Environmental factors linked to reporting of active malaria foci in Thailand

Background

Malaria remains a major public health threat across the world, with over 241 million cases and 627,000 deaths in 2020 [1]. The Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), an area of Southeast Asia composed of Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR), Myanmar, Thailand, China’s Yunnan Province, and Vietnam, is now an area of low malaria incidence but high population connectivity [2]. To accelerate progress in the region, GMS countries have jointly committed to eliminating Plasmodium falciparum (P. falciparum) by 2025 and to eliminating all forms of human malaria by 2030, following guidelines set in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Strategy for Malaria Elimination in the Greater Mekong Subregion (2015-2030) [3].

Thailand also established ambitious, yet attainable, national goals to interrupt malaria transmission, reduce active foci, and achieve nationwide malaria-free status by 2024 [4, 5]. The country’s keystone 1-3-7 surveillance strategy, adapted from China, requires that all malaria cases be reported within 1 day of detection and investigated within 3 days, and that appropriate focus-level response is completed within 7 days [6, 7]. Each case and focus are classified according to Thailand’s detailed protocols, and public health interventions are responsively tailored. Foci are categorized as active (A1), residual (A2), cleared but receptive (B1), or cleared but not receptive (B2), as detailed in Table 1 [5]. In the initial 5 years of the 1-3-7 strategy’s implementation, malaria incidence decreased by 81%, from 14,954 cases in fiscal year (FY) 2017 to 2,835 in FY2021, and nearly all annual targets are being met [6]. Additionally, 46 of the country’s 77 provinces have now been declared malaria free as part of its subnational verification program.

Despite this progress, challenges to malaria elimination persist, including adequately addressing Plasmodium vivax (P. vivax) infections, heterogeneous epidemiology, and high population mobility [8, 9, 10]. In FY2013, 43.7% of malaria infections were due to P. falciparum, but by FY2020, the parasite only accounted for 5.7% of all infections. P. vivax has become the predominant species, causing 91.6% of malaria infections in 2020 [11, 12]. P. vivax infections can stay latent for a long time, are less likely to be symptomatic, and require a long 14-day treatment course of primaquine in Thailand as radical cure to prevent relapse, thereby challenging malaria elimination. The spatial distribution of malaria is highly heterogeneous across the country [13, 14]. Cases are clustered in difficult-to-reach populations and areas, often among male workers who travel along Thailand’s international borders [15]. Thai nationals still comprise a majority of malaria cases (71.3% in FY 2020); however, there is a disproportionately high malaria incidence among mobile and migrant communities [11]. As indigenous transmission decreases in Thailand, imported parasites and clustered infections in mobile populations have become an increasing concern. Imported cases can trigger local transmission in susceptible areas [16, 17, 18]. Simultaneously, Thailand’s subnational verification program has expanded the number of malaria-free areas. Although this designation is hard earned, these areas remain vulnerable to the importation of malaria parasites and the reestablishment of indigenous transmission. Both international and domestic travel may increase susceptibility in malaria-free areas or threaten progress toward Thailand’s malaria elimination goal.

As such, Thailand’s Division of Vector Borne Disease (DVBD) in the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) has accelerated its provincial-level prevention of reestablishment (POR) planning to ensure timely response to increasing cases. The draft POR stratification incorporates both risk of parasite importation and receptivity for transmission, building on Thailand’s long-standing focus classification. The classification considers the presence of both mosquito vectors and habitats conducive to vectors, such as forests or mature rubber plantations, based on available entomological surveillance data. To further progress toward malaria elimination, however, focused efforts must be made that draw upon all available sources of information.

This study examined environmental, climate, and demographic factors associated with remaining active foci in Thailand. A logistic regression model collated both routine case- and foci-level surveillance data with remote sensing data to investigate associations of these factors with the probability of having reported an indigenous case within the previous year. The results are intended to contribute to understanding what factors are fueling current malaria transmission and potential future reintroduction, thereby enhancing the current POR risk stratification strategy and increasing the DVBD’s ability to disrupt transmission.

Methods

Results

Changes over time in active foci

The number of active foci for all malaria species in Thailand decreased by 77.7% over the study period, from 1,915 to 427 foci. However, the decline demonstrated an inverse exponential trend, with fewer active foci cleared each year. Between FY2013 and FY2014, the first year of the study, 374 active foci (A1) gained A2 status (19.5%). In contrast, between FY2019 and FY2020, at the study’s endline, only 45 active foci were reclassified to A2 (9.5%) (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Number of reported active foci from FY2013 to FY2020

Reported A1 and A2 foci were highly concentrated along international borders, particularly Thailand’s western border with Myanmar (Figure 2). Many active foci throughout Thailand gained A2 status during the study period, most notably near the eastern border with Lao PDR (Sakhon Nakhon, Mukdahan, and Ubon Ratchathani provinces) and the northeastern border with Myanmar (Chiang Mai and Mae Hong Son provinces). However, persistent A1 foci (those that retained active foci status consistently for 5 years, from FY2016–FY2020) were almost exclusively found immediately adjacent to borders, showing increasing concentration from A2 to A1 to persistent A1 status (Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Spatial pattern of A1 and A2 foci and persistent A1 foci (as foci reported as active throughout the time window FY2016 to FY2020)

During the study period, there was an 80.1% decrease in the number of A1 foci reporting a high proportion of P. falciparum (80% or higher) among all cases (Figure S1). This trend is particularly pronounced along the Cambodian border. It mirrors a national trend of very few foci by FY2020 with greater than 20% of cases represented by P. falciparum infections.

Assessment of environmental composition

A1 foci identified during FY2020 are overlaid on the land cover map, showing that areas with high density of A1 foci are characterized by high forest coverage and located along Thailand’s international borders (Figure 3). The land cover map also shows that a high fraction of central Thailand is dedicated to cropland with no active foci (Figure 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Areas covered by forest, plantation, and cropland with A1 foci, FY2020

The areas surrounding A1 foci at the borders with Myanmar (A, C), Cambodia (B), and Malaysia (D) are magnified in Figure 4. There is heterogeneity in the habitats surrounding active foci. In Mae Hong Son and Tak provinces in the northwest of Thailand (2A), active foci are surrounded by forest; however, on the Myanmar side of the border, the environment is a mix of forest with plantation. In the other hotspot areas, plantations are notable, and they are usually close to forests. Plantations are also the dominant habitats surrounding A1 foci close to the border with Malaysia (D).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Areas covered by forest, plantation, and cropland around A1 foci in northwestern (A), eastern (B), central (C), and southern (D) Thailand

The mean percentages of territory covered by each environmental feature in a 1-km radius around the foci are summarized in Table 2. A1 foci showed much higher proportional land cover of plantation, tropical forest, mixed forest, and evergreen forest, in addition to greater forest disturbance. Conversely, A1 foci showed lower proportional urban areas and rice fields. Comparing the environment among the four foci classes showed that land covered by tropical forest and plantation are significantly higher for A1 foci compared to A2, B1, and B2 foci (Kruskal-Wallis, p<0.05).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2. Environmental characteristics across foci classification

The table shows the mean (among all foci in each classification) percentage of land covered by each environmental feature.

The annual rainfall trend from FY2015 to FY2020 was very similar across the foci categories, with an increase of rainfall from FY2017 to FY2018, followed by lower precipitation through the study’s endline (Figure S2).

Discussion

The study confirms that Thailand’s remaining active foci are clustered along international borders, with a particularly high density along the western border with Myanmar and a high association with tropical forest, plantation, and forest disturbance. These results support the DVBD’s longstanding programmatic focus on border areas and forest-going populations.

Heterogeneous land cover may partially explain these patterns and may contribute to geographically varied success of malaria elimination interventions. The environment of the Thailand-Myanmar border, which includes mountainous regions, forests, and wet-rice fields, is less urbanized than many of Thailand’s low-lying regions [10]. These forested areas provide ideal habitats for Anopheles mosquitoes, and access may be more difficult for public health teams to reach for crucial interventions like reactive case detection [28], thereby increasing likelihood of delayed response and onward transmission. By contrast, urbanized or agriculturally developed areas provide a less ideal vector habitat and are more easily accessible [29, 30]. Substantial prior research from malaria-endemic countries suggests that decreased risks of infection are correlated with urbanization [31, 32].

Other environmental factors, including distance from seasonal or permanent bodies of water and rainfall, have previously been shown to impact malaria transmission [33], but were not significant predictors in our model. Temporal variations (wet vs. dry season), rather than geographic differences, in rainfall distribution may be responsible for these results.

However, the study also showed a substantial, yet slowing, decrease in the number of active malaria foci in Thailand since FY2013. These results are consistent with the 2021 World Malaria Report, which found that global progress against malaria had reached a plateau before the start of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [34]. However, these slowing rates indicate that additional or revised surveillance efforts, coupled with other new interventions, will be necessary to meet the elimination goals.

Thailand’s routine surveillance data show that active foci with significantly lower adherence to 1-3-7 protocols are in border areas with these environmental factors, but which also experience additional challenges [11]. These challenges include waning drug efficacy, migration linked with regional sociopolitics, and civil unrest. To continue to accelerate to elimination, Thailand may need to further refine the 1-3-7 approach to address persisting challenges in adherence, perhaps enhancing protocols to better suit these specific micro-contexts, although developing such protocols would require additional resources. The DVBD may also need to consider more aggressive strategies such as targeted chemoprevention, a revised active case detection program to target emerging high-risk populations, enhanced follow-up schemes or new treatments like tafenoquine for the radical cure of P. vivax, support for improved data recording and use, and involvement of other actors such as the private sector and military to improve reach of malaria interventions.

The results also indicated that demographic factors, such as percentage of males and short-term resident cases, increase the probability of a focus to report a local case. Successfully eliminating malaria will largely depend on targeting specific population groups to ensure high coverage of essential interventions. In Thailand, men between 15 and 44 years of age are more likely to work and sleep overnight in forests; they also comprise 65.9% of malaria infections [35]. Thailand is the principal recipient country of cross-border workers in the GMS [36], and population movement is influenced by social and economic crises including COVID-19 and the 2021 political crisis in Myanmar. These communities often live in hard-to-reach areas and may face more barriers to accessing malaria care than longer-term residents of Thailand [37]. The DVBD will need to find safe and flexible ways to meet their goal of providing effective and complete malaria treatment to all patients in Thailand. Continuing to focus on specific areas with substantial transboundary travel and migration could reduce local transmission.

Environmental characteristics overlap to affect vector reproduction, exposure risk, and access to malaria health services, thereby linking environmental and social patterns [10]. For example, a highly forested area may provide outdoor work opportunities, in turn increasing exposure to exophagic mosquitoes [9, 15, 37]. The results of this analysis suggest that environmental factors alone are not driving malaria transmission in Thailand but rather a combination of syndemic factors. Human activities in areas covered by tropical forests and plantations may result in malaria importation and in turn, local transmission.

These results, which highlight areas at high risk of reporting indigenous cases, are already being used in the DVBD’s risk planning to prevent reestablishment in malaria-free areas. As active foci continue to be eliminated, the DVBD will need to remain vigilant against the return of active foci in susceptible areas. As documented in Sudathip (2021), movement between A1 and A2 status is frequent, which may be unsurprising due to Thailand’s sensitive foci classification criteria: having just one indigenous case reverts a focus from A2 to A1 status [5]. The DVBD plans to develop an automated stratification that will maximize use of Thailand’s existing environmental, climate, and demographic data with minimal statistical input. This stratification will be programmed into an open-source software that enables interactive maps, so that district malaria officers across Thailand will be able to review their jurisdiction’s results and corresponding planning and response actions. The DVBD itself will manage data sources and anticipated update cycles, maintenance of current data in the software, and analysis and use from the resulting maps and tables. There may also be something to learn from provinces or foci where malaria has been reintroduced, some of which are not on international borders. The stratification will employ a non-modeling method to categorize subdistricts into malaria transmission strata, with corresponding POR interventions for each stratum. The DVBD will also issue guidance by stratum for response teams to use a reference for what POR actions need to be maintained and what actions would be taken in the case of an unexpected case or outbreak.

Conclusion

This analysis suggests that environmental factors alone are not driving malaria transmission in Thailand; rather, other factors, including demographics and behaviors, may be contributors. However, these factors are syndemic, so human activities in areas covered by tropical forests and plantations may result in malaria importation that could lead to local transmission. The environmental and demographic determinants of malaria transmission identified in this study support greater understanding of the vulnerability and receptivity bases of POR planning. The DVBD will continue to tailor its surveillance and response to protect high-risk populations and environments and to prevent malaria reintroduction and/or reestablishment. Although these findings are specific to Thailand, this study reveals a generalizable link between both environmental conditions and human activities with malaria elimination. This type of analysis may help other countries adapt their malaria elimination and POR programming to promote consistent progress.

Declarations

Authors’ information

The contents of this article are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, PMI, or the U.S. Government. DG is a staff member of the World Health Organization (WHO) and is responsible for the views expressed in this publication, which do not necessarily reflect the decisions or policies of the WHO.