CDC light traps underestimate the protective efficacy of an indoor spatial repellent against bites from wild Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in Tanzania
Abstract Background Methods for evaluating efficacy of core malaria interventions in experimental and operational settings are well established but gaps exist for spatial repellents (SR). The objective of this study was to compare three different techniques: (1) collection of blood-fed mosquitoes (f...
Published in: | Malaria Journal |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2023
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04568-5 https://doaj.org/article/dd8482be21f84968a9bbf973f4e7126f |
id |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:dd8482be21f84968a9bbf973f4e7126f |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:dd8482be21f84968a9bbf973f4e7126f 2023-06-11T04:10:01+02:00 CDC light traps underestimate the protective efficacy of an indoor spatial repellent against bites from wild Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in Tanzania Johnson Kyeba Swai Ummi Abdul Kibondo Watson Samuel Ntabaliba Hassan Ahamad Ngoyani Noely Otto Makungwa Antony Pius Mseka Madeleine Rose Chura Thomas Michael Mascari Sarah Jane Moore 2023-04-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04568-5 https://doaj.org/article/dd8482be21f84968a9bbf973f4e7126f EN eng BMC https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04568-5 https://doaj.org/toc/1475-2875 doi:10.1186/s12936-023-04568-5 1475-2875 https://doaj.org/article/dd8482be21f84968a9bbf973f4e7126f Malaria Journal, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2023) Spatial repellent Volatile pyrethroid Anopheles Mosquito sampling Protective efficacy Vector control Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine RC955-962 Infectious and parasitic diseases RC109-216 article 2023 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04568-5 2023-05-07T00:36:06Z Abstract Background Methods for evaluating efficacy of core malaria interventions in experimental and operational settings are well established but gaps exist for spatial repellents (SR). The objective of this study was to compare three different techniques: (1) collection of blood-fed mosquitoes (feeding), (2) human landing catch (HLC), and (3) CDC light trap (CDC-LT) collections for measuring the indoor protective efficacy (PE) of the volatile pyrethroid SR product Mosquito Shield™ Methods The PE of Mosquito Shield™ against a wild population of pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes was determined via feeding, HLC, or CDC-LT using four simultaneous 3 by 3 Latin squares (LS) run using 12 experimental huts in Tanzania. On any given night each technique was assigned to two huts with control and two huts with treatment. The LS were run twice over 18 nights to give a sample size of 72 replicates for each technique. Data were analysed by negative binomial regression. Results The PE of Mosquito Shield™ measured as feeding inhibition was 84% (95% confidence interval (CI) 58–94% [Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 0.16 (0.06–0.42), p < 0.001]; landing inhibition 77% [64–86%, (IRR 0.23 (0.14–0.36) p < 0.001]; and reduction in numbers collected by CDC-LT 30% (0–56%) [IRR 0.70 (0.44–1.0) p = 0.160]. Analysis of the agreement of the PE measured by each technique relative to HLC indicated no statistical difference in PE measured by feeding inhibition and landing inhibition [IRR 0.73 (0.25–2.12) p = 0.568], but a significant difference in PE measured by CDC-LT and landing inhibition [IRR 3.13 (1.57–6.26) p = 0.001]. Conclusion HLC gave a similar estimate of PE of Mosquito Shield™ against An. arabiensis mosquitoes when compared to measuring blood-feeding directly, while CDC-LT underestimated PE relative to the other techniques. The results of this study indicate that CDC-LT could not effectively estimate PE of the indoor spatial repellent in this setting. It is critical to first evaluate the use of CDC-LT (and ... Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Arctic Malaria Journal 22 1 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles |
op_collection_id |
ftdoajarticles |
language |
English |
topic |
Spatial repellent Volatile pyrethroid Anopheles Mosquito sampling Protective efficacy Vector control Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine RC955-962 Infectious and parasitic diseases RC109-216 |
spellingShingle |
Spatial repellent Volatile pyrethroid Anopheles Mosquito sampling Protective efficacy Vector control Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine RC955-962 Infectious and parasitic diseases RC109-216 Johnson Kyeba Swai Ummi Abdul Kibondo Watson Samuel Ntabaliba Hassan Ahamad Ngoyani Noely Otto Makungwa Antony Pius Mseka Madeleine Rose Chura Thomas Michael Mascari Sarah Jane Moore CDC light traps underestimate the protective efficacy of an indoor spatial repellent against bites from wild Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in Tanzania |
topic_facet |
Spatial repellent Volatile pyrethroid Anopheles Mosquito sampling Protective efficacy Vector control Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine RC955-962 Infectious and parasitic diseases RC109-216 |
description |
Abstract Background Methods for evaluating efficacy of core malaria interventions in experimental and operational settings are well established but gaps exist for spatial repellents (SR). The objective of this study was to compare three different techniques: (1) collection of blood-fed mosquitoes (feeding), (2) human landing catch (HLC), and (3) CDC light trap (CDC-LT) collections for measuring the indoor protective efficacy (PE) of the volatile pyrethroid SR product Mosquito Shield™ Methods The PE of Mosquito Shield™ against a wild population of pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes was determined via feeding, HLC, or CDC-LT using four simultaneous 3 by 3 Latin squares (LS) run using 12 experimental huts in Tanzania. On any given night each technique was assigned to two huts with control and two huts with treatment. The LS were run twice over 18 nights to give a sample size of 72 replicates for each technique. Data were analysed by negative binomial regression. Results The PE of Mosquito Shield™ measured as feeding inhibition was 84% (95% confidence interval (CI) 58–94% [Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 0.16 (0.06–0.42), p < 0.001]; landing inhibition 77% [64–86%, (IRR 0.23 (0.14–0.36) p < 0.001]; and reduction in numbers collected by CDC-LT 30% (0–56%) [IRR 0.70 (0.44–1.0) p = 0.160]. Analysis of the agreement of the PE measured by each technique relative to HLC indicated no statistical difference in PE measured by feeding inhibition and landing inhibition [IRR 0.73 (0.25–2.12) p = 0.568], but a significant difference in PE measured by CDC-LT and landing inhibition [IRR 3.13 (1.57–6.26) p = 0.001]. Conclusion HLC gave a similar estimate of PE of Mosquito Shield™ against An. arabiensis mosquitoes when compared to measuring blood-feeding directly, while CDC-LT underestimated PE relative to the other techniques. The results of this study indicate that CDC-LT could not effectively estimate PE of the indoor spatial repellent in this setting. It is critical to first evaluate the use of CDC-LT (and ... |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Johnson Kyeba Swai Ummi Abdul Kibondo Watson Samuel Ntabaliba Hassan Ahamad Ngoyani Noely Otto Makungwa Antony Pius Mseka Madeleine Rose Chura Thomas Michael Mascari Sarah Jane Moore |
author_facet |
Johnson Kyeba Swai Ummi Abdul Kibondo Watson Samuel Ntabaliba Hassan Ahamad Ngoyani Noely Otto Makungwa Antony Pius Mseka Madeleine Rose Chura Thomas Michael Mascari Sarah Jane Moore |
author_sort |
Johnson Kyeba Swai |
title |
CDC light traps underestimate the protective efficacy of an indoor spatial repellent against bites from wild Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in Tanzania |
title_short |
CDC light traps underestimate the protective efficacy of an indoor spatial repellent against bites from wild Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in Tanzania |
title_full |
CDC light traps underestimate the protective efficacy of an indoor spatial repellent against bites from wild Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in Tanzania |
title_fullStr |
CDC light traps underestimate the protective efficacy of an indoor spatial repellent against bites from wild Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in Tanzania |
title_full_unstemmed |
CDC light traps underestimate the protective efficacy of an indoor spatial repellent against bites from wild Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in Tanzania |
title_sort |
cdc light traps underestimate the protective efficacy of an indoor spatial repellent against bites from wild anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in tanzania |
publisher |
BMC |
publishDate |
2023 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04568-5 https://doaj.org/article/dd8482be21f84968a9bbf973f4e7126f |
geographic |
Arctic |
geographic_facet |
Arctic |
genre |
Arctic |
genre_facet |
Arctic |
op_source |
Malaria Journal, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2023) |
op_relation |
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04568-5 https://doaj.org/toc/1475-2875 doi:10.1186/s12936-023-04568-5 1475-2875 https://doaj.org/article/dd8482be21f84968a9bbf973f4e7126f |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04568-5 |
container_title |
Malaria Journal |
container_volume |
22 |
container_issue |
1 |
_version_ |
1768384101354569728 |