Search

The Anopheles stephensi mosquito is a major vector of malaria in south Asia, the Middle East, and southern China, where it is endemic and is known to transmit both Plasmodium [...]

Spatial repellent (SR) products are envisioned to complement existing vector control methods through the continual release of volatile active ingredients (AI) providing: (i) protection against day-time and early-evening biting; (ii) protection in enclosed/semi-enclosed and peri-domestic spaces; (iii) various formulations to fit context-specific applications; and (iv) increased coverage over traditional control methods. SR product AIs also have demonstrated effect against insecticide-resistant vectors linked to malaria and Aedes-borne virus (ABV) transmission. Over the past two decades, key stakeholders, including World Health Organization (WHO) representatives, have met to discuss the role of SRs in reducing arthropod-borne diseases based on existing evidence. A key focus has been to establish a critical development path for SRs, including scientific, regulatory and social parameters that would constitute an outline for a SR target product profile, i.e. optimum product characteristics. The principal gap is the lack of epidemiological data demonstrating SR public health impact across a range of different ecological and epidemiological settings, to inform a WHO policy recommendation. Here we describe in brief trials that are designed to fulfill evidence needs for WHO assessment and initial projections of SR cost-effectiveness against malaria and dengue.

Abstract Background Long-lasting insecticide-treated mosquito nets (LLINs) are a primary malaria prevention strategy in sub-Saharan Africa. However, emergence of insecticide resistance threatens the effectiveness of LLINs. Methods Cross-sectional surveys of LLINs were conducted in houses of seven and four villages in Gem and Bungoma Districts in western Kenya, respectively. Condition (number and area of holes in the nets), number and species of mosquitoes resting inside them, and insecticidal activity of nets were quantified. Mosquitoes collected inside nets were allowed to lay eggs and progeny tested for susceptibility to deltamethrin and permethrin, pyrethoids commonly deployed in LLINs in western Kenya. Results In Gem, 83.3% of nets were less than three years old and 32.4% had at least one hole of any size; while in Bungoma, 92% were less than three years old and 48% had at least one hole. No anopheline and five Culex spp. mosquitoes were found resting inside nets in Gem regardless of the number and size of holes, while 552 Anopheles gambiae s.l., five Anopheles funestus s.l. and 137 Culex spp. were in nets in Bungoma. The number of mosquitoes resting inside nets increased with hole areas >50 cm in Bungoma. In WHO resistance assays, f1 offspring of samples collected in nets in Bungoma were 94 and 65% resistant to deltamethrin and permethrin, respectively. Nets from Bungoma retained strong activity against a susceptible laboratory strain, but not against f1 offspring of field-collected An. gambiae s.s. All An. gambiae s.s. samples collected in nets were homozygous for the kdr genotype L1014S. Conclusions In areas with pyrethroid resistant vectors, LLINs with modest hole areas permit mosquito entry and feeding, providing little protection against the vectors. LLIN formulations develop large holes within three years of use, diminishing their presupposed lifetime effectiveness.

Background: Entomological surveillance is traditionally conducted by supervised teams of trained technicians. However, it is expensive and limiting in the number of sites visited. Surveillance through community-based collectors (CBC) may be more cost-effective and sustainable for longitudinal entomological monitoring. This study evaluated the efficiency of CBCs in monitoring mosquito densities compared to quality-assured sampling conducted by experienced entomology technicians. Methods: Entomological surveillance employing CBCs was conducted in eighteen clusters of villages in western Kenya using indoor and outdoor CDC light traps and indoor Prokopack aspiration. Sixty houses in each cluster were enrolled and sampled once every month. Collected mosquitoes were initially identified to the genus level by CBCs, preserved in 70% ethanol and transferred to the laboratory every 2 weeks. Parallel, collections by experienced entomology field technicians were conducted monthly by indoor and outdoor CDC light traps and indoor Prokopack aspiration and served as a quality assurance of the CBCs. Results: Per collection, the CBCs collected 80% fewer Anopheles gambiae sensu lato (s.l.) [RR = 0.2; (95% CI 0.14–0.27)] and Anopheles coustani [RR = 0.2; (95% CI 0.06–0.53)] and 90% fewer Anopheles funestus [RR = 0.1; (95% CI 0.08–0.19)] by CDC light traps compared to the quality assured (QA) entomology teams. Significant positive correlations were however observed between the monthly collections by CBCs and QA teams for both An. gambiae and An. funestus. In paired identifications of pooled mosquitoes, the CBCs identified 4.3 times more Anopheles compared to experienced technicians. The cost per person-night was lower in the community-based sampling at $9.1 compared to $89.3 by QA per collection effort. Conclusion: Unsupervised community-based mosquito surveillance collected substantially fewer mosquitoes per trap-night compared to quality-assured collection by experienced field teams, while consistently overestimating the number of Anopheles mosquitoes during identification. However, the numbers collected were significantly correlated between the CBCs and the QA teams suggesting that trends observed by CBCs and QA teams were similar. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether adopting low-cost, devolved supervision with spot checks, coupled with remedial training of the CBCs, can improve community-based collections to be considered a cost-effective alternative to surveillance conducted by experienced entomological technicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the scale-up of insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying, the bulk of malaria transmission in western Kenya still occurs indoors, late at night. House improvement is a potential long-term solution to further reduce malaria transmission in the region. Methods: The impact of eave screening on mosquito densities was evaluated in two rural villages in western Kenya. One-hundred-and-twenty pairs of structurally similar, neighbouring houses were used in the study. In each pair, one house was randomly selected to receive eave screening at the beginning of the study while the other remained unscreened until the end of the sampling period. Mosquito sampling was performed monthly by motorized aspiration method for 4 months. The collected mosquitoes were analysed for species identification. Results: Compared to unscreened houses, significantly fewer female Anopheles funestus (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.29–0.55), Anopheles gambiae Complex (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.34–0.62) and Culex species (RR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.45–0.61) were collected in screened houses. No significant differences in the densities of the mosquitoes were detected in outdoor collections. Significantly fewer Anopheles funestus were collected indoors from houses with painted walls (RR = 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.38) while cooking in the house was associated with significantly lower numbers of Anopheles gambiae Complex indoors (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.45–0.79). Nearly all house owners (99.6%) wanted their houses permanently screened, including 97.7% that indicated a willingness to use their own resources. However, 99.2% required training on house screening. The cost of screening a single house was estimated at KES6,162.38 (US$61.62). Conclusion: Simple house modification by eave screening has the potential to reduce the indoor occurrence of both Anopheles and Culex mosquito species. Community acceptance was very high although education and mobilization may be needed for community uptake of house modification for vector control. Intersectoral collaboration and favourable government policies on housing are important links towards the adoption of house improvements for malaria control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: New types of bed nets are being developed which contain a pyrethroid plus a second chemical because of the development and increased frequency of mosquito mechanisms to avoid being killed by pyrethroids. When insecticide-treated bed nets are being trialed for efficacy or released onto the market it is essential to measure how effective the net is in killing mosquitoes, which includes testing how quickly insecticide is lost or degraded due to routine wear and tear. Pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes are needed to test the effectiveness and insecticidal persistence of the second chemical, because they are not all killed by the pyrethroid, allowing the killing effect of the two chemicals to be evaluated independently. However, because resistance status varies between populations of mosquitoes that possess different resistance mechanisms, and because resistance intensity in a population can change over time, a method is needed to characterise the resistant mosquitoes. A focus group of experts discussed how this should best be done, considering pros and cons of different approaches, and co-wrote a protocol, which will be valuable for malaria control programmes and stakeholders wanting to test the effective lifespan of a new bed net in terms of the active ingredient bioefficacy. Durability monitoring of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) containing a pyrethroid in combination with a second active ingredient (AI) must be adapted so that the insecticidal bioefficacy of each AI can be monitored independently. An effective way to do this is to measure rapid knock down of a pyrethroid-susceptible strain of mosquitoes to assess the bioefficacy of the pyrethroid component and to use a pyrethroid-resistant strain to measure the bioefficacy of the second ingredient. To allow robust comparison of results across tests within and between test facilities, and over time, protocols for bioefficacy testing must include either characterisation of the resistant strain, standardisation of the mosquitoes used for bioassays, or a combination of the two. Through a series of virtual meetings, key stakeholders and practitioners explored different approaches to achieving these goals. Via an iterative process we decided on the preferred approach and produced a protocol consisting of characterising mosquitoes used for bioefficacy testing before and after a round of bioassays, for example at each time point in a durability monitoring study. We present the final protocol and justify our approach to establishing a standard methodology for durability monitoring of ITNs containing pyrethroid and a second AI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]