Impact of different mosquito collection methods on indicators of Anopheles malaria vectors in Uganda

Abstract Background Methods used to sample mosquitoes are important to consider when estimating entomologic metrics. Human landing catches (HLCs) are considered the gold standard for collecting malaria vectors. However, HLCs are labour intensive, can expose collectors to transmission risk, and are d...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Malaria Journal
Main Authors: Henry Ddumba Mawejje, Jackson R. Asiimwe, Patrick Kyagamba, Moses R. Kamya, Philip J. Rosenthal, Jo Lines, Grant Dorsey, Sarah G. Staedke
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: BMC 2022
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04413-1
https://doaj.org/article/8dfcd41034014739babf5f3176024077
id ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:8dfcd41034014739babf5f3176024077
record_format openpolar
spelling ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:8dfcd41034014739babf5f3176024077 2023-05-15T15:16:02+02:00 Impact of different mosquito collection methods on indicators of Anopheles malaria vectors in Uganda Henry Ddumba Mawejje Jackson R. Asiimwe Patrick Kyagamba Moses R. Kamya Philip J. Rosenthal Jo Lines Grant Dorsey Sarah G. Staedke 2022-12-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04413-1 https://doaj.org/article/8dfcd41034014739babf5f3176024077 EN eng BMC https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04413-1 https://doaj.org/toc/1475-2875 doi:10.1186/s12936-022-04413-1 1475-2875 https://doaj.org/article/8dfcd41034014739babf5f3176024077 Malaria Journal, Vol 21, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2022) Anopheles Human landing catches CDC light trap Prokopack aspirators Pit trap Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine RC955-962 Infectious and parasitic diseases RC109-216 article 2022 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04413-1 2022-12-30T19:28:17Z Abstract Background Methods used to sample mosquitoes are important to consider when estimating entomologic metrics. Human landing catches (HLCs) are considered the gold standard for collecting malaria vectors. However, HLCs are labour intensive, can expose collectors to transmission risk, and are difficult to implement at scale. This study compared alternative methods to HLCs for collecting Anopheles mosquitoes in eastern Uganda. Methods Between June and November 2021, mosquitoes were collected from randomly selected households in three parishes in Tororo and Busia districts. Mosquitoes were collected indoors and outdoors using HLCs in 16 households every 4 weeks. Additional collections were done indoors with prokopack aspirators, and outdoors with pit traps, in these 16 households every 2 weeks. CDC light trap collections were done indoors in 80 households every 4 weeks. Female Anopheles mosquitoes were identified morphologically and Anopheles gambiae sensu lato were speciated using PCR. Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite testing was done with ELISA. Results Overall, 4,891 female Anopheles were collected, including 3,318 indoors and 1,573 outdoors. Compared to indoor HLCs, vector density (mosquitoes per unit collection) was lower using CDC light traps (4.24 vs 2.96, density ratio [DR] 0.70, 95% CIs 0.63–0.77, p < 0.001) and prokopacks (4.24 vs 1.82, DR 0.43, 95% CIs 0.37–0.49, p < 0.001). Sporozoite rates were similar between indoor methods, although precision was limited. Compared to outdoor HLCs, vector density was higher using pit trap collections (3.53 vs 6.43, DR 1.82, 95% CIs 1.61–2.05, p < 0.001), while the sporozoite rate was lower (0.018 vs 0.004, rate ratio [RR] 0.23, 95% CIs 0.07–0.75, p = 0.008). Prokopacks collected a higher proportion of Anopheles funestus (75.0%) than indoor HLCs (25.8%), while pit traps collected a higher proportion of Anopheles arabiensis (84.3%) than outdoor HLCs (36.9%). Conclusion In this setting, the density and species of mosquitoes collected with alternative ... Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Arctic Malaria Journal 21 1
institution Open Polar
collection Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles
op_collection_id ftdoajarticles
language English
topic Anopheles
Human landing catches
CDC light trap
Prokopack aspirators
Pit trap
Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine
RC955-962
Infectious and parasitic diseases
RC109-216
spellingShingle Anopheles
Human landing catches
CDC light trap
Prokopack aspirators
Pit trap
Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine
RC955-962
Infectious and parasitic diseases
RC109-216
Henry Ddumba Mawejje
Jackson R. Asiimwe
Patrick Kyagamba
Moses R. Kamya
Philip J. Rosenthal
Jo Lines
Grant Dorsey
Sarah G. Staedke
Impact of different mosquito collection methods on indicators of Anopheles malaria vectors in Uganda
topic_facet Anopheles
Human landing catches
CDC light trap
Prokopack aspirators
Pit trap
Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine
RC955-962
Infectious and parasitic diseases
RC109-216
description Abstract Background Methods used to sample mosquitoes are important to consider when estimating entomologic metrics. Human landing catches (HLCs) are considered the gold standard for collecting malaria vectors. However, HLCs are labour intensive, can expose collectors to transmission risk, and are difficult to implement at scale. This study compared alternative methods to HLCs for collecting Anopheles mosquitoes in eastern Uganda. Methods Between June and November 2021, mosquitoes were collected from randomly selected households in three parishes in Tororo and Busia districts. Mosquitoes were collected indoors and outdoors using HLCs in 16 households every 4 weeks. Additional collections were done indoors with prokopack aspirators, and outdoors with pit traps, in these 16 households every 2 weeks. CDC light trap collections were done indoors in 80 households every 4 weeks. Female Anopheles mosquitoes were identified morphologically and Anopheles gambiae sensu lato were speciated using PCR. Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite testing was done with ELISA. Results Overall, 4,891 female Anopheles were collected, including 3,318 indoors and 1,573 outdoors. Compared to indoor HLCs, vector density (mosquitoes per unit collection) was lower using CDC light traps (4.24 vs 2.96, density ratio [DR] 0.70, 95% CIs 0.63–0.77, p < 0.001) and prokopacks (4.24 vs 1.82, DR 0.43, 95% CIs 0.37–0.49, p < 0.001). Sporozoite rates were similar between indoor methods, although precision was limited. Compared to outdoor HLCs, vector density was higher using pit trap collections (3.53 vs 6.43, DR 1.82, 95% CIs 1.61–2.05, p < 0.001), while the sporozoite rate was lower (0.018 vs 0.004, rate ratio [RR] 0.23, 95% CIs 0.07–0.75, p = 0.008). Prokopacks collected a higher proportion of Anopheles funestus (75.0%) than indoor HLCs (25.8%), while pit traps collected a higher proportion of Anopheles arabiensis (84.3%) than outdoor HLCs (36.9%). Conclusion In this setting, the density and species of mosquitoes collected with alternative ...
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Henry Ddumba Mawejje
Jackson R. Asiimwe
Patrick Kyagamba
Moses R. Kamya
Philip J. Rosenthal
Jo Lines
Grant Dorsey
Sarah G. Staedke
author_facet Henry Ddumba Mawejje
Jackson R. Asiimwe
Patrick Kyagamba
Moses R. Kamya
Philip J. Rosenthal
Jo Lines
Grant Dorsey
Sarah G. Staedke
author_sort Henry Ddumba Mawejje
title Impact of different mosquito collection methods on indicators of Anopheles malaria vectors in Uganda
title_short Impact of different mosquito collection methods on indicators of Anopheles malaria vectors in Uganda
title_full Impact of different mosquito collection methods on indicators of Anopheles malaria vectors in Uganda
title_fullStr Impact of different mosquito collection methods on indicators of Anopheles malaria vectors in Uganda
title_full_unstemmed Impact of different mosquito collection methods on indicators of Anopheles malaria vectors in Uganda
title_sort impact of different mosquito collection methods on indicators of anopheles malaria vectors in uganda
publisher BMC
publishDate 2022
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04413-1
https://doaj.org/article/8dfcd41034014739babf5f3176024077
geographic Arctic
geographic_facet Arctic
genre Arctic
genre_facet Arctic
op_source Malaria Journal, Vol 21, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2022)
op_relation https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04413-1
https://doaj.org/toc/1475-2875
doi:10.1186/s12936-022-04413-1
1475-2875
https://doaj.org/article/8dfcd41034014739babf5f3176024077
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04413-1
container_title Malaria Journal
container_volume 21
container_issue 1
_version_ 1766346352417046528