. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
4. Achieving the malaria Millennium Development Goal target: reversing the
incidence of malaria 2000–2015. Geneva: WHO and UNICEF; 2015
(http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/184521/1/9789241509442_eng.pdf,
accessed 2 May 2016).
5. Global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030. Geneva: World Health Organization;
2015 (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/176712/1/9789241564991_eng.pdf,
accessed 2 May 2016).
6. Action and investment to defeat malaria 2016–2030 (AIM). Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2015 (http://www.rollbackmalaria.org/files/files/aim/RBM_AIM_
Report_A4_EN-Sept2015.pdf, accessed 6 July 2016).
7. WHO policy recommendation on malaria diagnostics in low transmission
settings. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014 (http://www.who.int/malaria/
publications/atoz/who-recommendation-diagnostics-low-transmission-settings-
mar2014.pdf, accessed 3 February 2017).
8. Guidelines for the treatment of malaria. Third edition. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2015 (http://apps.who.int/iris/
bitstream/10665/162441/1/9789241549127_eng.pdf?ua=1ua=1, accessed
3 February 2017).
9. The role of mass drug administration, mass screening and treatment, and focal
screening and treatment for malaria. Recommendations. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2015 (http:/
/www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/role-of-mda-for-
malaria.pdf?ua=1, accessed 3 February 2017).
10. Risks associated with scale-back of vector control after malaria transmission has
been reduced. Information note. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 (http://
www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/scale-back-vector-control.pdf?ua=1,
accessed 3 February 2017).
11. Cox J, Sovannaroth S, Soley LD, Ngor P, Mellor S, Roca-Feltrer A. Novel approaches
to risk stratification to support malaria elimination: an example from Cambodia.
Malar J 2014;13:1.
12. The malERA Consultative Group on Monitoring, Evaluation, and Surveillance. A
research agenda for malaria eradication: monitoring, evaluation, and surveillance.
PLoS Med 2011;8:e1000400.
13. Moonen B, Cohen JM, Snow RW, Slutsker L, Drakeley C, Smith DL, et al.
Operational strategies to achieve and maintain malaria elimination. Lancet
2010;376:1592–1603.
References

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
71
14. Hennekens C, Buring J. Epidemiology in medicine. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott
Williams and Wilkins; 1987:57.
15. Yekutiel P. Problems of epidemiology in malaria eradication. Bull World Health
Organ 1960;22:669–683.
16. Cameron E, Battle KE, Bhatt S, Weiss DJ, Bisanzio D, Mappin B, et al. Defining the
relationship between infection prevalence and clinical incidence of Plasmodium
falciparum malaria. Nature Commun 2015;8:8170.
17. Cohen JM, Moonen B, Snow RW, Smith DL. How absolute is zero? An evaluation of
historical and current definitions of malaria elimination. Malar J 2010;9:213.
18. Malaria rapid diagnostic test performance: results of WHO product testing of
malaria RDTs: round 6 (2014–2015). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015
(http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/204118/1/9789241510035_eng.pdf?ua=1,
19. WHO recommendations for achieving universal coverage with long-lasting
insecticidal nets in malaria control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
20. Estimating population access to ITNs versus quantifying for procurement for mass
campaigns. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014 (www.who.int/malaria/
publications/atoz/who-clarification-estimating-population-access-itn-mar2014.
pdf, accessed 3 February 2017).
21. WHO guidance for countries on combining indoor residual spraying and long-
lasting insecticidal nets. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014; (http://www.
who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/who-guidance-combining-irs_llins-mar2014.
pdf, accessed 3 February 2017).
22. Control of residual malaria parasite transmission: guidance note. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2014 (http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/
technical-note-control-of-residual-malaria-parasite-transmission-sep14.pdf,
23. Larval source management – a supplementary measure for malaria vector
control. An operational manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
24. Supplementary vector control methods. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015;
(http://www.who.int/malaria/areas/vector_control/complementary_methods/
en/, accessed 3 February 2017).
25. Hay SI, Smith DL, Snow RW. Measuring malaria endemicity from intense to
interrupted transmission. Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8;369–378.
26. WHO Evidence Review Group on Malaria Diagnosis in Low Transmission Settings.
WHO Headquarters, Geneva, 16–18 December 2013. Meeting report. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2013 (http://www.who.int/malaria/mpac/mpac_
mar2014_diagnosis_low_transmission_settings_report.pdf?ua=1, accessed
3 February 2017).
27. Policy brief on single-dose primaquine as a gametocytocide in Plasmodium
falciparum malaria (WHO/HTM/GMP/2015.1). Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2015 (http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/who_htm_
gmp_2015.1.pdf?ua=1, accessed 3 February 2017).
28. Functions and minimum standards for national reference laboratories in the SADC
region. Gaborone: Southern African Development Community; 2009.

72
29. Universal access to malaria diagnostic testing – an operational manual. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2011.
30. Management of quality of care: quality assurance. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2017 (http://www.who.int/management/quality/assurance/en/).
31. Policy and procedures of the WHO/NICD Microbiology External Quality
Assessment Programme in Africa years 1 to 4, 2002–2006 (WHO/CDS/EPR/
LYO/2007.3). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007
(http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2007/WHO_CDS_EPR_LYO_2007.3_eng.pdf,
32. Disease surveillance for malaria elimination: operational manual. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2012
(http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44852/1/9789241503334_eng.pdf?ua=1,
33. Disease surveillance for malaria control: operational manual. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2012 (http:/
/apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44851/1/9789241503341_
eng.pdf, accessed 3 February 2017).
34. Malaria Policy Advisory Committee to the WHO: conclusions and
recommendations of eighth biannual meeting (September 2015).
Malar J 2016;15:117.
35. Newby G, Hwang J, Koita K, Chen I, Greenwood B, von Seiflein L, et al. Review of
mass drug administration for malaria and its operational challenges. Am J Trop
Med Hyg 2015;93:125–134.
36. Taylor CE, Waldman RJ. Designing eradication programs to strengthen primary
health care. Chapter 13, in: Dowdle WR, Hopkins DR, editors. The eradication of
infectious diseases. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley Sons Ltd; 1998:145–155.
37. González-Silva M, Bassat Q, Alonso PL. Getting ready for malaria elimination: a
check list of critical issues to consider. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 2014;109:517–521.
38. Cochi SL, and Dowdle WR, editors. Disease eradication in the 21st century:
implications for global health. Boston, MA: MIT Press; 2011.
39. The malERA Consultative Group on Health Systems and Operational Research.
A research agenda for malaria eradication: health systems and operational
research. PLoS Med 2011;8:e1000397.
40. Alonso PL, Brown G, Arevalo-Herrera M, Binka F, Chitnis C, Collins F, et al. A research
agenda to underpin malaria eradication. PLoS Med 2011;8:e1000406.
41. Smith DL, Cohen JM, Chiyaka C, Johnston G, Gething PW, Gosling R, et al. A sticky
situation: the unexpected stability of malaria elimination. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol
Sci 2013;368:20120145.
42. Overview of malaria elimination. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016
(http://www.who.int/malaria/areas/elimination/overview/en/, accessed
3 February 2017).

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
73
Annex 1. Biology of malaria
1. Parasitological aspects
Malaria parasites are unicellular organisms belonging to the genus Plasmodium. Human
malaria is due to four species that cause four types of malarial disease: P. falciparum,
P. malariae, P. ovale and P. vivax. The four human malaria species are not evenly spread
across the malaria-affected areas of the world, and their relative importance varies
between and within areas, by zoo-geographical region (see Fig. A1). P. falciparum is
the most common species and predominates in Africa south of the Sahara. P. vivax
predominates in the subtropics and coexists with P. falciparum in tropical Asia, the
tropical Americas and the Horn of Africa. P. ovale is found in Africa and sporadically
in South-East Asia and the western Pacific. P. malariae has a similar geographical
distribution to P. falciparum, but its incidence is lower and its distribution is patchy.
FIG. A1.
Spatial distribution of P. falciparum and P. vivax (1)
Source: Malaria Atlas Project.
Note: Areas in which Duffy negative gene frequency is predicted to be 90% are shown in hatching. Dark-
grey areas are those with unstable transmission (annual number of reported cases 0.1/1000 per year).
Source: Malaria Atlas Project.
Risk free
Not applicable
Unstable transmission
PfPR2–10
0%
0 5000 10 000 15 000 kilometres
7 %
0
Risk free
Not applicable
Risk free
Not applicable
PvPR1– 99
0%
7%
0 5000 10 000 15 000 kilometres
with Duffy negativity
Risk free
Not applicable
(a) Estimated annual mean P. falciparum parasite prevalence standardized to the 2–10-year age range,
shown as a continuum of beige to brown with a range from 0% to 70% (2).
(b) Estimated annual mean P. vivax parasite prevalence standardized across all ages, shown as a
spectrum of beige to brown with a range from 0% to 7% (3)

74
P. vivax and P. falciparum infections cause low birth weight in neonates and are
associated with anaemia and splenomegaly, particularly in children and pregnant
women. Unlike other Plasmodium species, P. vivax and P. ovale can remain dormant
in the liver for up to several months or even years after inoculation and cause relapses.
Forms of malaria due to P. malariae and P. ovale are less severe and are rarely
life-threatening; unlike the other malaria parasites, P. malariae can remain undetected
for decades and can lead to chronic immune-pathological sequelae.
The risk for contracting malaria is highly variable from country to country and even
between areas in a country. The distribution of malaria in the world was widest in the
late nineteenth century, since when, the area affected by malaria transmission has
continued to contract.
During the past decade, cases of zoonotic Plasmodium infection, first and foremost
with P. knowlesi, have been reported with increasing frequency in South-East Asia,
especially in Malaysia. The natural reservoirs of this species are several macaque
species found in forests in South-East Asia. The main vectors belong to the Anopheles
leucosphyrus group, which is also associated with forest environments.
Malaria parasites are transmitted by female mosquitoes belonging to the genus
Anopheles. The development of malaria parasites in the vector, called sporogony,
includes a number of stages in different organs of the insect. Male and female
gametocytes mate after being ingested by an anopheline mosquito during blood-
feeding. The zygotes develop as ookinetes, which move across the mosquito stomach
to form oocycsts, within which asexual multiplication leads to the production of up
to thousands of sporozoites. The sporozoites migrate and accumulate in the salivary
glands, from which they are injected when the infective mosquito bites a human or
animal host for a blood-meal.
The speed of development of sporozoites depends on temperature and the parasite
species. At the optimal temperature, 28 o
C, the duration of sporogony is 9–10 days for
P. falciparum and 8–10 days for P. vivax. The time from ingestion of gametocytes to
release of sporozoites is the extrinsic incubation period (or duration of sporogony).
Sporozoites injected by a mosquito enter the host’s blood circulation; when they reach
the liver, they invade hepatocytes. All P. falciparum sporozoites then undergo exo-
erythrocytic schizogony, in which the parasite nucleus divides repeatedly over several
days; at the end, the schizont bursts, giving rise to thousands of merozoites, which are
released into the bloodstream. The duration of exo-erythrocytic schizogony is
5.5–7 days for P. falciparum and 6–8 days for P. vivax. In P. vivax malaria, some
sporozoites, after invading hepatocytes, become dormant as hypnozoites for periods
lasting from 3 to 18 months and very rarely up to 5 years.
The merozoites invade erythrocytes, where the great majority multiply asexually,
undergoing repeated cycles of growth, rupture, release and reinvasion of fresh red
cells. All clinical manifestations of malaria are due to this erythrocytic schizogony. The
duration of each cycle of erythrocytic schizogony is about 48 h for both P. falciparum
and P. vivax. Some merozoites grow and develop into male or female gametocytes
within erythrocytes. When mature, they do not develop further, unless they are ingested
by a mosquito vector. The immature gametocytes (stages 1–4) of P. falciparum are
sequestered in the bone marrow and other deep tissues; only mature gametocytes
(stage 5) circulate in the blood. In contrast, all stages of gametocytes of the three other
species are present in the peripheral circulation.
The transmission cycle of malaria is represented in Fig. A2.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
75
FIG.
A2.
Malaria
transmission
cycle
Exo-erythrocytic
cycle
Erythrocytic
cycle
Human
liver
stages
Human
blood
stages
Mosquito
stages
Sporogonic
cycle
Ruptured
oocyst
Oocyst
Ookinete
Exflagellated
microgametocyte
Liver
cell
Infected
liver
cell
Ruptured
schizont
Immature
trophozoite
(ring
stage)
Mature
trophozoite
Schizont
Ruptured
schizont
(injects
sporozoites)
Schizont
Release
of
sporozoites
P.
vivax
P.
ovale
P.
malariae
P.
falciparum
Gametocytes
Macrogametocyte
Gametocytes
Microgamete
entering
macrogamete
Mosquito
takes
a
blood
meal
Mosquito
takes
a
blood
meal
(ingests
gametocytes)
Adapted,
by
permission
of
the
publishers,
from
references
(4)
and
(5).

76
The duration of the biological processes mentioned above is not observed directly in
clinical or public health practice. It is, however, possible to define a number of critical,
observable intervals that depend on these elementary processes. For example, the
clinical incubation period is equal to the duration of exo-erythrocytic schizogony plus
the time required for a build-up of the parasite density above the pyrogenic threshold,
which may take one or more cycles of erythrocytic schizogony. These observable
intervals are of great importance for determining from a patient’s history whether
the case was imported or contracted locally and for how many days it may have
been infective to vectors in a given area. The intervals are summarized in Table A1
for P. falciparum and P. vivax. They should be taught during training of field staff and
included in standard operating procedures for case and focus investigation.
TABLE A1.
Duration of critical observable intervals for the two main species of human malaria parasite
INTERVAL P. FALCIPARUM P. VIVAX
Sporogony (extrinsic incubation
period) at 28 o
C
9–10 days 8–10 days
Pre-patency (from inoculation
to appearance of microscope-
detectable parasitaemia)
9–10 days 11–13 days
Incubation in non-immunes (from
inoculation to appearance of
symptoms):
• Short (not preceded by hypnozoites)
• Long (preceded by hypnozoites)
9–14 days
Not applicable
12–17 days
6–12 months
Time to appearance of mature
gametocytes as observed by light
microscopy after appearance of
asexual parasitaemia
7–15 days 0 days
Time to disappearance of circulating
gametocytes after treatment with
effective blood schizonticides (without
gametocytocide)
3–6 weeks 1 day
Typical duration of untreated infection 1–2 years (≤ 1 year in about 80% of
cases)
1–2 years (exceptionally ≤ 5 years)
All values are from (6), except times to appearance and disappearance of gametocytes, from (7).
2. Entomological aspects
There are about 515 species of Anopheles mosquito in the world. Approximately 70
can transmit malaria, and, of these, 30–40 are vectors of major importance. Each
species has a different pattern of behaviour. Most areas harbour multiple species of
Anopheles, and different ones occur in different parts of the world.
The life cycle of the mosquito has four distinct stages: egg, larva, pupa and adult. The
development periods of the various stages depend on the ambient temperature and
nutritional factors and are shorter at higher temperatures. A blood-meal is necessary
for maturation of the eggs.
Vector efficiency refers to how effective a given species is as a vector, irrespective of its
density. This measure is determined mainly by the following properties of mosquitoes:

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
77
• vector competence: the ability of a mosquito species to transmit a given parasite
species;
• longevity: expressed as the probability of a female mosquito surviving through one
day (24 h);
• anthropophily: the proportion of a given vector’s feed on humans, measured as
the human blood index; and
• gonotrophic period: the interval between two oviposition cycles; the shorter the
interval, the higher the biting frequency and hence vector efficiency.
Vectorial capacity is defined as the number of new malaria infections that the
population of a given vector would cause per day at a given place and time, assuming
that the human population is and remains fully susceptible. Vectorial capacity depends
on inherent characteristics of vector species (biting time and host preference), density,
human-biting rate and longevity, which are affected by the ambient temperature and
relative humidity, as well as insecticides.
Transmission intensity can be considered a function of two main components: first,
the mosquito-related factors that determine the vectorial capacity (probability of an
infection being transmitted from an infectious person on any given day) and, second,
the detection- and treatment-related factors that determine for how long an infection
persists to contribute to transmission (gametocyte carriage rate). Of note, symptomatic
infections (typically with higher parasite densities) are significantly more infectious
to mosquitoes; thus, early detection of illness, testing and treatment may be critical
in reducing transmission. Areas with higher vectorial capacity and low treatment
rates will tend to have the highest transmission rates, as infections in these areas will
remain untreated for a long time, resulting in a high probability of transmission to
mosquitoes and humans throughout that time. Knowing whether transmission intensity
is driven more by low treatment rates or by high vectorial capacity may suggest which
interventions are likely to have the most impact (e.g. strengthening surveillance with
treatment versus increasing coverage with vector control).
References
1. Control and elimination of Plasmodium vivax malaria – a technical
brief. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 (http:/
/apps.who.int/iris/
bitstream/10665/181162/1/9789241509244_eng.pdf?ua=1ua=1, accessed 17 June 2016).
2. Gething PW, Patil AP, Smith DL, Guerra CA, Elyazar IR, Johnston GL, et al. A new world
malaria map: Plasmodium falciparum endemicity in 2010. Malar J 2011;10:378.
3. Gething PW, Elyazar IR, Moyes CL, Smith DL, Battle KE, Guerra CA, et al. A long
neglected world malaria map: Plasmodium vivax endemicity in 2010. PLoS Negl Trop
Dis 2012;6:e1814.
4. Life cycle of Plasmodium spp. Atlanta, GA: United States Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention; 2004 (http://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/malaria/index.html,
accessed 17 November 2016).
5. Sullivan S P. vivax life cycle. New York, NY: vivaxmalaria.com; 2006 (http://www.
vivaxmalaria.com/images/vivax_lifecycle.jpg, accessed 17 November 2016).
6. Gilles HM, Warrell DA. Bruce-Chwatt’s essential malariology. 3rd edition.
London: Edward Arnold; 1993.
7. Bousema T, Drakeley C. Epidemiology and infectivity of Plasmodium falciparum and
Plasmodium vivax gametocytes in relation to malaria control and elimination. Clin
Microbiol Rev 2011;24:2377–2410.

78
Annex 2. Diagnosis and treatment of Plasmodium
falciparum and P. vivax malaria (1)
Even where malaria is eliminated or close to elimination, diagnostic capabilities,
including quality assurance, should be maintained, and parasitological confirmation
by microscopy (or by RDT) is recommended before treatment is administered. Where
both malaria species coexist, bivalent RDTs should be used in order to differentiate
P. falciparum from P. vivax. If microscopy is used, WHO standards for malaria
microscopy training, certification and quality assurance should be in place.
The treatment of P. falciparum and P. vivax infections, however, differs (Table A2).
P. FALCIPARUM P. VIVAX
TREATMENT OF BLOOD-STAGE INFECTIONS
ACT (except pregnant
women in their first
trimester)
In areas with chloroquine-susceptible infections, treat with either ACT (except pregnant
women in first trimester) or chloroquine. Artesunate + sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine is not
recommended for the treatment of P. vivax malaria because of its limited efficacy.
A single dose of 0.25 mg/kg
body weight of primaquine
on the first day of treatment,
except to pregnant women,
infants 6 months of age
and women breastfeeding
infants 6 months of age
Not applicable
In the first trimester of
pregnancy, quinine should
be used instead of ACT.a
Pregnant women should be treated with chloroquine (all trimesters) or quinine (first
trimester) and ACT (second or third trimesters).
TREATMENT OF LIVER-STAGE INFECTIONS
Not applicable The G6PD status of patients should guide administration of primaquine for preventing
relapses (for more information, see reference (2)).
To achieve radical cure (cure and prevention of relapse), a 14-day course of primaquine
at 0.2–0.5 mg/kg body weight per day is given, except to pregnant women, infants aged
6 months, women breastfeeding infants aged 6 months, women breastfeeding older
infants unless they are known not to be G6PD deficient and people with G6PD deficiency.
For G6PD-deficient patients, primaquine may be considered at a dose of 0.75 mg
base/kg body weight once a week for 8 weeks, with close medical supervision for
potential primaquine-induced haemolysis.
If G6PD testing is not available, a decision to prescribe or withhold primaquine should
be based on an assessment of the benefits of preventing relapse against the risks of
primaquine-induced haemolytic anaemia.
SEVERE MALARIA
Adults and children with severe malaria (including infants, pregnant women in all trimesters and lactating women) should
be treated with intravenous or intramuscular artesunate for at least 24 h and until they can tolerate oral medication.
After parenteral artesunate
for at least 24 h, treatment
can be completed with a full
course of ACT.
After parenteral artesunate for at least 24 h, treatment can be completed with a full
course of ACT or chloroquine (in countries where chloroquine is the treatment of choice
for vivax malaria). Artesunate + sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine is not recommended for the
treatment of P. vivax malaria because of its limited efficacy.
A full course of radical treatment with primaquine should be given after recovery.
TABLE A2.
Treatment of P. falciparum and P. vivax infections
a
Treatment guidelines are updated regularly, and this recommendation is currently being re-evaluated.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
79
References
1. Control and elimination of Plasmodium vivax malaria – a technical
brief. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 (http://apps.who.int/iris/
bitstream/10665/181162/1/9789241509244_eng.pdf?ua=1ua=1, accessed
3 May 2016).
2. Testing for G6PD deficiency for safe use of primaquine in radical cure of P. vivax and
P. ovale malaria – Policy brief. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016 (http://apps.
who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/250297/1/WHO-HTM-GMP-2016.9-eng.pdf, accessed
3 February 2017).

80
Annex 3. Monitoring and evaluation indicators for
interventions in an elimination programme
The list in Table A3 is largely restricted to indicators specific to elimination
programmes. It is illustrative, and each programme should modify or complement it
according to their priorities; process indicators should be aligned with strategic and
operational plans.
Additional indicators for national monitoring are provided in WHO operational
manuals for disease surveillance, entomology, vector control and drug resistance,
which are regularly updated and posted on the WHO Global Malaria Programme
website at http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/en/.
INDICATOR NORM OR TARGET DATA SOURCE
IMPACT
Number and incidence rate (per 1000 population) of
malaria cases
• by species, classification, sex, age group;
• by source (e.g. imported, indigenous), by ACD and
PCD, by sector
Target values to be projected by
the programme year by year
Malaria case database
Number of foci by classification Target values to be projected by
the programme year by year
Malaria focus database
Number of people and percentage of population
living in active foci
Malaria focus database
Number of malaria deaths by species and by
imported or locally acquired
Malaria case database
QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF SURVEILLANCE
Annual blood examination rate by district and focus
and by RDT or microscopya
Malaria case and case
detection databases
Percentage of microscopy results cross-checked by
national reference laboratory
100% of positive results
10% of negative results
Reference laboratory database
Percentage of testing laboratories participating in
WHO-recommended microscopy quality assurance
assessments
100% Reference laboratory database
Percentage of expected monthly reports received
from health facilities and other service providers
(with number of patients tested for malaria and
number positive)
100% Malaria case and case
detection databases
Percentage of cases notified within 24 h of detection 100% Malaria case and case
detection databases
Percentage of cases with completed case
investigation form submitted within stipulated delay
detection databases
Percentage of foci for which completed investigation
form submitted within stipulated delay
100% Malaria focus database
TABLE A3.
Monitoring and evaluation indicators for interventions in an elimination programme

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
81
INDICATOR NORM OR TARGET DATA SOURCE
CASE MANAGEMENT
Percentage of patients with suspected malaria who
received a parasitological test
detection databases
Percentage of patients with confirmed malaria who
received first-line anti-malarial treatment according
to national policy
detection databases
VECTOR CONTROL
Percentage of active and residual non-active foci
and percentage of population living in receptive
areas covered by appropriate vector control (IRS
and/or LLINs), by year
100% of targeted population Operations records
Percentage of active and residual non-active foci
protected by IRS, by year
100% of targeted foci Independent focus surveys
Percentage of population living in active and
residual non-active foci protected by IRS, by focus
and year
100% of targeted population Independent focus surveys
Percentage of population in active foci and residual
non-active foci with high receptivity and vulnerability
protected by LLINs, by focus and year
100% of targeted population Independent focus surveys
Percentage of potential larval habitats in active
and residual non-active foci in which environmental
modification is implemented
As per national target,
depending on vector species
Independent vector survey
Percentage of potential larval habitats in active and
residual non-active foci treated with larvicides or
insect growth regulators
As per national target based on
identified key habitats
Independent survey
PROGRAMME MILESTONES
Malaria is a notifiable disease Policy documents
Standard operating procedures for all components
of surveillance have been prepared, field tested and
are in use
Surveillance and routine
information systems
assessment surveys
There is a national reference laboratory for
microscopy, with a slide bank and implementation
of external quality assurance
information systems
assessment surveys
An independent national malaria elimination
advisory committee has been set up
Malaria programme reviews
A comprehensive report on the elimination
programme is prepared annually and shared with
all district health offices
The national malaria elimination plan has been
approved and endorsed by the minister of health
There is functional inter-sectoral collaboration in all
districts concerned
There is an updated list of all public and private
health facilities and community health workers who
provide malaria diagnosis or treatment
information systems
assessment surveys
Each facility is registered to receive appropriate
supervisionb
information systems
assessment surveys
a
There should be some case detection activities in each focus and each highly receptive village, workplace or other site every
month during the transmission season.
b
The nature and frequency of “supervision” depend on the country.

82
Annex 4. Terms of reference for the WHO Malaria
Elimination Certification Panel
The terms of reference of the MECP have been revised in accordance with an
updated, more streamlined process of certification for elimination to include a greater
role for independent national committees (such as national malaria elimination
advisory committees) and the MPAC, in collaboration with dedicated teams of
observers and certifiers who conduct country visits.
Key roles and responsibilities
1. Review submitted country documentation and national elimination reports, and
discuss their content by video conference, teleconference or face to face.
2. Conduct country assessments and field missions, with the following terms of
reference:
a. Review and assess how procedures and criteria proposed by WHO have
been applied to document the elimination of malaria transmission, including
evaluation of the performance of the surveillance system and high-quality
case management.
b. Verify that the data and information in country documentation and reports are
accurate.
c. Conduct field visits to verify elimination, in particular visit the last malaria foci
in the country to ensure that they have been cleared.
d. Review national guidelines and plans of action to ensure that the strategic
technical components and guidelines are up to date.
e. Collect and review any additional information required on the malaria
situation in the country by meetings with key stakeholders, published and
unpublished documents, journal publications, etc.
f. Assess the capacity of the government to maintain its malaria-free status and
prevent re-establishment of malaria transmission.
g. Prepare a final evaluation report for country certification, and submit it to the
WHO GMP.
3. Review the final evaluation report with all other members of the MECP for review
and comments. If necessary, feedback may be incorporated for finalization of the
report (with the support of the WHO Secretariat).
4. Report key findings from the final evaluation report to the WHO MPAC, and make
a recommendation on whether malaria elimination can be certified or whether a
decision should be postponed, with details of the additional evidence required to
demonstrate that malaria has been eliminated.
5. Review and update criteria and procedures for certification.
Rules and composition of the MECP (at least eight members,
with a WHO-designated chairperson)
Members are appointed by WHO, in consultation with relevant WHO regional offices, for
at least four years (with possible renewal).

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
83
Members should have knowledge about and experience in malaria elimination, and at
least one should be an entomologist. Members may represent fields such as medical
parasitology, tropical medicine, laboratory science, epidemiology, vector biology
and control, information systems and other specialized areas of public health such as
programme management.
Members should provide independent opinions and have no conflict of interest.
Members conducting assessment or evaluation missions should not be citizens of the
applicant country nor have recently supported the country in reviewing its malaria
programme nor have been involved in preparing the national elimination report.

84
Annex 5. Documents for the Malaria Elimination
Certification Panel to be prepared from the elimination
database by the national government
• national malaria elimination strategic and operational plan;
• annual malaria programme report;
• plan of action for the prevention of re-establishment of malaria;
• organizational structure of the malaria department and malaria activities in general
health services, with detailed budget and staff information; description of health
facilities and their functions and activities in malaria surveillance; plans for continued
staff education; and guidelines and standard operating procedures for malaria
surveillance;
• all available annual malaria surveillance reports for at least 10 years, three years
of which show zero indigenous cases;
• full information about malaria foci in the five years before the last indigenous
case, with supporting maps (database of malaria focus investigations; focus
register and analytical tables and maps);
• national malaria case register with case investigation forms for at least the
previous five years;
• for laboratory support, reports of quality-assurance activities for diagnosis;
designation of a national reference laboratory; participation in an external quality
assurance scheme; standard operating procedures for malaria diagnostics;
participation in WHO assessment of malaria microscopy competence; annual
reports on performance of laboratory services for malaria diagnostics;
• national anti-malarial treatment policy;
• annual report of entomological and vector control activities;
• reports of independent committees on malaria (such as the national malaria
elimination advisory committee), the surveillance system and entomological and
vector control activities;
• recent published and unpublished reports of studies on malaria epidemiology and
malaria vectors;
• legislation or regulations related to malaria and vector control;
• reports of inter-sectoral collaboration;
• reports of border coordination activities, if relevant; and
• documentation of health education and community awareness-raising.

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
85
Annex 6. Outline of content of a national elimination report
Executive summary
1. General information
1.1 Geography
1.2 Physiography
1.3 Climate and vegetation
1.4 Key cultural characteristics
1.5 Population
1.6 Administration
1.7 Economics
1.8 General health profile
1.9 Organization, planning, description of general health services
1.10 Public and private health care delivery system
2. Malaria in the country
2.1 History of malaria
2.2 Epidemiology of malaria in the past 10 years, including description of last
cases and foci (to include recent published and unpublished research reports
on malaria epidemiology in the country)
2.3 Entomological aspects (to include recent published/unpublished research
reports)
3. Main surveillance and interventions undertaken to achieve malaria elimination
3.1 Main strategies and approaches applied
3.2 Legislation and regulations
3.3 Organizational structure and responsibilities of the malaria network
3.4 Surveillance
3.4.1 Case detection and response
3.4.2 System of laboratory diagnosis and external quality control assurance
3.4.3 Case management in public and private health-care delivery systems
and national treatment policies

86
3.4.4 Epidemiological investigations of cases and foci; monitoring of foci
3.4.5 Information system
3.5 Vector control and entomological surveillance
4. Public health education and community awareness-raising
5. Applied field research
6. Collaboration with other sectors
7. Cross-border collaboration
8. Detailed budget for malaria
9. Prevention of re-establishment of malaria transmission
9.1 Programme and plan for prevention of re-establishment of malaria
demonstrating a good surveillance mechanism with full coverage of all
geographical areas
9.2 Strong vigilance and management of imported cases, prevention of
consequences of importation and capacity to respond to outbreaks
9.3 Sustained funding
10. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Selected bibliography
Annexes

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
87
Annex 7. Example of individual case investigation form for a
national malaria case register
This form is to be completed for all laboratory-confirmed (microscopy or RDT) malaria
cases.
Section 1. Characterization of the case
1. Malaria case ID:
2. Is this case linked to a larger focus?
• Yes 0 If so, indicate the ID number of the focus:
• No 0
3. Date:
4. Facility:
5. Information about the case patient
5.1 Name
5.2 Present home address, including contact details
5.3 Permanent address if different from the above
5.4 Age
5.5 Gender
5.6 Occupation or other aspects that may have influenced malaria risk
5.7 Date of confirmation of malaria diagnosis
5.8 Date of notification of malaria case
5.9 Plasmodium species identified
5.10 Recent travel history within the country, i.e. to other malaria-endemic settings
(past two weeks, six months and for one year)
5.11 Recent travel history outside the country to malaria-endemic settings (past two
weeks, six months and for one year)
5.12 Blood transfusion within past three months
5.13 Possible origin of malaria infection (place where malaria infection is likely to
have been acquired) with GPS coordinates, if possible
5.14 Previous history of malaria, if any (when, where, parasite species, treatment
given, etc.)
5.15 Recent contact with known imported case(s); provide details
6. Case detection and treatment
6.1 Method of diagnosis (passive case detection, active case detection, mobile
malaria clinic, other)
6.2 Main symptoms
6.3 Date of onset of first symptoms
6.4 Test used (microscopy or RDT)
6.5 Parasite species (if microscopy is used: parasite density and presence of
gametocytes reported)
6.6 Treatment (drugs, dosage, dates)
6.7 Treatment outcome (follow-up visits, confirmation of clearance, dates)

88
Section 2. Classification of the case
7. The case is classified as:
7.1 Parasite species:
P. falciparum 0 P. vivax 0 P. malariae 0
P. ovale 0 Mixed 0 (specify: )
Other 0 (specify: )
7.2 Classification:
Imported* 0 Introduced
0 Indigenous
0
Relapsing 0 Recrudescent 0 Induced 0
Other** 0
Comment on evidence used for case classification:
* Outside the district/province, from other country (please specify)
**This may be poor compliance or failure to follow up.
Section 3. Follow-up of the case, household and neighbourhood
Date of investigation
8. Case household visit (done, dates, map):
8.1 Household location (GPS)
8.2 Household members listed, screened (e.g. fever), tested, results
9. Neighbourhood visit (done, dates, map)
9.1 Household locations (GPS)
9.2 Household members listed, screened (e.g. fever), tested, results
Note: If additional infections are identified in the case or neighbouring
households, continue to focus investigation protocols.
10. Vector control and preventive measures taken, if any
11. Follow-up measures taken, if any
12. Name and title of responsible officer who investigated the case
13. Reference to relevant case or focus investigation records and record numbers

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
89
Reference
Parasitologically
confirmed
malaria infection
Due to
mosquito-borne
transmission
Acquired
abroad or
outside area
Acquired
locally
Not due to
mosquito-borne
transmission
Induced
e.g. due to
blood transfusion,
congenital malaria
Indigenous
All cases without
evidence of a
direct link to an
imported case
Introduced
First-generation
local transmission;
epidemiologically
linked to proven
imported case
Imported
Relapsing
History of P. vivax
or P. ovale infection
within past 3 years;
no epidemiologically
linked cases in
vicinity
Recrudescent
Recurrence of asexual
parasitaemia of the same
genotype(s) that caused the
original illness, due to incomplete
clearance of asexual parasites
after antimalarial treatment

90
Annex 8. Example of individual focus investigation form for
a national malaria case register
This form is to be completed for all confirmed malaria foci.
Section 1. Characterization of the focus
1. Malaria focus ID:
2. List all case ID numbers that are part of this focus ID:

3. Date of this report: Date of focus identification:
4. District and health facility catchment area:
5. Information about the focus
5.1 Geographical map of focus and its limits
5.2 Size of population, number of houses
5.3 Administrative map of houses, heath facilities and other important structures,
as well as access routes within the focus
5.4 Distribution of parasites (species, number and location of infections identified)
5.5 Distribution of vector species within the focus (principal and secondary malaria
vectors and their behaviour, including breeding sites with presence or absence
of larvae)
5.6 Type of environment in relation to receptivity (urban or rural population, altitude,
main geographical features, environmental changes as a result of development,
original and current endemicity, etc.) and vulnerability (close proximity to
endemic areas within the country or across international border, refugees, etc.)
within the focus
5.7 Population characteristics in relation to vulnerability (migration patterns,
presence and numbers of temporary workers, typical travel histories, etc.)
within the focus
6. Focus history
6.1 Total number of malaria cases by species reported within the focus during the
past five years
6.2 Results of malaria surveys, including active case detection within the focus
during the past five years
6.3 Dynamics of the focus status during the past five years (active foci versus
residual non-active foci versus cleared foci)
6.4 Types and dates of vector control and other preventive measures applied
within the focus during the past five years (provide details)
Section 2. Classification of the focus
7. Focus classification
Focus classified as:
7.1 Parasite species:
P. falciparum 0 P. vivax 0 P. malariae 0
P. ovale 0 Mixed 0 (specify: )
Other 0 (specify: )

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
91
7.2 Classification at time of detection (date: ):
Active 0 Residual non-active 0
Cleared 0 Other 0
Comment on evidence used for focus classification:
7.3 Classification at time of specified follow up (date ):
Active 0 Residual non-active 0
Cleared 0 Other 0
Comment on evidence used for re-classification of focus:
7.4 Relation of the focus to the malaria case that prompted focus investigation (in
time, space and circumstance, e.g. the person in residence, work, etc.)
7.5 Location and total number of households with inhabitants where malaria
cases were registered within the focus
Section 3. Follow-up of the focus households and neighbourhoods, and response
Measures taken to clear infections and stop transmission within the focus and prevent
possible onward spread of the current malaria infections from the focus, if any
(provide details)
8. Follow-up actions taken (provide details)
For example:
8.1 Neighbourhood visits (done, dates, map)
Household locations (GPS)
Household members listed, screened (e.g. fever), tested, results
Household members treated (case management, prevention)
8.2 Vector control and preventive measures taken, if any
8.3 Other follow-up measures taken, if any
9. Reference numbers to relevant focus investigation records and case investigation
records
10. Name, title and signature of responsible officer who investigated the focus and
completed the form
Reference
TYPE OF FOCUS DEFINITION OPERATIONAL CRITERIA
Active A focus with ongoing transmission Locally acquired case(s) have been
detected within the current calendar
year.
Residual non-active Transmission interrupted recently
(1–3 years ago)
The last locally acquired case(s) was
detected in the previous calendar
year or up to 3 years earlier.
Cleared A focus with no local transmission for
more than 3 years
There has been no locally acquired
case for more than 3 years, and only
imported or/and relapsing
or/and recrudescent or/and induced
cases may occur during the current
calendar year.

92
Annex 9. Information to be included in annual report for
follow-up of WHO certification
1. Confirmed malaria cases detected in the country during the reporting period, by
species, case classification and origin
2. Brief histories of all reported introduced or indigenous cases, if any
3. Brief histories of all reported malaria deaths and other unusual events, including
cases of congenital malaria and induced malaria
4. Measures used to prevent re-establishment of malaria transmission

A
FRAMEWORK
FOR
MALARIA
ELIMINATION
93
Annex 10. Generic terms of reference for an independent
national malaria elimination advisory committee
The purpose of an independent national malaria elimination advisory committee is to
provide an external view of progress and gaps in malaria elimination programmes,
assist in adapting WHO guidance to the national context, review malaria trends and
progress towards elimination and support the national program in the preparation of
the national malaria elimination report.
The committee should be independent from the national malaria programme
to provide a frank and open review of the programme’s activities, strengths and
weaknesses. Several countries who have established such or similar committees
have benefitted from retired academic or government malaria experts as committee
chairpersons.
The purpose of this annex is to provide generic terms of reference that national
programmes can use to develop their own specific terms of reference and related
operating procedures.
Terms of reference for an independent national malaria
elimination advisory committee
• Advise the national malaria programme on implementation of the national
strategic plan for malaria elimination.
• Monitor progress towards elimination.
• Provide assistance in adapting WHO guidelines and policies.
• Identify bottlenecks towards malaria elimination, develop potential responses to
address these issues, and evaluate bottleneck resolution.
• Support the national malaria programme in the preparation of the national
elimination report to be submitted to the WHO Malaria Elimination Certification
Panel (MECP).
• Advise the national programme on the plan to prevent re-establishment of
malaria transmission.
• Form ad hoc thematic working groups, e.g. surveillance, case management and
vector control (depending on country needs).
Subnational verification of malaria elimination is an option for large countries that
have achieved interruption of local transmission in certain parts of their territory
(states, regions or provinces). It is managed by the national health authorities of
the country concerned; WHO will only be involved in national certification. The
independent national malaria elimination advisory committee should monitor and
verify the work of the national programme in subnational elimination and help
document verification of elimination (where relevant).
Composition of the committee
The committee should be independent from the national malaria programme and
could comprise the following types of members:
• retired academic or government malaria experts;
• health system specialists;

94
• experts from other vector borne diseases;
• representative/s from academia;
• representative/s from research institutions;
• representative/s from the private sector;
• experts from information, health education or communication for behaviour
change.
WHO could be included as a technical partner, while other aid agencies, other
technical partners, donors and international/other nongovernmental organizations
could serve as observers.
Countries should identify a process for appointing members to the committee, as well
as the length of their tenure. Consideration should also be given to inviting relevant
government personnel from other parts of the government and representatives from
other agencies to serve as observers and/or to make specific presentations to the
committee.
Meeting procedures
The committee should meet on a regular basis, as determined by country needs and
resources. The secretariat (i.e. the national programme) should develop and circulate
the agenda of the meeting in advance. Additional relevant partners will be invited
depending on the agenda of the meeting. The secretariat should produce concrete
recommendations and action items, all to be made publicly available on the website
of the ministry of health.

A framework for malaria elimination.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to A framework for malaria elimination.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A framework for malaria elimination.pdf