Cargando…

Evaluation of a push–pull system consisting of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and odour-baited traps for control of indoor- and outdoor-biting malaria vectors

BACKGROUND: Push–pull strategies have been proposed as options to complement primary malaria prevention tools, indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs), by targeting particularly early-night biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. This study evaluated different...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mmbando, Arnold S., Batista, Elis P. A., Kilalangongono, Masoud, Finda, Marceline F., Mwanga, Emmanuel P., Kaindoa, Emmanuel W., Kifungo, Khamis, Njalambaha, Rukiyah M., Ngowo, Halfan S., Eiras, Alvaro E., Okumu, Fredros O.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6427877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30894185
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-019-2714-1
_version_ 1783405309570580480
author Mmbando, Arnold S.
Batista, Elis P. A.
Kilalangongono, Masoud
Finda, Marceline F.
Mwanga, Emmanuel P.
Kaindoa, Emmanuel W.
Kifungo, Khamis
Njalambaha, Rukiyah M.
Ngowo, Halfan S.
Eiras, Alvaro E.
Okumu, Fredros O.
author_facet Mmbando, Arnold S.
Batista, Elis P. A.
Kilalangongono, Masoud
Finda, Marceline F.
Mwanga, Emmanuel P.
Kaindoa, Emmanuel W.
Kifungo, Khamis
Njalambaha, Rukiyah M.
Ngowo, Halfan S.
Eiras, Alvaro E.
Okumu, Fredros O.
author_sort Mmbando, Arnold S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Push–pull strategies have been proposed as options to complement primary malaria prevention tools, indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs), by targeting particularly early-night biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. This study evaluated different configurations of a push–pull system consisting of spatial repellents [transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons (0.25 g/m(2) ai)] and odour-baited traps (CO(2)-baited BG-Malaria traps), against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting malaria vectors inside large semi-field systems. METHODS: Two experimental huts were used to evaluate protective efficacy of the spatial repellents (push-only), traps (pull-only) or their combinations (push–pull), relative to controls. Adult volunteers sat outdoors (1830 h–2200 h) catching mosquitoes attempting to bite them (outdoor-biting risk), and then went indoors (2200 h–0630 h) to sleep under bed nets beside which CDC-light traps caught host-seeking mosquitoes (indoor-biting risk). Number of traps and their distance from huts were varied to optimize protection, and 500 laboratory-reared Anopheles arabiensis released nightly inside the semi-field chambers over 122 experimentation nights. RESULTS: Push-pull offered higher protection than traps alone against indoor-biting (83.4% vs. 35.0%) and outdoor-biting (79% vs. 31%), but its advantage over repellents alone was non-existent against indoor-biting (83.4% vs. 81%) and modest for outdoor-biting (79% vs. 63%). Using two traps (1 per hut) offered higher protection than either one trap (0.5 per hut) or four traps (2 per hut). Compared to original distance (5 m from huts), efficacy of push–pull against indoor-biting peaked when traps were 15 m away, while efficacy against outdoor-biting peaked when traps were 30 m away. CONCLUSION: The best configuration of push–pull comprised transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons plus two traps, each at least 15 m from huts. Efficacy of push–pull was mainly due to the spatial repellent component. Adding odour-baited traps slightly improved personal protection indoors, but excessive trap densities increased exposure near users outdoors. Given the marginal efficacy gains over spatial repellents alone and complexity of push–pull, it may be prudent to promote just spatial repellents alongside existing interventions, e.g. LLINs or non-pyrethroid IRS. However, since both transfluthrin and traps also kill mosquitoes, and because transfluthrin can inhibit blood-feeding, field studies should be done to assess potential community-level benefits that push–pull or its components may offer to users and non-users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6427877
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64278772019-04-01 Evaluation of a push–pull system consisting of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and odour-baited traps for control of indoor- and outdoor-biting malaria vectors Mmbando, Arnold S. Batista, Elis P. A. Kilalangongono, Masoud Finda, Marceline F. Mwanga, Emmanuel P. Kaindoa, Emmanuel W. Kifungo, Khamis Njalambaha, Rukiyah M. Ngowo, Halfan S. Eiras, Alvaro E. Okumu, Fredros O. Malar J Research BACKGROUND: Push–pull strategies have been proposed as options to complement primary malaria prevention tools, indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs), by targeting particularly early-night biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. This study evaluated different configurations of a push–pull system consisting of spatial repellents [transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons (0.25 g/m(2) ai)] and odour-baited traps (CO(2)-baited BG-Malaria traps), against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting malaria vectors inside large semi-field systems. METHODS: Two experimental huts were used to evaluate protective efficacy of the spatial repellents (push-only), traps (pull-only) or their combinations (push–pull), relative to controls. Adult volunteers sat outdoors (1830 h–2200 h) catching mosquitoes attempting to bite them (outdoor-biting risk), and then went indoors (2200 h–0630 h) to sleep under bed nets beside which CDC-light traps caught host-seeking mosquitoes (indoor-biting risk). Number of traps and their distance from huts were varied to optimize protection, and 500 laboratory-reared Anopheles arabiensis released nightly inside the semi-field chambers over 122 experimentation nights. RESULTS: Push-pull offered higher protection than traps alone against indoor-biting (83.4% vs. 35.0%) and outdoor-biting (79% vs. 31%), but its advantage over repellents alone was non-existent against indoor-biting (83.4% vs. 81%) and modest for outdoor-biting (79% vs. 63%). Using two traps (1 per hut) offered higher protection than either one trap (0.5 per hut) or four traps (2 per hut). Compared to original distance (5 m from huts), efficacy of push–pull against indoor-biting peaked when traps were 15 m away, while efficacy against outdoor-biting peaked when traps were 30 m away. CONCLUSION: The best configuration of push–pull comprised transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons plus two traps, each at least 15 m from huts. Efficacy of push–pull was mainly due to the spatial repellent component. Adding odour-baited traps slightly improved personal protection indoors, but excessive trap densities increased exposure near users outdoors. Given the marginal efficacy gains over spatial repellents alone and complexity of push–pull, it may be prudent to promote just spatial repellents alongside existing interventions, e.g. LLINs or non-pyrethroid IRS. However, since both transfluthrin and traps also kill mosquitoes, and because transfluthrin can inhibit blood-feeding, field studies should be done to assess potential community-level benefits that push–pull or its components may offer to users and non-users. BioMed Central 2019-03-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6427877/ /pubmed/30894185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-019-2714-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 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
Mmbando, Arnold S.
Batista, Elis P. A.
Kilalangongono, Masoud
Finda, Marceline F.
Mwanga, Emmanuel P.
Kaindoa, Emmanuel W.
Kifungo, Khamis
Njalambaha, Rukiyah M.
Ngowo, Halfan S.
Eiras, Alvaro E.
Okumu, Fredros O.
Evaluation of a push–pull system consisting of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and odour-baited traps for control of indoor- and outdoor-biting malaria vectors
title Evaluation of a push–pull system consisting of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and odour-baited traps for control of indoor- and outdoor-biting malaria vectors
title_full Evaluation of a push–pull system consisting of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and odour-baited traps for control of indoor- and outdoor-biting malaria vectors
title_fullStr Evaluation of a push–pull system consisting of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and odour-baited traps for control of indoor- and outdoor-biting malaria vectors
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of a push–pull system consisting of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and odour-baited traps for control of indoor- and outdoor-biting malaria vectors
title_short Evaluation of a push–pull system consisting of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and odour-baited traps for control of indoor- and outdoor-biting malaria vectors
title_sort evaluation of a push–pull system consisting of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and odour-baited traps for control of indoor- and outdoor-biting malaria vectors
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6427877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30894185
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-019-2714-1
work_keys_str_mv AT mmbandoarnolds evaluationofapushpullsystemconsistingoftransfluthrintreatedeaveribbonsandodourbaitedtrapsforcontrolofindoorandoutdoorbitingmalariavectors
AT batistaelispa evaluationofapushpullsystemconsistingoftransfluthrintreatedeaveribbonsandodourbaitedtrapsforcontrolofindoorandoutdoorbitingmalariavectors
AT kilalangongonomasoud evaluationofapushpullsystemconsistingoftransfluthrintreatedeaveribbonsandodourbaitedtrapsforcontrolofindoorandoutdoorbitingmalariavectors
AT findamarcelinef evaluationofapushpullsystemconsistingoftransfluthrintreatedeaveribbonsandodourbaitedtrapsforcontrolofindoorandoutdoorbitingmalariavectors
AT mwangaemmanuelp evaluationofapushpullsystemconsistingoftransfluthrintreatedeaveribbonsandodourbaitedtrapsforcontrolofindoorandoutdoorbitingmalariavectors
AT kaindoaemmanuelw evaluationofapushpullsystemconsistingoftransfluthrintreatedeaveribbonsandodourbaitedtrapsforcontrolofindoorandoutdoorbitingmalariavectors
AT kifungokhamis evaluationofapushpullsystemconsistingoftransfluthrintreatedeaveribbonsandodourbaitedtrapsforcontrolofindoorandoutdoorbitingmalariavectors
AT njalambaharukiyahm evaluationofapushpullsystemconsistingoftransfluthrintreatedeaveribbonsandodourbaitedtrapsforcontrolofindoorandoutdoorbitingmalariavectors
AT ngowohalfans evaluationofapushpullsystemconsistingoftransfluthrintreatedeaveribbonsandodourbaitedtrapsforcontrolofindoorandoutdoorbitingmalariavectors
AT eirasalvaroe evaluationofapushpullsystemconsistingoftransfluthrintreatedeaveribbonsandodourbaitedtrapsforcontrolofindoorandoutdoorbitingmalariavectors
AT okumufredroso evaluationofapushpullsystemconsistingoftransfluthrintreatedeaveribbonsandodourbaitedtrapsforcontrolofindoorandoutdoorbitingmalariavectors