Cargando…

Comparative field evaluation of combinations of long-lasting insecticide treated nets and indoor residual spraying, relative to either method alone, for malaria prevention in an area where the main vector is Anopheles arabiensis

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: Compar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Okumu, Fredros O, Mbeyela, Edgar, Lingamba, Godfrey, Moore, Jason, Ntamatungiro, Alex J, Kavishe, Deo R, Kenward, Michael G, Turner, Elizabeth, Lorenz, Lena M, Moore, Sarah J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23433393
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-46
_version_ 1782263987695517696
author Okumu, Fredros O
Mbeyela, Edgar
Lingamba, Godfrey
Moore, Jason
Ntamatungiro, Alex J
Kavishe, Deo R
Kenward, Michael G
Turner, Elizabeth
Lorenz, Lena M
Moore, Sarah J
author_facet Okumu, Fredros O
Mbeyela, Edgar
Lingamba, Godfrey
Moore, Jason
Ntamatungiro, Alex J
Kavishe, Deo R
Kenward, Michael G
Turner, Elizabeth
Lorenz, Lena M
Moore, Sarah J
author_sort Okumu, Fredros O
collection PubMed
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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3606331
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36063312013-03-23 Comparative field evaluation of combinations of long-lasting insecticide treated nets and indoor residual spraying, relative to either method alone, for malaria prevention in an area where the main vector is Anopheles arabiensis Okumu, Fredros O Mbeyela, Edgar Lingamba, Godfrey Moore, Jason Ntamatungiro, Alex J Kavishe, Deo R Kenward, Michael G Turner, Elizabeth Lorenz, Lena M Moore, Sarah J Parasit Vectors Research 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. BioMed Central 2013-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3606331/ /pubmed/23433393 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-46 Text en Copyright ©2013 Okumu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Okumu, Fredros O
Mbeyela, Edgar
Lingamba, Godfrey
Moore, Jason
Ntamatungiro, Alex J
Kavishe, Deo R
Kenward, Michael G
Turner, Elizabeth
Lorenz, Lena M
Moore, Sarah J
Comparative field evaluation of combinations of long-lasting insecticide treated nets and indoor residual spraying, relative to either method alone, for malaria prevention in an area where the main vector is Anopheles arabiensis
title Comparative field evaluation of combinations of long-lasting insecticide treated nets and indoor residual spraying, relative to either method alone, for malaria prevention in an area where the main vector is Anopheles arabiensis
title_full Comparative field evaluation of combinations of long-lasting insecticide treated nets and indoor residual spraying, relative to either method alone, for malaria prevention in an area where the main vector is Anopheles arabiensis
title_fullStr Comparative field evaluation of combinations of long-lasting insecticide treated nets and indoor residual spraying, relative to either method alone, for malaria prevention in an area where the main vector is Anopheles arabiensis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative field evaluation of combinations of long-lasting insecticide treated nets and indoor residual spraying, relative to either method alone, for malaria prevention in an area where the main vector is Anopheles arabiensis
title_short Comparative field evaluation of combinations of long-lasting insecticide treated nets and indoor residual spraying, relative to either method alone, for malaria prevention in an area where the main vector is Anopheles arabiensis
title_sort comparative field evaluation of combinations of long-lasting insecticide treated nets and indoor residual spraying, relative to either method alone, for malaria prevention in an area where the main vector is anopheles arabiensis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23433393
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-46
work_keys_str_mv AT okumufredroso comparativefieldevaluationofcombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidetreatednetsandindoorresidualsprayingrelativetoeithermethodaloneformalariapreventioninanareawherethemainvectorisanophelesarabiensis
AT mbeyelaedgar comparativefieldevaluationofcombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidetreatednetsandindoorresidualsprayingrelativetoeithermethodaloneformalariapreventioninanareawherethemainvectorisanophelesarabiensis
AT lingambagodfrey comparativefieldevaluationofcombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidetreatednetsandindoorresidualsprayingrelativetoeithermethodaloneformalariapreventioninanareawherethemainvectorisanophelesarabiensis
AT moorejason comparativefieldevaluationofcombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidetreatednetsandindoorresidualsprayingrelativetoeithermethodaloneformalariapreventioninanareawherethemainvectorisanophelesarabiensis
AT ntamatungiroalexj comparativefieldevaluationofcombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidetreatednetsandindoorresidualsprayingrelativetoeithermethodaloneformalariapreventioninanareawherethemainvectorisanophelesarabiensis
AT kavishedeor comparativefieldevaluationofcombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidetreatednetsandindoorresidualsprayingrelativetoeithermethodaloneformalariapreventioninanareawherethemainvectorisanophelesarabiensis
AT kenwardmichaelg comparativefieldevaluationofcombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidetreatednetsandindoorresidualsprayingrelativetoeithermethodaloneformalariapreventioninanareawherethemainvectorisanophelesarabiensis
AT turnerelizabeth comparativefieldevaluationofcombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidetreatednetsandindoorresidualsprayingrelativetoeithermethodaloneformalariapreventioninanareawherethemainvectorisanophelesarabiensis
AT lorenzlenam comparativefieldevaluationofcombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidetreatednetsandindoorresidualsprayingrelativetoeithermethodaloneformalariapreventioninanareawherethemainvectorisanophelesarabiensis
AT mooresarahj comparativefieldevaluationofcombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidetreatednetsandindoorresidualsprayingrelativetoeithermethodaloneformalariapreventioninanareawherethemainvectorisanophelesarabiensis