Indoor residual spraying (IRS) of insecticides is a major vector control strategy for malaria prevention. We evaluated the impact of a single round of IRS with the organophosphate, pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic 300CS), on entomological and parasitological parameters of malaria in Migori County, western Kenya in 2017, in an area where primary vectors are resistant to pyrethroids but susceptible to the iRS compound. entomological monitoring was conducted by indoor cDc light trap, pyrethrum spray catches (PSC) and human landing collection (HLC) before and after IRS. The residual effect of the insecticide was assessed monthly by exposing susceptible An. gambiae s.s. Kisumu strain to sprayed surfaces in cone assays and measuring mortality at 24 hours. Malaria case burden data were extracted from laboratory records of four health facilities within the sprayed area and two adjacent unsprayed areas. iRS was associated with reductions in An. funestus numbers in the intervention areas compared to non-intervention areas by 88% with light traps (risk ratio [RR] 0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.21, p < 0.001) and 93% with PSC collections (RR = 0.07, 0.03-0.17, p < 0.001). The corresponding reductions in the numbers of An. arabiensis collected by PSC were 69% in the intervention compared to the nonintervention areas (RR = 0.31, 0.14-0.68, p = 0.006), but there was no significant difference with light traps (RR = 0.45, 0.21-0.96, p = 0.05). Before IRS, An. funestus accounted for over 80% of Anopheles mosquitoes collected by light trap and pSc in all sites. After iRS, An. arabiensis accounted for 86% of Anopheles collected by PSC and 66% by CDC light trap in the sprayed sites while the proportion in non-intervention sites remained unchanged. No sporozoite infections were detected in intervention areas after iRS and biting rates by An. funestus were reduced to near zero. Anopheles funestus and An. arabiensis were fully susceptible to pirimiphos-methyl and resistant to pyrethroids. The residual effect of Actellic 300CS lasted ten months on mud and concrete walls. Malaria case counts among febrile patients within IRS areas was lower post-compared to pre-IRS by 44%, 65% and 47% in Rongo, Uriri and 1 Abt Associates, PMI VectorLink Project, White House, Milimani, Ojijo Oteko Road,
Introduction Longitudinal monitoring of outdoor-biting malaria vector populations is becoming increasingly important in understanding the dynamics of residual malaria transmission. However, the human landing catch (HLC), the gold standard for measuring human biting rates indoors and outdoors, is costly and raises ethical concerns related to increased risk of infectious bites among collectors. Consequently, routine data on outdoor-feeding mosquito populations are usually limited because of the lack of a scalable tool with similar sensitivity to outdoor HLC. Methodology The Anopheles trapping sensitivity of four baited proxy outdoor trapping methods—Furvela tent trap (FTT), host decoy trap (HDT), mosquito electrocuting traps (MET) and outdoor CDC light traps (OLT)—was assessed relative to HLC in a 5 × 5 replicated Latin square conducted over 25 nights in two villages of western Kenya. Indoor CDC light trap (ILT) was run in one house in each of the compounds with outdoor traps, while additional non-Latin square indoor and outdoor HLC collections were performed in one of the study villages. Results The MET, FTT, HDT and OLT sampled approximately 4.67, 7.58, 5.69 and 1.98 times more An. arabiensis compared to HLC, respectively, in Kakola Ombaka. Only FTT was more sensitive relative to HLC in sampling An. funestus in Kakola Ombaka (RR = 5.59, 95% CI 2.49–12.55, P < 0.001) and Masogo (RR = 4.38, 95% CI 1.62–11.80, P = 0.004) and in sampling An. arabiensis in Masogo (RR = 5.37, 95% CI 2.17–13.24, P < 0.001). OLT sampled significantly higher numbers of An. coustani in Kakola Ombaka (RR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.65–5.56, P < 0.001) and Masogo (RR = 2.88, 95% CI 1.15–7.22, P = 0.02) compared to HLC. OLT, HLC and MET sampled mostly An. coustani, FTT had similar proportions of An. funestus and An. arabiensis, while HDT sampled predominantly An. arabiensis in both villages. FTT showed close correlation with ILT in vector abundance for all three species at both collection sites. Conclusion FTT and OLT are simple, easily scalable traps and are potential replacements for HLC in outdoor sampling of Anopheles mosquitoes. However, the FTT closely mirrored indoor CDC light trap in mosquito indices and therefore may be more of an indoor mimic than a true outdoor collection tool. HDT and MET show potential for sampling outdoor host-seeking mosquitoes. However, the traps as currently designed may not be feasible for large-scale, longitudinal entomological monitoring. Therefore, the baited outdoor CDC light trap may be the most appropriate tool currently available for assessment of outdoor-biting and malaria transmission risk. Graphic abstract
Introduction. Longitudinal monitoring of outdoor-biting malaria vector populations is becoming increasingly important in understanding the dynamics of residual malaria transmission. However, the human landing catch (HLC), the gold standard for measuring human biting rates indoors and outdoors, is costly and raises ethical concerns related to increased risk of infective bites among collectors. Consequently, routine data on outdoor-feeding mosquito populations are usually limited due to the lack of a scalable tool with similar sensitivity to outdoor HLC. Methodology. The Anopheles trapping sensitivity of four baited proxy outdoor trapping methods—Furvela tent trap (FTT), host decoy trap (HDT), mosquito electrocuting traps (MET) and outdoor CDC light traps (OLT)—was assessed relative to HLC in a 5x5 replicated Latin square conducted over 25 nights in two villages of western Kenya. Indoor CDC light trap (ILT) was run in one house in each of the compounds with outdoor traps, while additional non-Latin square indoor and outdoor HLC collections were performed in one of the study villages. Results. The MET, FTT, HDT and OLT sampled approximately 4.67, 7.58, 5.69 and 1.98 times more An. arabiensis compared to HLC, respectively, in Kakola Ombaka. Only FTT was more sensitive relative to HLC in sampling of An. funestus in Kakola Ombaka (RR=5.59, 95%CI: 2.49-12.55, P < 0.001) and Masogo (RR=4.38, 95%CI: 1.62-11.80, P = 0.004) and in sampling An. arabiensis in Masogo (RR=5.37, 95%CI: 2.17-13.24, P < 0.001). OLT sampled significantly higher numbers of An. coustani in Kakola Ombaka (RR=3.03, 95%CI: 1.65-5.56, P < 0.001) and Masogo (RR=2.88, 95%CI: 1.15-7.22, P=0.02) compared to HLC. OLT, HLC and MET sampled mostly An. coustani, FTT had similar proportions of An. funestus and An. arabiensis, while HDT sampled predominantly An. arabiensis in both villages. FTT showed close correlation with ILT in vector abundance for all three species at both collection sites. Conclusion. FTT and OLT are simple, easily scalable traps and are potential replacements for HLC in outdoor sampling of Anopheles mosquitoes. However, the FTT closely mirrored indoor CDC light trap in mosquito indices and therefore may be more of an indoor mimic than a true outdoor collection tool. HDT and MET show potential for sampling outdoor host seeking mosquitoes. However, the traps as currently designed may not be feasible for large scale, longitudinal entomological monitoring. Therefore, the baited outdoor CDC light trap may be the most appropriate tool currently available for assessment of outdoor-biting and malaria transmission risk.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.