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 [...]

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]

Introduction: Longitudinal monitoring of outdoor-biting malaria vector populations is becoming increasingly important in understanding the dynamics of residual malaria transmission. However, the human landing catch (HLC), the gold standard for measuring human biting rates indoors and outdoors, is costly and raises ethical concerns related to increased risk of infectious bites among collectors. Consequently, routine data on outdoor-feeding mosquito populations are usually limited because of the lack of a scalable tool with similar sensitivity to outdoor HLC. Methodology: The Anopheles trapping sensitivity of four baited proxy outdoor trapping methods—Furvela tent trap (FTT), host decoy trap (HDT), mosquito electrocuting traps (MET) and outdoor CDC light traps (OLT)—was assessed relative to HLC in a 5 × 5 replicated Latin square conducted over 25 nights in two villages of western Kenya. Indoor CDC light trap (ILT) was run in one house in each of the compounds with outdoor traps, while additional non-Latin square indoor and outdoor HLC collections were performed in one of the study villages. Results: The MET, FTT, HDT and OLT sampled approximately 4.67, 7.58, 5.69 and 1.98 times more An. arabiensis compared to HLC, respectively, in Kakola Ombaka. Only FTT was more sensitive relative to HLC in sampling An. funestus in Kakola Ombaka (RR = 5.59, 95% CI 2.49–12.55, P < 0.001) and Masogo (RR = 4.38, 95% CI 1.62–11.80, P = 0.004) and in sampling An. arabiensis in Masogo (RR = 5.37, 95% CI 2.17–13.24, P < 0.001). OLT sampled significantly higher numbers of An. coustani in Kakola Ombaka (RR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.65–5.56, P < 0.001) and Masogo (RR = 2.88, 95% CI 1.15–7.22, P = 0.02) compared to HLC. OLT, HLC and MET sampled mostly An. coustani, FTT had similar proportions of An. funestus and An. arabiensis, while HDT sampled predominantly An. arabiensis in both villages. FTT showed close correlation with ILT in vector abundance for all three species at both collection sites. Conclusion: FTT and OLT are simple, easily scalable traps and are potential replacements for HLC in outdoor sampling of Anopheles mosquitoes. However, the FTT closely mirrored indoor CDC light trap in mosquito indices and therefore may be more of an indoor mimic than a true outdoor collection tool. HDT and MET show potential for sampling outdoor host-seeking mosquitoes. However, the traps as currently designed may not be feasible for large-scale, longitudinal entomological monitoring. Therefore, the baited outdoor CDC light trap may be the most appropriate tool currently available for assessment of outdoor-biting and malaria transmission risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indoor residual spraying (IRS) of insecticides is a major vector control strategy for malaria prevention. We evaluated the impact of a single round of IRS with the organophosphate, pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic 300CS), on entomological and parasitological parameters of malaria in Migori County, western Kenya in 2017, in an area where primary vectors are resistant to pyrethroids but susceptible to the IRS compound. Entomological monitoring was conducted by indoor CDC light trap, pyrethrum spray catches (PSC) and human landing collection (HLC) before and after IRS. The residual effect of the insecticide was assessed monthly by exposing susceptible An. gambiae s.s. Kisumu strain to sprayed surfaces in cone assays and measuring mortality at 24 hours. Malaria case burden data were extracted from laboratory records of four health facilities within the sprayed area and two adjacent unsprayed areas. IRS was associated with reductions in An. funestus numbers in the intervention areas compared to non-intervention areas by 88% with light traps (risk ratio [RR] 0.12, 95% CI 0.07–0.21, p < 0.001) and 93% with PSC collections (RR = 0.07, 0.03–0.17, p < 0.001). The corresponding reductions in the numbers of An. arabiensis collected by PSC were 69% in the intervention compared to the non-intervention areas (RR = 0.31, 0.14–0.68, p = 0.006), but there was no significant difference with light traps (RR = 0.45, 0.21–0.96, p = 0.05). Before IRS, An. funestus accounted for over 80% of Anopheles mosquitoes collected by light trap and PSC in all sites. After IRS, An. arabiensis accounted for 86% of Anopheles collected by PSC and 66% by CDC light trap in the sprayed sites while the proportion in non-intervention sites remained unchanged. No sporozoite infections were detected in intervention areas after IRS and biting rates by An. funestus were reduced to near zero. Anopheles funestus and An. arabiensis were fully susceptible to pirimiphos-methyl and resistant to pyrethroids. The residual effect of Actellic 300CS lasted ten months on mud and concrete walls. Malaria case counts among febrile patients within IRS areas was lower post- compared to pre-IRS by 44%, 65% and 47% in Rongo, Uriri and Nyatike health facilities respectively. A single application of IRS with Actellic 300CS in Migori County provided ten months protection and resulted in the near elimination of the primary malaria vector An. funestus and a corresponding reduction of malaria case count among out-patients. The impact was less on An. arabiensis, most likely due to their exophilic nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]