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.

No abstract

BackgroundMaintaining the effectiveness of the currently recommended malaria vector control interventions while integrating new interventions will require monitoring key recommended indicators to identify threats to effectiveness including physiological and behavioural resistance to insecticides.MethodsCountry metadata on vector surveillance and control activities was collected using an online survey by National Malaria Control Programmes or partner organization officials. Country and regional surveillance activities were analysed for alignment with indicators for priority vector surveillance objectives recommended by the World Health Organization. Surveillance activities were also compared for countries in the E2020 (eliminating countries) and countries with more intense transmission.ResultsSignificant differences in monitoring priority vector indicators between Africa and Asia-Pacific country programmes were found as well as differences between countries approaching elimination and those controlling malaria. Gaps were found between vector data collected and country management strategies (i.e., for insecticide resistance management and integrated vector control strategies) and for making programmatic decisions on surveillance and control using vector surveillance data.ConclusionsSignificant opportunities exist for increasing vector data collection on priority indicators and using these data for national programmatic decisions for both proactive insecticide resistance management and enhancing vector control.

Background Adult anopheline mosquitoes transmit Plasmodium parasites that cause malaria. Some fish species eat mosquito larvae and pupae. In disease control policy documents, the World Health Organization includes biological control of malaria vectors by stocking ponds, rivers, and water collections near where people live with larvivorous fish to reduce Plasmodium parasite transmission. The Global Fund finances larvivorous fish programmes in some countries, and, with increasing efforts in eradication of malaria, policy makers may return to this option. We therefore assessed the evidence base for larvivorous fish programmes in malaria control. Objectives Our main objective was to evaluate whether introducing larvivorous fish to anopheline breeding sites impacts Plasmodium parasite transmission. Our secondary objective was to summarize studies evaluating whether introducing larvivorous fish influences the density and presence of Anopheles larvae and pupae in water sources, to understand whether fish can possibly have an effect. Search methods We attempted to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, or ongoing). We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in The Cochrane Library ; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CABS Abstracts; LILACS; and the meta Register of Controlled Trials ( m RCT) until 18 June 2013. We checked the reference lists of all studies identified by the above methods. We also examined references listed in review articles and previously compiled bibliographies to look for eligible studies. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled time series and controlled interrupted time series studies from malaria-endemic regions that introduced fish as a larvicide and reported on malaria in the community or the density of the adult anopheline population. In the absence of direct evidence of an effect on transmission, we carried out a secondary analysis on studies that evaluated the effect of introducing larvivorous fish on the density or presence of immature anopheline mosquitoes (larvae and pupae forms) in community water sources to determine whether this intervention has any potential in further research on control of malaria vectors. Data collection and analysis Three review authors screened abstracts and examined potentially relevant studies by using an eligibility form. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. If relevant data were unclear or were not reported, w...

Background Mosquito saliva elicits immune responses in humans following mosquito blood feeding. Detection of human antibodies recognizing the Anopheles gambiae salivary gland protein 6 (gSG6) or the gSG6-P1 peptide in residents of Africa, South America and Southeast Asia suggested the potential for these antibodies to serve as a universal marker to estimate human biting rates. Validating the utility of this approach requires concurrent comparisons of anopheline biting rates with antibodies to the gSG6 protein to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the assay for monitoring changes in vector populations. This study investigated whether seroprevalence of anti-gSG6 antibodies in humans reflected the relative exposure to Anopheles farauti bites in the Solomon Islands as estimated from sympatric human landing catches. Methods Human biting rates by An. farauti were estimated by landing catches at 10 sampling sites in each of 4 villages during the wet and dry seasons. Human serum samples from these same villages were also collected during the wet and dry seasons and analysed for antibody recognition of the gSG6 antigen by the Luminex xMAP© platform. Antibody titres and prevalence were compared to HLCs at the sampling sites nearest to participants’ residences for utility of anti-gSG6 antibodies to estimate human exposure to anopheline bites. Results In this study in the Solomon Islands only 11% of people had very high anti-gSG6 antibody titres, while other individuals did not recognize gSG6 despite nightly exposures of up to 190 bites by An. farauti. Despite clear spatial differences in the human biting rates within and among villages, associations between anti-gSG6 antibody titres and biting rates were not found. Conclusions Few studies to date have concurrently measured anopheline biting rates and the prevalence of human antibodies to gSG6. The lack of association between anti-gSG6 antibody titres and concurrently measured human biting rates suggests that the assay for human anti-gSG6 antibodies lacks sufficient sensitivity to be a biomarker of An. farauti exposure at an epidemiologically relevant scale. These findings imply that an improvement in the sensitivity of serology to monitor changes in anopheline biting exposure may require the use of saliva antigens from local anophelines, and this may be especially true for species more distantly related to the African malaria vector An. gambiae.

Background Vector surveillance provides critical data for decision-making to ensure that malaria control programmes remain effective and responsive to any threats to a successful control and elimination programme. The quality and quantity of data collected is dependent on the sampling tools and laboratory techniques used which may lack the sensitivity required to collect relevant data for decision-making. Here, 40 vector control experts were interviewed to assess the benefits and limitations of the current vector surveillance tools and techniques. In addition, experts shared ideas on “blue sky” indicators which encompassed ideas for novel methods to monitor presently used indicators, or to measure novel vector behaviours not presently measured. Algorithms for deploying surveillance tools and priorities for understanding vector behaviours are also needed for collecting and interpreting vector data. Results The available tools for sampling and analysing vectors are often hampered by high labour and resource requirements (human and supplies) coupled with high outlay and operating costs and variable tool performance across species and geographic regions. The next generation of surveillance tools needs to address the limitations of present tools by being more sensitive, specific and less costly to deploy to enable the collection and use of epidemiologically relevant vector data to facilitate more proactive vector control guidance. Ideas and attributes for Target Product Profiles (TPPs) generated from this analysis provide targets for research and funding to develop next generation tools. Conclusions More efficient surveillance tools and a more complete understanding of vector behaviours and populations will provide a basis for more cost effective and successful malaria control. Understanding the vectors’ behaviours will allow interventions to be deployed that target vulnerabilities in vector behaviours and thus enable more effective control. Through defining the strengths and weaknesses of the current vector surveillance methods, a foundation and initial framework was provided to define the TPPs for the next generation of vector surveillance methods. The draft TTPs presented here aim to ensure that the next generation tools and technologies are not encumbered by the limitations of present surveillance methods and can be readily deployed in low resource settings.

A reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was assessed in laboratory tests to detect the presence of single Aedes aegypti (L.) or Eretmapodites quinquevittatus Theobald mosquitoes infected with Rift Valley fever virus in pools of mosquitoes, 50-600 in size, from laboratory colonies or mixed field collections. The viral RNA was detected in all pools containing infected mosquitoes and was shown to be as sensitive as infant mice but more sensitive than Vero cell cultures for virus detection. Pools diluted down to the equivalent of 1:16 000 mosquitoes were also positive by RT-PCR. RNAs from 4 other phleboviruses were negative, there were no false positives and the procedure followed, with the 2 particular primers chosen, gave consistently clear bands of the PCR products on agarose gels without nested PCR being necessary.

No abstract