Abstract
Many countries pursuing malaria elimination implement "reactive" strategies targeting household members and neighbors of index cases to reduce transmission. These strategies include reactive case detection and treatment (RACDT; testing and treating those positive) and reactive drug administration (RDA; providing antimalarials without testing). We conducted systematic reviews of RACDT and RDA to assess their effect on reducing malaria transmission and gathered evidence about key contextual factors important to their implementation. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full-text records using defined criteria (Patient = those in malaria-endemic/receptive areas; Intervention = RACDT or RDA; Comparison = standard of care; Outcome = malaria incidence/prevalence) and abstracted data for meta-analyses. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach was used to rate certainty of evidence (CoE) for each outcome. Of 1,460 records screened, reviewers identified five RACDT studies (three cluster-randomized controlled trials [cRCTs] and two nonrandomized studies [NRS]) and seven RDA studies (six cRCTs and one NRS); three cRCTs comparing RDA to RACDT were included in both reviews. Compared with RDA, RACDT was associated with nonsignificantly higher parasite prevalence (odds ratio [OR] = 1.85; 95% CI: 0.96-3.57; one study) and malaria incidence (rate ratio [RR] = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.94-1.79; three studies), both very low CoE. Compared with control or RACDT, RDA was associated with non-significantly lower parasite incidence (RR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.36-1.47; 2 studies, moderate CoE), prevalence (OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.52-1.17; 4 studies, low CoE), and malaria incidence (RR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.82-1.05; six studies, moderate CoE). Evidence for reactive strategies' impact on malaria transmission is limited, especially for RACDT, but suggests RDA might be more effective.