Search

Background: The human landing catch (HLC) measures human exposure to mosquito bites and evaluates the efficacy of vector control tools. However, it may expose volunteers to potentially infected mosquitoes. The mosquito electrocuting trap (MET) and BG-Sentinel traps (BGS) represent alternative, exposure-free methods for sampling host-seeking mosquitoes. This study investigates whether these methods can be effectively used as alternatives to HLC for measuring the efficacy of transfluthrin emanator against Aedes aegypti., Methods: The protective efficacy (PE) of freestanding passive transfluthrin emanators (FTPEs), measured by HLC, MET and BGS, was compared in no-choice and choice tests. The collection methods were conducted 2 m from an experimental hut with FTPEs positioned at 3 m on either side of them. For the choice experiment, a competitor HLC was included 10 m from the first collection point. One hundred laboratory-reared Ae. aegypti mosquitoes were released and collected for 3 consecutive h., Results: In the no-choice test, each method measured similar PE: HLC: 66% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 50-82), MET: 55% (95% CI: 48-63) and BGS: 64% (95% CI: 54-73). The proportion of mosquitoes recaptured was consistent between methods (20-24%) in treatment and varied (47-71%) in the control. However, in choice tests, the PE measured by each method varied: HLC: 37% (95% CI: 25-50%), MET: 76% (95% CI: 61-92) and BGS trap: 0% (95% CI: 0-100). Recaptured mosquitoes were no longer consistent between methods in treatment (2-26%) and remained variable in the control (7-42%). FTPE provided 50% PE to the second HLC 10 m away. In the control, the MET and the BGS were less efficacious in collecting mosquitoes in the presence of a second HLC., Conclusions: Measuring the PE in isolation was fairly consistent for HLC, MET and BGS. Because HLC is not advisable, it is reasonable to use either MET or BGS as a proxy for HLC for testing volatile pyrethroid (VP) in areas of active arbovirus-endemic areas. The presence of a human host in close proximity invalidated the PE estimates from BGS and METs. Findings also indicated that transfluthrin can protect multiple people in the peridomestic area and that at short range mosquitoes select humans over the BGS.

Background: N,N-Diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET) topical mosquito repellents are effective personal protection tools. However, DEET-based repellents tend to have low consumer acceptability because they are cosmetically unappealing. More attractive formulations are needed to encourage regular user compliance. This study evaluated the protective efficacy and protection duration of a new topical repellent ointment containing 15% DEET, MAÏA ® compared to 20% DEET in ethanol using malaria and dengue mosquito vectors in Bagamoyo Tanzania., Methods: Fully balanced 3 × 3 Latin square design studies were conducted in large semi-field chambers using laboratory strains of Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto, Anopheles arabiensis and Aedes aegypti. Human volunteers applied either MAÏA ® ointment, 20% DEET or ethanol to their lower limbs 6 h before the start of tests. Approximately 100 mosquitoes per strain per replicate were released inside each chamber, with 25 mosquitoes released at regular intervals during the collection period to maintain adequate biting pressure throughout the test. Volunteers recaptured mosquitoes landing on their lower limbs for 6 h over a period of 6 to 12-h post-application of repellents. Data analysis was conducted using mixed-effects logistic regression., Results: The protective efficacy of MAÏA ® and 20% DEET was not statistically different for each of the mosquito strains: 95.9% vs. 97.4% against An. gambiae (OR = 1.53 [95% CI 0.93-2.51] p = 0.091); 96.8% vs 97.2% against An. arabiensis (OR = 1.08 [95% CI 0.66-1.77] p = 0.757); 93.1% vs 94.6% against Ae. aegypti (OR = 0.76 [95% CI 0.20-2.80] p = 0.675). Average complete protection time (CPT) in minutes of MAÏA ® and that of DEET was similar for each of the mosquito strains: 571.6 min (95% CI 558.3-584.8) vs 575.0 min (95% CI 562.1-587.9) against An. gambiae; 585.6 min (95% CI 571.4-599.8) vs 580.9 min (95% CI 571.1-590.7) against An. arabiensis; 444.1 min (95% CI 401.8-486.5) vs 436.9 min (95% CI 405.2-468.5) against Ae. aegypti., Conclusions: MAÏA ® repellent ointment provides complete protection for 9 h against both An. gambiae and An. arabiensis, and 7 h against Ae. aegypti similar to 20% DEET (in ethanol). MAÏA ® repellent ointment can be recommended as a tool for prevention against outdoor biting mosquitoes in tropical locations where the majority of the people spend an ample time outdoor before going to bed.

Background: The frequency and magnitude of dengue epidemics has increased dramatically throughout the tropics in the past 40 years due to unplanned urbanization, globalization and lack of effective mosquito control. The commercial capital of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, is now experiencing regular dengue outbreaks. Three dengue serotypes have been detected in Dar es Salaam (DNV 1, 2 and 3). Without adequate vector monitoring and control, further outbreaks will certainly occur., Methods/findings: A case series study followed 97 individuals with confirmed dengue fever (NS1 and/or IgM on rapid diagnostic test and/or PCR positive) to their households in Kinondoni, Dar es Salaam during the 2014 outbreak from a random sample of 202 confirmed cases at Mwananyamala Hospital. Kinondoni wards of Manzese, Mwananyamala, Tandale and Mabibo had the highest number of confirmed cases: 18, 13, 13 and 9 respectively. Individuals were interviewed by questionnaire on dengue prevention practices and houses were inspected for mosquito breeding sites to validate a Habitat Suitability Score (HSS). This is a tool devised to predict the productivity of any potential breeding habitats (PBHs) before the rains begin. There were 12 /312 positive Aedes breeding habitats. Drums/barrels, flowerpots and tyres were the most common breeding habitats. The HSS correctly identified 9/12 of Aedes breeding habitats. Larviciding is already conducted in urban Tanzania for malaria control and the HSS may be a useful means to train individuals on productive Aedes aegypti breeding sites should this program be extended to include dengue control. The population remains poorly informed about dengue transmission and prevention: 22% of respondents said dengue is spread from one person to another and 60% first heard about dengue when already sick. Less than 20% of respondents used personal protection and >80% thought bednets protected against dengue. Mobile phones were owned by almost all individuals followed up and have the potential of being the prime medium for dissemination of information on dengue prevention., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Simple Summary: Mosquito traps are widely used for the monitoring and surveillance of mosquito vectors in many mosquito-borne disease-endemic countries. However, the costs and efficacy of traps remain a great challenge. In this study, we compared the trapping efficacy of locally modified Gravid Aedes Trap (GAT) and Autocidal Gravid Ovitrap (AGO) for dengue vector (Aedes aegypti) in a semi-field and field settings. The GAT was lined with pyrethroid-treated nets as a killing agent, while the AGO adhered with a sticky board to capture mosquitoes. We also compared the locally modified traps baited with either yeast or grass infusion with BG-Sentinel (BGS) with BG lure (a standard trap for capturing Aedes mosquitoes). Our findings showed that the GAT was more efficacious than the AGO in both semi-field and field settings. Additionally, there was no significant difference between yeast-baited and grass-baited GAT traps in capturing mosquitoes, although yeast was easier to use. When compared to a standard trap (BGS), GAT showed no difference in capturing Aedes mosquitoes in a semi-field; however, in the field setting, BGS outperformed the modified GAT. The study assessed the trapping efficacy of locally modified (1) Gravid Aedes Trap (GAT) lined with insecticide-treated net (ITN) as a killing agent and (2) Autocidal Gravid Ovitrap (AGO) with sticky board in the semi-field system (SFS) and field setting. Fully balanced Latin square experiments were conducted to compare GAT lined with ITN vs. AGO, both with either yeast or grass infusion. Biogent-Sentinel (BGS) with BG-Lure and no CO2 was used as a standard trap for Aedes mosquitoes. In the SFS, GAT outperformed AGO in collecting both nulliparous (65% vs. 49%, OR = 2.22, [95% CI: 1.89–2.60], p < 0.001) and gravid mosquitoes (73% vs. 64%, OR = 1.67, [95% CI: 1.41–1.97], p < 0.001). Similar differences were observed in the field. Yeast and grass infusion did not significantly differ in trapping gravid mosquitoes (OR = 0.91, [95% CI: 0.77–1.07], p = 0.250). The use of ITN improved mosquito recapture from 11% to 70% in the SFS. The same trend was observed in the field. Yeast was chosen for further evaluation in the optimized GAT due to its convenience and bifenthrin net for its resistance management properties. Mosquito density was collected when using 4× GATs relative to BGS-captured gravid mosquitoes 64 vs. 58 (IRR = 0.82, [95% CI: 0.35–1.95], p = 0.658) and showed no density dependence. Deployment of multiple yeast-baited GAT lined with bifenthrin net is cost-effective (single GAT < $8) compared to other traps such as BGS ($160). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Spatial repellents that drive mosquitoes away from treated areas, and odour-baited traps, that attract and kill mosquitoes, can be combined and work synergistically in a push-pull system. Push-pull systems have been shown to reduce house entry and outdoor biting rates of malaria vectors and so have the potential to control other outdoor biting mosquitoes such as Aedes aegypti that transmit arboviral diseases. In this study, semi-field experiments were conducted to evaluate whether a push-pull system could be used to reduce bites from Aedes mosquitoes. Methods: The push and pull under investigation consisted of two freestanding transfluthrin passive emanators (FTPE) and a BG sentinel trap (BGS) respectively. The FTPE contained hessian strips treated with 5.25 g of transfluthrin active ingredient. The efficacies of FTPE and BGS alone and in combination were evaluated by human landing catch in a large semi-field system in Tanzania. We also investigated the protection of FTPE over six months. The data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with binomial distribution. Results: Two FTPE had a protective efficacy (PE) of 61.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 52.2–69.9%) against the human landing of Ae. aegypti. The BGS did not significantly reduce mosquito landings; the PE was 2.1% (95% CI: −2.9–7.2%). The push-pull provided a PE of 64.5% (95% CI: 59.1–69.9%). However, there was no significant difference in the PE between the push-pull and the two FTPE against Ae. aegypti (P = 0.30). The FTPE offered significant protection against Ae. aegypti at month three, with a PE of 46.4% (95% CI: 41.1–51.8%), but not at six months with a PE of 2.2% (95% CI: −9.0–14.0%). Conclusions: The PE of the FTPE and the full push-pull are similar, indicative that bite prevention is primarily due to the activity of the FTPE. While these results are encouraging for the FTPE, further work is needed for a push-pull system to be recommended for Ae. aegypti control. The three-month protection against Ae. aegypti bites suggests that FTPE would be a useful additional control tool during dengue outbreaks, that does not require regular user compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]