Installation of insecticide-treated durable wall lining: evaluation of attachment materials and product durability under field conditions

Messenger, Louisa A.; Larsen, Marie Louise M; Thomas, J. H.; Rowland, Mark

doi:10.1186/preaccept-1577225326135355

Cited by 5 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The nail-based fixtures may have prevented this as they were not easily removed without appropriate tools (which may not be commonly available at the rural household level in PNG) and, therefore, may not be the best fixture for use in PNG homes. This contrasts with findings from a recent study in Ghana where nail-based fixtures were considered ideal for DL installation in homes constructed out of clay or concrete rendered mud walls [ 18 ].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 85%

Long-term acceptability, durability and bio-efficacy of ZeroVector® durable lining for vector control in Papua New Guinea

Kuadima

Timinao

Naidi

et al. 2017

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study examined the acceptability, durability and bio-efficacy of pyrethroid-impregnated durable lining (DL) over a three-year period post-installation in residential homes across Papua New Guinea (PNG).MethodsZeroVector® ITPS had previously been installed in 40 homes across four study sites representing a cross section of malaria transmission risk and housing style. Structured questionnaires, DL visual inspections and group interviews (GIs) were completed with household heads at 12- and 36-months post-installation. Three DL samples were collected from all households in which it remained 36-months post-installation to evaluate the bio-efficacy of DL on Anopheles mosquitoes. Bio-efficacy testing followed WHO guidelines for the evaluation of indoor residual spraying.ResultsThe DL was still intact in 86 and 39% of study homes at the two time periods, respectively. In homes in which the DL was still intact, 92% of household heads considered the appearance at 12-months post installation to be the same as, or better than, that at installation compared to 59% at 36-months post-installation. GIs at both time points confirmed continuing high acceptance of DL, based in large part of the perceived attractiveness and functionality of the material. However, participants frequently asserted that they, or their family members, had ceased or reduced their use of mosquito nets as a result of the DL installation. A total of 16 houses were sampled for bio-efficacy testing across the 4 study sites at 36-months post-installation. Overall, combining all sites and samples, both knock-down at 30 min and mortality at 24 h were 100%.ConclusionsThe ZeroVector® DL installation remained highly acceptable at 36-months post-installation, the material and fixtures proved durable and the efficacy against malaria vectors did not decrease. However, the DL material had been removed from over 50% of the original study homes 3 years post-installation, largely due to deteriorating housing infrastructure. Furthermore, the presence of the DL installation appeared to reduce ITN use among many participating householders. The study findings suggest DL may not be an appropriate vector control method for large-scale use in the contemporary PNG malaria control programme.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 85%

Long-term acceptability, durability and bio-efficacy of ZeroVector® durable lining for vector control in Papua New Guinea

Kuadima

Timinao

Naidi

et al. 2017

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…DWL has a long lasting effect (tested for 12 months) [ 31 ], can be reduced in size covering only the lower parts of the wall without losing efficacy [ 32 ]. The product is however costly and the application on the walls is not easy [ 31 , 33 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Control of Phlebotomus argentipes (Diptera: Psychodidae) sand fly in Bangladesh: A cluster randomized controlled trial

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA number of studies on visceral leishmaniasis (VL) vector control have been conducted during the past decade, sometimes came to very different conclusion. The present study on a large sample investigated different options which are partially unexplored including: (1) indoor residual spraying (IRS) with alpha cypermethrin 5WP; (2) long lasting insecticide impregnated bed-net (LLIN); (3) impregnation of local bed-nets with slow release insecticide K-O TAB 1-2-3 (KOTAB); (4) insecticide spraying in potential breeding sites outside of house using chlorpyrifos 20EC (OUT) and different combinations of the above.MethodsThe study was a cluster randomized controlled trial where 3089 houses from 11 villages were divided into 10 sections, each section with 6 clusters and each cluster having approximately 50 houses. Based on vector density (males plus females) during baseline survey, the 60 clusters were categorized into 3 groups: (1) high, (2) medium and (3) low. Each group had 20 clusters. From these three groups, 6 clusters (about 300 households) were randomly selected for each type of intervention and control arms. Vector density was measured before and 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 22 months after intervention using CDC light traps. The impact of interventions was measured by using the difference-in-differences regression model.ResultsA total of 17,434 sand flies were collected at baseline and during the surveys conducted over 9 months following the baseline measurements. At baseline, the average P. argentipes density per household was 10.6 (SD = 11.5) in the control arm and 7.3 (SD = 8.46) to 11.5 (SD = 20.2) in intervention arms. The intervention results presented as the range of percent reductions of sand flies (males plus females) and rate ratios in 9 measurements over 22 months. Among single type interventions, the effect of IRS with 2 rounds of spraying (applied by the research team) ranged from 13% to 75% reduction of P. argentipes density compared to the control arm (rate-ratio [RR] ranged from 0.25 to 0.87). LLINs caused a vector reduction of 9% to 78% (RR, 0.22 to 0.91). KOTAB reduced vectors by 4% to 73% (RR, 0.27 to 0.96). The combination of LLIN and OUT led to a vector reduction of 26% to 86% (RR, 0.14 to 0.74). The reduction for the combination of IRS and OUT was 8% to 88% (RR, 0.12 to 0.92). IRS and LLIN combined resulted in a vector reduction of 13% to 85% (RR, 0.15 to 0.77). The IRS and KOTAB combination reduced vector densities by 16% to 86% (RR, 0.14 to 0.84). Some intermediate measurements for KOTAB alone and for IRS plus LLIN; and IRS plus KOTAB were not statistically significant. The bioassays on sprayed surfaces or netting materials showed favourable results (>80% mortality) for 22 months (IRS tested for 12 months). In the KOTAB, a gradual decline was observed after 6 months.ConclusionsLLIN and OUT was the best combination to reduce VL vector densities for 22 months or longer. Operationally, this is much easier to apply than IRS. A cost analysis of the preferred tools will follow. The r...

show abstract

“…To date, existing data to support bioefficacy, feasibility and household acceptability of commercial pyrethroid ITWL are limited to small-scale trials conducted by the manufacturer and associates [ 29 – 32 ]. No controlled study has yet demonstrated that non-pyrethroid ITWL can reduce malaria burden nor provide additional protection beyond the current best practice of universal coverage (UC) of LLINs and prompt artemisinin combination therapy (ACT).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of non-pyrethroid insecticide-treated durable wall lining to control malaria in rural Tanzania: study protocol for a two-armed cluster randomized trial

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite considerable reductions in malaria achieved by scaling-up long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), maintaining sustained community protection remains operationally challenging. Increasing insecticide resistance also threatens to jeopardize the future of both strategies. Non-pyrethroid insecticidetreated wall lining (ITWL) may represent an alternate or complementary control method and a potential tool to manage insecticide resistance. To date no study has demonstrated whether ITWL can reduce malaria transmission nor provide additional protection beyond the current best practice of universal coverage (UC) of LLINs and prompt case management.Methods/designA two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted in rural Tanzania to assess whether non-pyrethroid ITWL and UC of LLINs provide added protection against malaria infection in children, compared to UC of LLINs alone. Stratified randomization based on malaria prevalence will be used to select 22 village clusters per arm. All 44 clusters will receive LLINs and half will also have ITWL installed on interior house walls. Study children, aged 6 months to 11 years old, will be enrolled from each cluster and followed monthly to estimate cumulative incidence of malaria parasitaemia (primary endpoint), time to first malaria episode and prevalence of anaemia before and after intervention. Entomological inoculation rate will be estimated using indoor CDC light traps and outdoor tent traps followed by detection of Anopheles gambiae species, sporozoite infection, insecticide resistance and blood meal source. ITWL bioefficacy and durability will be monitored using WHO cone bioassays and household surveys, respectively. Social and cultural factors influencing community and household ITWL acceptability will be explored through focus-group discussions and in-depth interviews. Cost-effectiveness, compared between study arms, will be estimated per malaria case averted.DiscussionThis protocol describes the large-scale evaluation of a novel vector control product, designed to overcome some of the known limitations of existing methods. If ITWL is proven to be effective and durable under field conditions, it may warrant consideration for programmatic implementation, particularly in areas with long transmission seasons and where pyrethroid-resistant vectors predominate. Trial findings will provide crucial information for policy makers in Tanzania and other malaria-endemic countries to guide resource allocations for future control efforts.Trial registrationNCT02533336 registered on 13 July 2014.

show abstract

Installation of insecticide-treated durable wall lining: evaluation of attachment materials and product durability under field conditions

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

Long-term acceptability, durability and bio-efficacy of ZeroVector® durable lining for vector control in Papua New Guinea

Long-term acceptability, durability and bio-efficacy of ZeroVector® durable lining for vector control in Papua New Guinea

Control of Phlebotomus argentipes (Diptera: Psychodidae) sand fly in Bangladesh: A cluster randomized controlled trial

The effectiveness of non-pyrethroid insecticide-treated durable wall lining to control malaria in rural Tanzania: study protocol for a two-armed cluster randomized trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About