Malaria's Impact Vastly Underestimated, Report Says
Malaria is a cause of poverty, not vice versa. This is one of the
many notable conclusions drawn by a bevy of eminent parasitologists,
epidemiologists, and economists who thoroughly examined malaria's impact
on health, cognitive and behavioral functioning, and economic growth in
endemic countries. Their findings were published earlier this year as a
special supplement, "The Intolerable Burden of Malaria: a New Look
at the Numbers," in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine
and Hygiene.
The project was a "very ambitious" effort to reexamine
critically the accuracy underlying malaria morbidity and mortality
numbers that have been routinely cited for half a century, says Joel
Breman of the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of
Health in Bethesda, Md. Breman, who is also a senior scientific advisor
to the Multilateral Initiative on Malaria, served as the chief
coordinator and editor of the supplement.
Determining true morbidity numbers for malaria or its effects such as
its impact on learning abilities proved tricky and, in some cases,
elusive. "The goal was not to be definitive, but rather to
stimulate people into thinking more about and breaking down the
issues," Breman says. "To my mind, these are the best data we
now have" describing the multifaceted impacts of the disease.
For decades, scientists and public health staffs described the impact
of malaria by citing the 1 million deaths caused annually by the
disease, intoning this figure almost as a mantra, Bremen says. However,
effects such as low birth weight, anemia, and consequent infant
mortality that arise from malarial infections among pregnant women and
infants constitute a very large and often hidden burden. For instance,
malaria may account for as many as 1.75 million deaths a year in African
children under age five alone. Based on these findings, the overall
malaria mortality rate may well be as high as 2.7 million deaths per
year, well above the standard figure, Breman notes.
In one of the most intriguing studies within the supplement, two
Harvard economists argue that climate and ecological factors are the
main determinants of disease severity, not poverty. For example, despite
intensive investments over seven years to control malaria in Garki,
Nigeria, during the 1960s, the remarkable vectorial capacity of local
mosquitoes overcame control measures that worked well elsewhere, they
say. Moreover, they assert, poverty results directly from a high
incidence of malaria. "Nobody has put this idea forward before, and
so persuasively," Breman says.
The economists determined that even after controlling for factors
such as colonial history and geographical isolation, countries with high
rates of malaria had income levels two-thirds lower than those of
malaria-free countries in 1995. Furthermore, economic growth in
countries with endemic malaria was 1.3% lower per person per year in
1965, even after factors such as initial poverty, life expectancies, and
economic policies were taken into account. Reducing disease by 10% from
1965 to 1990 resulted in a 0.3% annual jump in economic growth, they
found.
Breman and his fellow authors expect the supplement to stir
discussions. "We want people to question the figures and their
implications," he says. Such interest will help to focus increased
attention on research into the economic, psychosocial, and neurological
effects of malaria as well as the epidemiology, immunology, and
microbiology of the disease, he predicts.
The authors also hope that their findings will lead to funding
increases for malaria research, which currently lags woefully, Breman
says. "There's no doubt that there have been increases in attention
to and research funding for malaria in recent years, but it's still not
at all commensurate with the problem."
Christine Stencel
Christine Stencel is a communications manager and science writer at
ASM.