Cargando…
Impact of a spatial repellent product on Anopheles and non-Anopheles mosquitoes in Sumba, Indonesia
BACKGROUND: The East Nusa Tenggara province, Indonesia, contributed to 5% of malaria cases nationally in 2020, with other mosquito-borne diseases, such as dengue and filariasis also being endemic. Monitoring of spatial and temporal vector species compositions and bionomic traits is an efficient meth...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9166507/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35659231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04185-8 |
_version_ | 1784720618964385792 |
---|---|
author | Permana, Dendi H. Zubaidah, Siti Syahrani, Lepa Asih, Puji B. S. Syafruddin, Din Rozi, Ismail E. Hidayati, Anggi P. N. Kosasih, Sully Dewayanti, Farahana K. Rachmawati, Nia Risandi, Rifqi Bangs, Michael J. Bøgh, Claus Davidson, Jenna R. Hendershot, Allison L. Burton, Timothy A. Grieco, John P. Eugenio, Evercita C. Liu, Fang Achee, Nicole L. Lobo, Neil F. |
author_facet | Permana, Dendi H. Zubaidah, Siti Syahrani, Lepa Asih, Puji B. S. Syafruddin, Din Rozi, Ismail E. Hidayati, Anggi P. N. Kosasih, Sully Dewayanti, Farahana K. Rachmawati, Nia Risandi, Rifqi Bangs, Michael J. Bøgh, Claus Davidson, Jenna R. Hendershot, Allison L. Burton, Timothy A. Grieco, John P. Eugenio, Evercita C. Liu, Fang Achee, Nicole L. Lobo, Neil F. |
author_sort | Permana, Dendi H. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The East Nusa Tenggara province, Indonesia, contributed to 5% of malaria cases nationally in 2020, with other mosquito-borne diseases, such as dengue and filariasis also being endemic. Monitoring of spatial and temporal vector species compositions and bionomic traits is an efficient method for generating evidence towards intervention strategy optimization and meeting disease elimination goals. METHODS: The impact of a spatial repellent (SR) on human biting mosquitoes was evaluated as part of a parent cluster-randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, in Sumba, East Nusa Tenggara. A 10-month (June 2015–March 2016) baseline study was followed by a 24-month intervention period (April 2016 to April 2018)—where half the clusters were randomly assigned either a passive transfluthrin emanator or a placebo control. RESULTS: Human-landing mosquito catches documented a reduction in landing rates related to the SR. Overall, there was a 16.4% reduction (21% indoors, and 11.3% outdoors) in human biting rates (HBR) for Anopheles. For Aedes, there was a 44.3% HBR reduction indoors and a 35.6% reduction outdoors. This reduction was 38.3% indoors and 39.1% outdoors for Armigeres, and 36.0% indoors and 32.3% outdoors for Culex species. Intervention impacts on the HBRs were not significant and are attributed to large inter-household and inter cluster variation. Anopheles flavirostris, Anopheles balabacensis and Anopheles maculatus individually impacted the overall malaria infections hazard rate with statistically significance. Though there was SR-based protection against malaria for all Anopheles species (except Anopheles sundaicus), only five (Anopheles aconitus, Anopheles kochi, Anopheles tessellatus, An. maculatus and An. sundaicus) demonstrated statistical significance. The SR numerically reduced Anopheles parity rates indoors and outdoors when compared to the placebo. CONCLUSION: Evidence demonstrating that Anopheles vectors bite both indoors and outdoors indicates that currently implemented indoor-based vector control tools may not be sufficient to eliminate malaria. The documented impact of the SR intervention on Aedes, Armigeres and Culex species points to its importance in combatting other vector borne diseases. Studies to determine the impact of spatial repellents on other mosquito-borne diseases is recommended. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-022-04185-8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9166507 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91665072022-06-05 Impact of a spatial repellent product on Anopheles and non-Anopheles mosquitoes in Sumba, Indonesia Permana, Dendi H. Zubaidah, Siti Syahrani, Lepa Asih, Puji B. S. Syafruddin, Din Rozi, Ismail E. Hidayati, Anggi P. N. Kosasih, Sully Dewayanti, Farahana K. Rachmawati, Nia Risandi, Rifqi Bangs, Michael J. Bøgh, Claus Davidson, Jenna R. Hendershot, Allison L. Burton, Timothy A. Grieco, John P. Eugenio, Evercita C. Liu, Fang Achee, Nicole L. Lobo, Neil F. Malar J Research BACKGROUND: The East Nusa Tenggara province, Indonesia, contributed to 5% of malaria cases nationally in 2020, with other mosquito-borne diseases, such as dengue and filariasis also being endemic. Monitoring of spatial and temporal vector species compositions and bionomic traits is an efficient method for generating evidence towards intervention strategy optimization and meeting disease elimination goals. METHODS: The impact of a spatial repellent (SR) on human biting mosquitoes was evaluated as part of a parent cluster-randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, in Sumba, East Nusa Tenggara. A 10-month (June 2015–March 2016) baseline study was followed by a 24-month intervention period (April 2016 to April 2018)—where half the clusters were randomly assigned either a passive transfluthrin emanator or a placebo control. RESULTS: Human-landing mosquito catches documented a reduction in landing rates related to the SR. Overall, there was a 16.4% reduction (21% indoors, and 11.3% outdoors) in human biting rates (HBR) for Anopheles. For Aedes, there was a 44.3% HBR reduction indoors and a 35.6% reduction outdoors. This reduction was 38.3% indoors and 39.1% outdoors for Armigeres, and 36.0% indoors and 32.3% outdoors for Culex species. Intervention impacts on the HBRs were not significant and are attributed to large inter-household and inter cluster variation. Anopheles flavirostris, Anopheles balabacensis and Anopheles maculatus individually impacted the overall malaria infections hazard rate with statistically significance. Though there was SR-based protection against malaria for all Anopheles species (except Anopheles sundaicus), only five (Anopheles aconitus, Anopheles kochi, Anopheles tessellatus, An. maculatus and An. sundaicus) demonstrated statistical significance. The SR numerically reduced Anopheles parity rates indoors and outdoors when compared to the placebo. CONCLUSION: Evidence demonstrating that Anopheles vectors bite both indoors and outdoors indicates that currently implemented indoor-based vector control tools may not be sufficient to eliminate malaria. The documented impact of the SR intervention on Aedes, Armigeres and Culex species points to its importance in combatting other vector borne diseases. Studies to determine the impact of spatial repellents on other mosquito-borne diseases is recommended. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-022-04185-8. BioMed Central 2022-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9166507/ /pubmed/35659231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04185-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Permana, Dendi H. Zubaidah, Siti Syahrani, Lepa Asih, Puji B. S. Syafruddin, Din Rozi, Ismail E. Hidayati, Anggi P. N. Kosasih, Sully Dewayanti, Farahana K. Rachmawati, Nia Risandi, Rifqi Bangs, Michael J. Bøgh, Claus Davidson, Jenna R. Hendershot, Allison L. Burton, Timothy A. Grieco, John P. Eugenio, Evercita C. Liu, Fang Achee, Nicole L. Lobo, Neil F. Impact of a spatial repellent product on Anopheles and non-Anopheles mosquitoes in Sumba, Indonesia |
title | Impact of a spatial repellent product on Anopheles and non-Anopheles mosquitoes in Sumba, Indonesia |
title_full | Impact of a spatial repellent product on Anopheles and non-Anopheles mosquitoes in Sumba, Indonesia |
title_fullStr | Impact of a spatial repellent product on Anopheles and non-Anopheles mosquitoes in Sumba, Indonesia |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of a spatial repellent product on Anopheles and non-Anopheles mosquitoes in Sumba, Indonesia |
title_short | Impact of a spatial repellent product on Anopheles and non-Anopheles mosquitoes in Sumba, Indonesia |
title_sort | impact of a spatial repellent product on anopheles and non-anopheles mosquitoes in sumba, indonesia |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9166507/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35659231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04185-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT permanadendih impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT zubaidahsiti impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT syahranilepa impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT asihpujibs impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT syafruddindin impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT roziismaile impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT hidayatianggipn impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT kosasihsully impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT dewayantifarahanak impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT rachmawatinia impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT risandirifqi impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT bangsmichaelj impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT bøghclaus impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT davidsonjennar impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT hendershotallisonl impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT burtontimothya impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT griecojohnp impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT eugenioevercitac impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT liufang impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT acheenicolel impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia AT loboneilf impactofaspatialrepellentproductonanophelesandnonanophelesmosquitoesinsumbaindonesia |