Cargando…

Spatial-temporal heterogeneity in malaria receptivity is best estimated by vector biting rates in areas nearing elimination

BACKGROUND: Decisions on when vector control can be withdrawn after malaria is eliminated depend on the receptivity or potential of an area to support vector populations. To guide malaria control and elimination programmes, the potential of biting rates, sporozoite rates, entomological inoculation r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burkot, Thomas R., Bugoro, Hugo, Apairamo, Allan, Cooper, Robert D., Echeverry, Diego F., Odabasi, Danyal, Beebe, Nigel W., Makuru, Victoria, Xiao, Honglin, Davidson, Jenna R., Deason, Nicholas A., Reuben, Hedrick, Kazura, James W., Collins, Frank H., Lobo, Neil F., Russell, Tanya L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6260740/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30482239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3201-1
_version_ 1783374861252427776
author Burkot, Thomas R.
Bugoro, Hugo
Apairamo, Allan
Cooper, Robert D.
Echeverry, Diego F.
Odabasi, Danyal
Beebe, Nigel W.
Makuru, Victoria
Xiao, Honglin
Davidson, Jenna R.
Deason, Nicholas A.
Reuben, Hedrick
Kazura, James W.
Collins, Frank H.
Lobo, Neil F.
Russell, Tanya L.
author_facet Burkot, Thomas R.
Bugoro, Hugo
Apairamo, Allan
Cooper, Robert D.
Echeverry, Diego F.
Odabasi, Danyal
Beebe, Nigel W.
Makuru, Victoria
Xiao, Honglin
Davidson, Jenna R.
Deason, Nicholas A.
Reuben, Hedrick
Kazura, James W.
Collins, Frank H.
Lobo, Neil F.
Russell, Tanya L.
author_sort Burkot, Thomas R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Decisions on when vector control can be withdrawn after malaria is eliminated depend on the receptivity or potential of an area to support vector populations. To guide malaria control and elimination programmes, the potential of biting rates, sporozoite rates, entomological inoculation rates and parity rates to estimate malaria receptivity and transmission were compared within and among geographically localised villages of active transmission in the Western Province of the Solomon Islands. RESULTS: Malaria transmission and transmission potential was heterogeneous in both time and space both among and within villages as defined by anopheline species composition and biting densities. Biting rates during the peak biting period (from 18:00 to 00:00 h) of the primary vector, Anopheles farauti, ranged from less than 0.3 bites per person per half night in low receptivity villages to 26 bites per person in highly receptive villages. Within villages, sites with high anopheline biting rates were significantly clustered. Sporozoite rates provided evidence for continued transmission of Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax and P. ovale by An. farauti and for incriminating An. hinesorum, as a minor vector, but were unreliable as indicators of transmission intensity. CONCLUSIONS: In the low transmission area studied, sporozoite, entomological inoculation and parity rates could not be measured with the precision required to provide guidance to malaria programmes. Receptivity and potential transmission risk may be most reliably estimated by the vector biting rate. These results support the meaningful design of operational research programmes to ensure that resources are focused on providing information that can be utilised by malaria control programmes to best understand both transmission, transmission risk and receptivity across different areas.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6260740
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62607402018-11-30 Spatial-temporal heterogeneity in malaria receptivity is best estimated by vector biting rates in areas nearing elimination Burkot, Thomas R. Bugoro, Hugo Apairamo, Allan Cooper, Robert D. Echeverry, Diego F. Odabasi, Danyal Beebe, Nigel W. Makuru, Victoria Xiao, Honglin Davidson, Jenna R. Deason, Nicholas A. Reuben, Hedrick Kazura, James W. Collins, Frank H. Lobo, Neil F. Russell, Tanya L. Parasit Vectors Research BACKGROUND: Decisions on when vector control can be withdrawn after malaria is eliminated depend on the receptivity or potential of an area to support vector populations. To guide malaria control and elimination programmes, the potential of biting rates, sporozoite rates, entomological inoculation rates and parity rates to estimate malaria receptivity and transmission were compared within and among geographically localised villages of active transmission in the Western Province of the Solomon Islands. RESULTS: Malaria transmission and transmission potential was heterogeneous in both time and space both among and within villages as defined by anopheline species composition and biting densities. Biting rates during the peak biting period (from 18:00 to 00:00 h) of the primary vector, Anopheles farauti, ranged from less than 0.3 bites per person per half night in low receptivity villages to 26 bites per person in highly receptive villages. Within villages, sites with high anopheline biting rates were significantly clustered. Sporozoite rates provided evidence for continued transmission of Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax and P. ovale by An. farauti and for incriminating An. hinesorum, as a minor vector, but were unreliable as indicators of transmission intensity. CONCLUSIONS: In the low transmission area studied, sporozoite, entomological inoculation and parity rates could not be measured with the precision required to provide guidance to malaria programmes. Receptivity and potential transmission risk may be most reliably estimated by the vector biting rate. These results support the meaningful design of operational research programmes to ensure that resources are focused on providing information that can be utilised by malaria control programmes to best understand both transmission, transmission risk and receptivity across different areas. BioMed Central 2018-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6260740/ /pubmed/30482239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3201-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Burkot, Thomas R.
Bugoro, Hugo
Apairamo, Allan
Cooper, Robert D.
Echeverry, Diego F.
Odabasi, Danyal
Beebe, Nigel W.
Makuru, Victoria
Xiao, Honglin
Davidson, Jenna R.
Deason, Nicholas A.
Reuben, Hedrick
Kazura, James W.
Collins, Frank H.
Lobo, Neil F.
Russell, Tanya L.
Spatial-temporal heterogeneity in malaria receptivity is best estimated by vector biting rates in areas nearing elimination
title Spatial-temporal heterogeneity in malaria receptivity is best estimated by vector biting rates in areas nearing elimination
title_full Spatial-temporal heterogeneity in malaria receptivity is best estimated by vector biting rates in areas nearing elimination
title_fullStr Spatial-temporal heterogeneity in malaria receptivity is best estimated by vector biting rates in areas nearing elimination
title_full_unstemmed Spatial-temporal heterogeneity in malaria receptivity is best estimated by vector biting rates in areas nearing elimination
title_short Spatial-temporal heterogeneity in malaria receptivity is best estimated by vector biting rates in areas nearing elimination
title_sort spatial-temporal heterogeneity in malaria receptivity is best estimated by vector biting rates in areas nearing elimination
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6260740/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30482239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3201-1
work_keys_str_mv AT burkotthomasr spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT bugorohugo spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT apairamoallan spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT cooperrobertd spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT echeverrydiegof spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT odabasidanyal spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT beebenigelw spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT makuruvictoria spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT xiaohonglin spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT davidsonjennar spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT deasonnicholasa spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT reubenhedrick spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT kazurajamesw spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT collinsfrankh spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT loboneilf spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination
AT russelltanyal spatialtemporalheterogeneityinmalariareceptivityisbestestimatedbyvectorbitingratesinareasnearingelimination