Small-scale field evaluation of push-pull system against early- and outdoor-biting malaria mosquitoes in an area of high pyrethroid resistance in Tanzania.
ABSTRACT: Background: Despite high coverage of indoor interventions like insecticide-treated nets, mosquito-borne infections persist, partly because of outdoor-biting, early-biting and insecticide-resistant vectors. Push-pull systems, where mosquitoes are repelled from humans and attracted to nearby lethal targets, may constitute effective complementary interventions. Methods: A partially randomized cross-over design was used to test efficacy of push-pull in four experimental huts and four local houses, in an area with high pyrethroid resistance in Tanzania. The push-pull system consisted of 1.1% or 2.2% w/v transfluthrin repellent dispensers and an outdoor lure-and-kill device (odour-baited mosquito landing box). Matching controls were set up without push-pull. Adult male volunteers collected mosquitoes attempting to bite them outdoors, but collections were also done indoors using exit traps in experimental huts and by volunteers in the local houses. The collections were done hourly (1830hrs-0730hrs) and mosquito catches compared between push-pull and controls. An. gambiae s.l. and An. funestus s.l. were assessed by PCR to identify sibling species, and ELISA to detect Plasmodium falciparum and blood meal sources. Results: Push-pull in experimental huts reduced outdoor-biting for An. arabiensis and Mansonia species by 30% and 41.5% respectively. However, the reductions were marginal and insignificant for An. funestus (12.2%; p>0.05) and Culex (5%; p>0.05). Highest protection against all species occurred before 2200hrs. There was no significant difference in number of mosquitoes inside exit traps in huts with or without push-pull. In local households, push-pull significantly reduced indoor and outdoor-biting of An. arabiensis by 48% and 25% respectively, but had no effect on other species. Conclusion: This push-pull system offered modest protection against outdoor-biting An. arabiensis, without increasing indoor mosquito densities. Additional experimentation is required to assess how transfluthrin-based products affect mosquito blood-feeding and mortality in push-pull contexts. This approach, if optimised, could potentially complement existing malaria interventions even in areas with high pyrethroid resistance.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Eave ribbons treated with spatial repellents effectively prevent human exposure to outdoor-biting and indoor-biting malaria mosquitoes, and could constitute a scalable and low-cost supplement to current interventions, such as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs). This study measured protection afforded by transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons to users (personal and communal protection) and non-users (only communal protection), and whether introducing mosquito traps as additional intervention influenced these benefits. METHODS:Five experimental huts were constructed inside a 110 m long, screened tunnel, in which 1000 Anopheles arabiensis were released nightly. Eave ribbons treated with 0.25 g/m2 transfluthrin were fitted to 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 huts, achieving 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% coverage, respectively. Volunteers sat near each hut and collected mosquitoes attempting to bite them from 6 to 10 p.m. (outdoor-biting), then went indoors to sleep under untreated bed nets, beside which CDC-light traps collected mosquitoes from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. (indoor-biting). Caged mosquitoes kept inside the huts were monitored for 24 h-mortality. Separately, eave ribbons, UV-LED mosquito traps (Mosclean) or both the ribbons and traps were fitted, each time leaving the central hut unfitted to represent non-user households and assess communal protection. Biting risk was measured concurrently in all huts, before and after introducing interventions. RESULTS:Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons provided 83% and 62% protection indoors and outdoors respectively to users, plus 57% and 48% protection indoors and outdoors to the non-user. Protection for users remained constant, but protection for non-users increased with eave ribbons coverage, peaking once 80% of huts were fitted. Mortality of mosquitoes caged inside huts with eave ribbons was 100%. The UV-LED traps increased indoor exposure to users and non-users, but marginally reduced outdoor-biting. Combining the traps and eave ribbons did not improve user protection relative to eave ribbons alone. CONCLUSION:Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons protect both users and non-users against malaria mosquitoes indoors and outdoors. The mosquito-killing property of transfluthrin can magnify the communal benefits by limiting unwanted diversion to non-users, but should be validated in field trials against pyrethroid-resistant vectors. Benefits of the UV-LED traps as an intervention alone or alongside eave ribbons were however undetectable in this study. These findings extend the evidence that transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons could complement ITNs.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Many subsistence farmers in rural southeastern Tanzania regularly relocate to distant farms in river valleys to tend to crops for several weeks or months each year. While there, they live in makeshift semi-open structures, usually far from organized health systems and where insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) do not provide adequate protection. This study evaluated the potential of a recently developed technology, eave ribbons treated with the spatial repellent transfluthrin, for protecting migratory rice farmers in rural southeastern Tanzania against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. METHODS:In the first test, eave ribbons (0.1 m?×?24 m each) treated with 1.5% transfluthrin solution were compared to untreated ribbons in 24 randomly selected huts in three migratory communities over 48 nights. Host-seeking mosquitoes indoors and outdoors were monitored nightly (18.00-07.00 h) using CDC light traps and CO2-baited BG malaria traps, respectively. The second test compared efficacies of eave ribbons treated with 1.5% or 2.5% transfluthrin in 12 huts over 21 nights. Finally, 286 farmers were interviewed to assess perceptions about eave ribbons, and their willingness to pay for them. RESULTS:In the two experiments, when treated eave ribbons were applied, the reduction in indoor densities ranged from 56 to 77% for Anopheles arabiensis, 36 to 60% for Anopheles funestus, 72 to 84% for Culex, and 80 to 98% for Mansonia compared to untreated ribbons. Reduction in outdoor densities was 38 to 77% against An. arabiensis, 36 to 64% against An. funestus, 63 to 88% against Culex, and 47 to 98% against Mansonia. There was no difference in protection between the two transfluthrin doses. In the survey, 58% of participants perceived the ribbons to be effective in reducing mosquito bites. Ninety per cent were willing to pay for the ribbons, the majority of whom were willing to pay but less than US$2.17 (5000 TZS), one-third of the current prototype cost. CONCLUSIONS:Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons can protect migratory rice farmers, living in semi-open makeshift houses in remote farms, against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. The technology is acceptable to users and could potentially complement ITNs. Further studies should investigate durability and epidemiological impact of eave ribbons, and the opportunities for improving affordability to users.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Outdoor and early evening mosquito biting needs to be addressed if malaria elimination is to be achieved. While indoor-targeted interventions, such as insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying, remain essential, complementary approaches that tackle persisting outdoor transmission are urgently required to maximize the impact. Major malaria vectors principally bite human hosts around the feet and ankles. Consequently, this study investigated whether sandals treated with efficacious spatial repellents can protect against outdoor biting mosquitoes. METHODOLOGY:Sandals affixed with hessian bands measuring 48 cm2 treated with 0.06 g, 0.10 g and 0.15 g of transfluthrin were tested in large cage semi-field and full field experiments. Sandals affixed with hessian bands measuring 240 cm2 and treated with 0.10 g and 0.15 g of transfluthrin were also tested semi field experiments. Human landing catches (HLC) were used to assess reduction in biting exposure by comparing proportions of mosquitoes landing on volunteers wearing treated and untreated sandals. Sandals were tested against insectary reared Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in semi-field experiments and against wild mosquito species in rural Tanzania. RESULTS:In semi-field tests, sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 48 cm2 and treated with 0.15 g, 0.10 g and 0.06 g transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 45.9%, (95% confidence interval (C.I.) 28-59%), 61.1% (48-71%), and 25.9% (9-40%), respectively compared to untreated sandals. Sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 240 cm2 and treated with 0.15 g and 0.10 g transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 59% (43-71%) and 64% (48-74%), respectively. In field experiments, sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 48 cm2 and treated with 0.15 g transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 70% (60-76%) against Anopheles gambiae sensu lato, and 66.0% (59-71%) against all mosquito species combined. CONCLUSION:Transfluthrin-treated sandals conferred significant protection against mosquito bites in semi-field and field settings. Further evaluation is recommended for this tool as a potential complementary intervention against malaria. This intervention could be particularly useful for protecting against outdoor exposure to mosquito bites. Additional studies are necessary to optimize treatment techniques and substrates, establish safety profiles and determine epidemiological impact in different settings.
Project description:Background: Mosquito behaviours including the degree to which they bite inside houses or outside is a crucial determinant of human exposure to malaria. Whilst seasonality in mosquito vector abundance is well documented, much less is known about the impact of climate on mosquito behaviour. We investigated how variations in household microclimate affect outdoor-biting by malaria vectors, Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus. Methods: Mosquitoes were sampled indoors and outdoors weekly using human landing catches at eight households in four villages in south-eastern Tanzania, resulting in 616 trap-nights over 12 months. Daily temperature, relative humidity and rainfall were recorded. Generalized additive mixed models (GAMMs) were used to test associations between mosquito abundance and the microclimatic conditions. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were used to investigate the influence of microclimatic conditions on the tendency of vectors to bite outdoors (proportion of outdoor biting). Results: An. arabiensis abundance peaked during high rainfall months (February-May), whilst An. funestus density remained stable into the dry season (May-August) . Across the range of observed household temperatures, a rise of 1 ºC marginally increased nightly An. arabiensis abundance (~11%), but more prominently increased An. funestus abundance (~66%). The abundance of An. arabiensis and An. funestus showed strong positive associations with time-lagged rainfall (2-3 and 3-4 weeks before sampling). The degree of outdoor biting in An. arabiensis was significantly associated with the relative temperature difference between indoor and outdoor environments, with exophily increasing as temperature inside houses became relatively warmer. The exophily of An. funestus did not vary with temperature differences. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that malaria vector An. arabiensis shifts the location of its biting from indoors to outdoors in association with relative differences in microclimatic conditions. These environmental impacts could give rise to seasonal variation in mosquito biting behaviour and degree of protection provided by indoor-based vector control strategies.
Project description:Long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying have contributed to a decline in malaria over the last decade, but progress is threatened by the development of physiological and behavioral resistance of mosquitoes against insecticides. Acknowledging the need for alternative vector control tools, we quantified the effects of eave screening in combination with a push-pull system based on the simultaneous use of a repellent (push) and attractant-baited traps (pull). Field experiments in western Kenya showed that eave screening, whether used in combination with an attractant-baited trap or not, was highly effective in reducing house entry by malaria mosquitoes. The magnitude of the effect varied for different mosquito species and between two experiments, but the reduction in house entry was always considerable (between 61% and 99%). The use of outdoor, attractant-baited traps alone did not have a significant impact on mosquito house entry but the high number of mosquitoes trapped outdoors indicates that attractant-baited traps could be used for removal trapping, which would enhance outdoor as well as indoor protection against mosquito bites. As eave screening was effective by itself, addition of a repellent was of limited value. Nevertheless, repellents may play a role in reducing outdoor malaria transmission in the peridomestic area.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Effective malaria surveillance requires detailed assessments of mosquitoes biting indoors, where interventions such as insecticide-treated nets work best, and outdoors, where other interventions may be required. Such assessments often involve volunteers exposing their legs to attract mosquitoes [i.e., human landing catches (HLC)], a procedure with significant safety and ethical concerns. Here, an exposure-free, miniaturized, double-net trap (DN-Mini) is used to assess relationships between indoor-outdoor biting preferences of malaria vectors, Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus, and their physiological ages (approximated by parity and insemination states). METHODS:The DN-Mini is made of UV-resistant netting on a wooden frame and PVC base. At 100 cm?×?60 cm?×?180 cm, it fits indoors and outdoors. It has a protective inner chamber where a volunteer sits and collects host-seeking mosquitoes entrapped in an outer chamber. Experiments were conducted in eight Tanzanian villages using DN-Mini to: (a) estimate nightly biting and hourly biting proportions of mosquitoes indoors and outdoors; (b) compare these proportions to previous estimates by HLC in same villages; and, (c) compare distribution of parous (proxy for potentially infectious) and inseminated mosquitoes indoors and outdoors. RESULTS:More than twice as many An. arabiensis were caught outdoors as indoors (p?<?0.001), while An. funestus catches were marginally higher indoors than outdoors (p?=?0.201). Anopheles arabiensis caught outdoors also had higher parity and insemination proportions than those indoors (p?<?0.001), while An. funestus indoors had higher parity and insemination than those outdoors (p?=?0.04). Observations of indoor-biting and outdoor-biting proportions, hourly biting patterns and overall species diversities as measured by DN-Mini, matched previous HLC estimates. CONCLUSIONS:Malaria vectors that are behaviourally adapted to bite humans outdoors also have their older, potentially infectious sub-populations concentrated outdoors, while those adapted to bite indoors have their older sub-populations concentrated indoors. Here, potentially infectious An. arabiensis more likely bite outdoors than indoors, while potentially infectious An. funestus more likely bite indoors. These observations validate previous evidence that even outdoor-biting mosquitoes regularly enter houses when young. They also demonstrate efficacy of DN-Mini for measuring indoor-outdoor biting behaviours of mosquitoes, their hourly biting patterns and epidemiologically relevant parameters, e.g., parity and insemination status, without exposure to volunteers. The trap is easy-to-use, easy-to-manufacture and affordable (prototypes cost?~?100 US$/unit).
Project description:BACKGROUND:Understanding the interactions between increased insecticide resistance and resting behaviour patterns of malaria mosquitoes is important for planning of adequate vector control. This study was designed to investigate the resting behavior, host preference and rates of Plasmodium falciparum infection in relation to insecticide resistance of malaria vectors in different ecologies of western Kenya. METHODS:Anopheles mosquito collections were carried out during the dry and rainy seasons in Kisian (lowland site) and Bungoma (highland site), both in western Kenya using pyrethrum spray catches (PSC), mechanical aspiration (Prokopack) for indoor collections, clay pots, pit shelter and Prokopack for outdoor collections. WHO tube bioassay was used to determine levels of phenotypic resistance of indoor and outdoor collected mosquitoes to deltamethrin. PCR-based molecular diagnostics were used for mosquito speciation, genotype for knockdown resistance mutations (1014S and 1014F) and to determine specific host blood meal origins. Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) was used to determine mosquito sporozoite infections. RESULTS:Anopheles gambiae s.l. was the most predominant species (75%, n = 2706) followed by An. funestus s.l. (25%, n = 860). An. gambiae s.s hereafter (An. gambiae) accounted for 91% (95% CI: 89-93) and An. arabiensis 8% (95% CI: 6-9) in Bungoma, while in Kisian, An. arabiensis composition was 60% (95% CI: 55-66) and An. gambiae 39% (95% CI: 34-44). The resting densities of An. gambiae s.l and An. funestus were higher indoors than outdoor in both sites (An. gambiae s.l; F1, 655 = 41.928, p < 0.0001, An. funestus; F1, 655 = 36.555, p < 0.0001). The mortality rate for indoor and outdoor resting An. gambiae s.l F1 progeny was 37% (95% CI: 34-39) vs 67% (95% CI: 62-69) respectively in Bungoma. In Kisian, the mortality rate was 67% (95% CI: 61-73) vs 76% (95% CI: 71-80) respectively. The mortality rate for F1 progeny of An. funestus resting indoors in Bungoma was 32% (95% CI: 28-35). The 1014S mutation was only detected in indoor resitng An. arabiensis. Similarly, the 1014F mutation was present only in indoor resting An. gambiae. The sporozoite rates were highest in An. funestus followed by An. gambiae, and An. arabiensis resting indoors at 11% (34/311), 8% (47/618) and 4% (1/27) respectively in Bungoma. Overall, in Bungoma, the sporozoite rate for indoor resting mosquitoes was 9% (82/956) and 4% (8/190) for outdoors. In Kisian, the sporozoite rate was 1% (1/112) for indoor resting An. gambiae. None of the outdoor collected mosquitoes in Kisian tested positive for sporozoite infections (n = 73). CONCLUSION:The study reports high indoor resting densities of An. gambiae and An. funestus, insecticide resistance, and persistence of malaria transmission indoors regardless of the use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs). These findings underline the difficulties of controlling malaria vectors resting and biting indoors using the current interventions. Supplemental vector control tools and implementation of sustainable insecticide resistance management strategies are needed in western Kenya.
Project description:Subsistence rice farmers in south-eastern Tanzania are often migratory, spending weeks or months tending to crops in distant fields along the river valleys and living in improvised structures known as Shamba huts, not fully protected from mosquitoes. These farmers also experience poor access to organized preventive and curative services due to long distances. Mosquito biting exposure in these rice fields, relative to main village residences was assessed, then a portable mosquito-proof hut was developed and tested for protecting these migratory farmers.Pair-wise mosquito surveys were conducted in four villages in Ulanga district, south-eastern Tanzania in 20 randomly-selected Shamba huts located in the distant rice fields and in 20 matched houses within the main villages, to assess biting densities and Plasmodium infection rates. A portable mosquito-proof hut was designed and tested in semi-field and field settings against Shamba hut replicas, and actual Shamba huts. Also, semi-structured interviews were conducted, timed-participant observations, and focus-group discussions to assess experiences and behaviours of the farmers regarding mosquito-bites and the mosquito-proof huts.There were equal numbers of mosquitoes in Shamba huts and main houses [RR (95% CI) 27 (25.1-31.2), and RR (95% CI) 30 (27.5-33.4)], respectively (P > 0.05). Huts having >1 occupant had more mosquitoes than those with just one occupant, regardless of site [RR (95% CI) 1.57 (1.30-1.9), P < 0.05]. Open eaves [RR (95% CI) 1.15 (1.08-1.23), P < 0.05] and absence of window shutters [RR (95% CI) 2.10 (1.91-2.31), P < 0.05] increased catches of malaria vectors. All Anopheles mosquitoes caught were negative for Plasmodium. Common night-time outdoor activities in the fields included cooking, eating, fetching water or firewood, washing dishes, bathing, and storytelling, mostly between 6 and 11 p.m., when mosquitoes were also biting most. The prototype hut provided 100% protection in semi-field and field settings, while blood-fed mosquitoes were recaptured in Shamba huts, even when occupants used permethrin-impregnated bed nets.Though equal numbers of mosquitoes were caught between main houses and normal Shamba huts, the higher proportions of blood-fed mosquitoes, reduced access to organized healthcare and reduced effectiveness of LLINs, may increase vulnerability of the itinerant farmers. The portable mosquito-proof hut offered sufficient protection against disease-transmitting mosquitoes. Such huts could be improved to expand protection for migratory farmers and possibly other disenfranchised communities.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are commonly used together in the same households to improve malaria control despite inconsistent evidence on whether such combinations actually offer better protection than nets alone or IRS alone. METHODS: Comparative tests were conducted using experimental huts fitted with LLINs, untreated nets, IRS plus untreated nets, or combinations of LLINs and IRS, in an area where Anopheles arabiensis is the predominant malaria vector species. Three LLIN types, Olyset®, PermaNet 2.0® and Icon Life® nets and three IRS treatments, pirimiphos-methyl, DDT, and lambda cyhalothrin, were used singly or in combinations. We compared, number of mosquitoes entering huts, proportion and number killed, proportions prevented from blood-feeding, time when mosquitoes exited the huts, and proportions caught exiting. The tests were done for four months in dry season and another six months in wet season, each time using new intact nets. RESULTS: All the net types, used with or without IRS, prevented >99% of indoor mosquito bites. Adding PermaNet 2.0® and Icon Life®, but not Olyset® nets into huts with any IRS increased mortality of malaria vectors relative to IRS alone. However, of all IRS treatments, only pirimiphos-methyl significantly increased vector mortality relative to LLINs alone, though this increase was modest. Overall, median mortality of An. arabiensis caught in huts with any of the treatments did not exceed 29%. No treatment reduced entry of the vectors into huts, except for marginal reductions due to PermaNet 2.0® nets and DDT. More than 95% of all mosquitoes were caught in exit traps rather than inside huts. CONCLUSIONS: Where the main malaria vector is An. arabiensis, adding IRS into houses with intact pyrethroid LLINs does not enhance house-hold level protection except where the IRS employs non-pyrethroid insecticides such as pirimiphos-methyl, which can confer modest enhancements. In contrast, adding intact bednets onto IRS enhances protection by preventing mosquito blood-feeding (even if the nets are non-insecticidal) and by slightly increasing mosquito mortality (in case of LLINs). The primary mode of action of intact LLINs against An. arabiensis is clearly bite prevention rather than insecticidal activity. Therefore, where resources are limited, priority should be to ensure that everyone at risk consistently uses LLINs and that the nets are regularly replaced before being excessively torn. Measures that maximize bite prevention (e.g. proper net sizes to effectively cover sleeping spaces, stronger net fibres that resist tears and burns and net use practices that preserve net longevity), should be emphasized.
Project description:Malaria continues to place a disease burden on millions of people throughout the tropics, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Although efforts to control mosquito populations and reduce human-vector contact, such as long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying, have led to significant decreases in malaria incidence, further progress is now threatened by the widespread development of physiological and behavioural insecticide-resistance as well as changes in the composition of vector populations. A mosquito-directed push-pull system based on the simultaneous use of attractive and repellent volatiles offers a complementary tool to existing vector-control methods. In this study, the combination of a trap baited with a five-compound attractant and a strip of net-fabric impregnated with micro-encapsulated repellent and placed in the eaves of houses, was tested in a malaria-endemic village in western Kenya. Using the repellent delta-undecalactone, mosquito house entry was reduced by more than 50%, while the traps caught high numbers of outdoor flying mosquitoes. Model simulations predict that, assuming area-wide coverage, the addition of such a push-pull system to existing prevention efforts will result in up to 20-fold reductions in the entomological inoculation rate. Reductions of such magnitude are also predicted when mosquitoes exhibit a high resistance against insecticides. We conclude that a push-pull system based on non-toxic volatiles provides an important addition to existing strategies for malaria prevention.