SummaryBackgroundScale-up of insecticide-based interventions has averted more than 500 million malaria cases since 2000. Increasing insecticide resistance could herald a rebound in disease and mortality. We aimed to investigate whether insecticide resistance was associated with loss of effectiveness of long-lasting insecticidal nets and increased malaria disease burden.MethodsThis WHO-coordinated, prospective, observational cohort study was done at 279 clusters (villages or groups of villages in which phenotypic resistance was measurable) in Benin, Cameroon, India, Kenya, and Sudan. Pyrethroid long-lasting insecticidal nets were the principal form of malaria vector control in all study areas; in Sudan this approach was supplemented by indoor residual spraying. Cohorts of children from randomly selected households in each cluster were recruited and followed up by community health workers to measure incidence of clinical malaria and prevalence of infection. Mosquitoes were assessed for susceptibility to pyrethroids using the standard WHO bioassay test. Country-specific results were combined using meta-analysis.FindingsBetween June 2, 2012, and Nov 4, 2016, 40 000 children were enrolled and assessed for clinical incidence during 1·4 million follow-up visits. 80 000 mosquitoes were assessed for insecticide resistance. Long-lasting insecticidal net users had lower infection prevalence (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·63, 95% CI 0·51–0·78) and disease incidence (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0·62, 0·41–0·94) than did non-users across a range of resistance levels. We found no evidence of an association between insecticide resistance and infection prevalence (adjusted OR 0·86, 0·70–1·06) or incidence (adjusted RR 0·89, 0·72–1·10). Users of nets, although significantly better protected than non-users, were nevertheless subject to high malaria infection risk (ranging from an average incidence in net users of 0·023, [95% CI 0·016–0·033] per person-year in India, to 0·80 [0·65–0·97] per person year in Kenya; and an average infection prevalence in net users of 0·8% [0·5–1·3] in India to an average infection prevalence of 50·8% [43·4–58·2] in Benin).InterpretationIrrespective of resistance, populations in malaria endemic areas should continue to use long-lasting insecticidal nets to reduce their risk of infection. As nets provide only partial protection, the development of additional vector control tools should be prioritised to reduce the unacceptably high malaria burden.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Medical Research Council, and UK Department for International Development.

The Malaria Eradication Research Agenda (malERA) Consultative Group on Vector Control outline the research needed to ensure vector control at every stage of malaria eradication.

Background: Data on insecticide use for vector control are essential for guiding pesticide management systems on judicious and appropriate use, resistance management, and reduction of risks to human health and the environment.Objective: We studied the global use and trends of insecticide use for control of vector-borne diseases for the period 2000 through 2009.Methods: A survey was distributed to countries with vector control programs to request national data on vector control insecticide use, excluding the use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LNs). Data were received from 125 countries, representing 97% of the human populations of 143 targeted countries.Results: The main disease targeted with insecticides was malaria, followed by dengue, leishmaniasis, and Chagas disease. The use of vector control insecticides was dominated by organochlorines [i.e., DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)] in terms of quantity applied (71% of total) and by pyrethroids in terms of the surface or area covered (81% of total). Global use of DDT for vector control, most of which was in India alone, was fairly constant during 2000 through 2009. In Africa, pyrethroid use increased in countries that also achieved high coverage for LNs, and DDT increased sharply until 2008 but dropped in 2009.Conclusions: The global use of DDT has not changed substantially since the Stockholm Convention went into effect. The dominance of pyrethroid use has major implications because of the spread of insecticide resistance with the potential to reduce the efficacy of LNs. Managing insecticide resistance should be coordinated between disease-specific programs and sectors of public health and agriculture within the context of an integrated vector management approach.

In recent years, there has been an increase in resistance of malaria vectors to insecticides, particularly to pyrethroids which are widely used in insecticide-treated nets. The Global Plan for Insecticide Resistance Management in malaria vectors (GPIRM), released in May 2012, is a collective strategy for the malaria community to tackle this challenge. This review outlines progress made to date and the challenges experienced in the implementation of GPIRM, and outlines focus areas requiring urgent attention. Whilst there has been some advancement, uptake of GPIRM at the national level has generally been poor for various reasons, including limited availability of vector control tools with new mechanisms of action as well as critical financial, human and infrastructural resource deficiencies. There is an urgent need for a global response plan to address these deficits and ensure the correct and efficient use of available tools in order to maintain the effectiveness of current vector control efforts whilst novel vector control tools are under development. Emphasis must be placed on enhancing national capacities (such as human and infrastructural resources) to enable efficient monitoring and management of insecticide resistance, and to support availability and accessibility of appropriate new vector control products. Lack of action by the global community to address the threat of insecticide resistance is unacceptable and deprives affected communities of their basic right of universal access to effective malaria prevention. Aligning efforts and assigning the needed resources will ensure the optimal implementation of GPIRM with the ultimate goal of maintaining effective malaria vector control.

Species composition, blood meal source, sporozoite infection rate, insecticide resistance and the kdr mutations were investigated in the Anopheles gambiae complex from 13 sentinel sites in central Sudan. Species identification revealed that 89.5% of 960 specimens were A. arabiensis. Of 310 indoor resting females, 88.1% were found to have fed on humans, while 10.6% had fed on bovines. The overall sporozoite infection rate from the five localities tested was 2.3%, ranging from 0 to 5.5%. Insecticide susceptibility bioassay results showed 100% mortality on bendiocarb, 54.6-94.2% on permethrin, 55.4-99.1% on DDT and 76.8-100% on malathion. The kdr analysis by PCR and sequencing revealed the presence of the Leu-Phe mutation in both permethrin and DDT bioassays. There was no significant difference in the frequency of kdr (P>0.05) between dead and surviving specimens. These findings have serious implications for the malaria control programmes in Gezira and Sennar states.

Background/methodsInsecticide-treated nets (ITNs) are the primary tool for malaria vector control in sub-Saharan Africa, and have been responsible for an estimated two-thirds of the reduction in the global burden of malaria in recent years. While the ultimate goal is high levels of ITN use to confer protection against infected mosquitoes, it is widely accepted that ITN use must be understood in the context of ITN availability. However, despite nearly a decade of universal coverage campaigns, no country has achieved a measured level of 80% of households owning 1 ITN for 2 people in a national survey. Eighty-six public datasets from 33 countries in sub-Saharan Africa (2005–2017) were used to explore the causes of failure to achieve universal coverage at the household level, understand the relationships between the various ITN indicators, and further define their respective programmatic utility.ResultsThe proportion of households owning 1 ITN for 2 people did not exceed 60% at the national level in any survey, except in Uganda’s 2014 Malaria Indicator Survey (MIS). At 80% population ITN access, the expected proportion of households with 1 ITN for 2 people is only 60% (p = 0.003 R2 = 0.92), because individuals in households with some but not enough ITNs are captured as having access, but the household does not qualify as having 1 ITN for 2 people. Among households with 7–9 people, mean population ITN access was 41.0% (95% CI 36.5–45.6), whereas only 6.2% (95% CI 4.0–8.3) of these same households owned at least 1 ITN for 2 people. On average, 60% of the individual protection measured by the population access indicator is obscured when focus is put on the household “universal coverage” indicator. The practice of limiting households to a maximum number of ITNs in mass campaigns severely restricts the ability of large households to obtain enough ITNs for their entire family.ConclusionsThe two household-level indicators—one representing minimal coverage, the other only ‘universal’ coverage—provide an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of personal protection and the success of an ITN distribution programme. Under current ITN distribution strategies, the global malaria community cannot expect countries to reach 80% of households owning 1 ITN for 2 people at a national level. When programmes assess the success of ITN distribution activities, population access to ITNs should be considered as the better indicator of “universal coverage,” because it is based on people as the unit of analysis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12936-018-2505-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundProgress in reducing the malaria disease burden through the substantial scale up of insecticide-based vector control in recent years could be reversed by the widespread emergence of insecticide resistance. The impact of insecticide resistance on the protective effectiveness of insecticide-treated nets (ITN) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) is not known. A multi-country study was undertaken in Sudan, Kenya, India, Cameroon and Benin to quantify the potential loss of epidemiological effectiveness of ITNs and IRS due to decreased susceptibility of malaria vectors to insecticides. The design of the study is described in this paper.MethodsMalaria disease incidence rates by active case detection in cohorts of children, and indicators of insecticide resistance in local vectors were monitored in each of approximately 300 separate locations (clusters) with high coverage of malaria vector control over multiple malaria seasons. Phenotypic and genotypic resistance was assessed annually. In two countries, Sudan and India, clusters were randomly assigned to receive universal coverage of ITNs only, or universal coverage of ITNs combined with high coverage of IRS. Association between malaria incidence and insecticide resistance, and protective effectiveness of vector control methods and insecticide resistance were estimated, respectively.ResultsCohorts have been set up in all five countries, and phenotypic resistance data have been collected in all clusters. In Sudan, Kenya, Cameroon and Benin data collection is due to be completed in 2015. In India data collection will be completed in 2016.DiscussionThe paper discusses challenges faced in the design and execution of the study, the analysis plan, the strengths and weaknesses, and the possible alternatives to the chosen study design.

SignificanceEmerging insecticide resistance in malaria vectors could presage a catastrophic rebound in malaria morbidity and mortality. In areas of moderate levels of resistance to pyrethroids, long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) with a carbamate insecticide were significantly more effective than IRS with pyrethroid insecticide. The impact on the effectiveness of LLINs could not be quantified. The incremental cost of using a carbamate insecticide to which vectors are susceptible was US $0.65 per person protected per year, which is considered acceptable by international standards. While the WHO recommends that different interventions, where possible, should use different insecticide classes, these data alone should not be used as the basis for a policy change in vector control interventions.