METHODS: A multi-centre study involving 21 laboratories worldwide generated data on the susceptibility of seven mosquito species (Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto [An. gambiae s.s.], Anopheles funestus, Anopheles stephensi, Anopheles minimus and Anopheles albimanus) to seven public health insecticides in five classes, including pyrethroids (metofluthrin, prallethrin and transfluthrin), neonicotinoids (clothianidin), pyrroles (chlorfenapyr), juvenile hormone mimics (pyriproxyfen) and butenolides (flupyradifurone), in glass bottle assays. The data were analysed using a Bayesian binomial model to determine the concentration-response curves for each insecticide-species combination and to assess the within-bioassay variability in the susceptibility endpoints, namely the concentration that kills 50% and 99% of the test population (LC50 and LC99, respectively) and the concentration that inhibits oviposition of the test population by 50% and 99% (OI50 and OI99), to measure mortality and the sterilizing effect, respectively.
RESULTS: Overall, about 200,000 mosquitoes were tested with the new bottle bioassay, and LC50/LC99 or OI50/OI99 values were determined for all insecticides. Variation was seen between laboratories in estimates for some mosquito species-insecticide combinations, while other test results were consistent. The variation was generally greater with transfluthrin and flupyradifurone than with the other compounds tested, especially against Anopheles species. Overall, the mean within-bioassay variability in mortality and oviposition inhibition were mosquito species-insecticide combinations.
CONCLUSION: Our findings, based on the largest susceptibility dataset ever produced on mosquitoes, showed that the new WHO bottle bioassay is adequate for evaluating mosquito susceptibility to new and promising public health insecticides currently deployed for vector control. The datasets presented in this study have been used recently by the WHO to establish 17 new insecticide discriminating concentrations (DCs) for either Aedes spp. or Anopheles spp. The bottle bioassay and DCs can now be widely used to monitor baseline insecticide susceptibility of wild populations of vectors of malaria and Aedes-borne diseases worldwide.
METHODS: WHO resistance bioassays of mosquitoes with deltamethrin, permethrin and DDT were used in conjunction with TaqMan® SNP Genotyping Assays to characterize mutation profiles of Ae. aegypti.
RESULTS: Screening of the voltage-sensitive sodium channel (Vssc), the pyrethroid target site, revealed mutations at codons 989, 1016 and 1534 in Ae. aegypti from two districts of Jeddah. The triple mutant homozygote (1016G/1534C/989P) was confirmed from Al Safa and Al Rawabi. Bioassays with pyrethroids (Type I and II) and DDT showed that mosquitoes were resistant to each of these compounds based on WHO definitions. An association between Vssc mutations and resistance was established for the Type II pyrethroid, deltamethrin, with one genotype (989P/1016G/1534F) conferring a survival advantage over two others (989S/1016V/1534C and the triple heterozygote). An indication of synergism of Type I pyrethroid activity with piperonyl butoxide suggests that detoxification by cytochrome P450s accounts for some of the pyrethroid resistance response in Ae. aegypti populations from Jeddah.
CONCLUSIONS: The results provide a baseline for monitoring and management of resistance as well as knowledge of Vssc genotype frequencies required in Wolbachia release populations to ensure homogeneity with the target field population. Vssc mutation haplotypes observed show some similarity with those from Ae. aegypti in southeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific, but the presence of the triple mutant haplotype in three genotypes indicates that the species in this region may have a unique population history.
METHODS: A randomized 4 × 4 Latin square designed experiment was conducted to compare the efficiency of the Mosquito Magnet against three other common trapping methods: human landing catch (HLC), CDC light trap and human baited trap (HBT). The experiment was conducted over six replicates where sampling within each replicate was carried out for 4 consecutive nights. An additional 4 nights of sampling was used to further evaluate the Mosquito Magnet against the "gold standard" HLC. The abundance of Anopheles sampled by different methods was compared and evaluated with focus on the Anopheles from the Leucosphyrus group, the vectors of knowlesi malaria.
RESULTS: The Latin square designed experiment showed HLC caught the greatest number of Anopheles mosquitoes (n = 321) compared to the HBT (n = 87), Mosquito Magnet (n = 58) and CDC light trap (n = 13). The GLMM analysis showed that the HLC method caught significantly more Anopheles mosquitoes compared to Mosquito Magnet (P = 0.049). However, there was no significant difference in mean nightly catch of Anopheles mosquitoes between Mosquito Magnet and the other two trapping methods, HBT (P = 0.646) and CDC light traps (P = 0.197). The mean nightly catch for both An. introlatus (9.33 ± 4.341) and An. cracens (4.00 ± 2.273) caught using HLC was higher than that of Mosquito Magnet, though the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). This is in contrast to the mean nightly catch of An. sinensis (15.75 ± 5.640) and An. maculatus (15.78 ± 3.479) where HLC showed significantly more mosquito catches compared to Mosquito Magnet (P Mosquito Magnet has a promising ability to catch An. introlatus and An. cracens, the important vectors of knowlesi and other simian malarias in Peninsular Malaysia. The ability of Mosquito Magnet to catch some of the Anopheles mosquito species is comparable to HLC and makes it an ethical and safer alternative.
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether housing interventions were effective in reducing mosquito densities in homes and the impact on the incidence of mosquito-borne diseases.
METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched 16 online databases, including NIH PubMed, CINAHL Complete, LILACS, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized trials published from database inception to June 30, 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of any mosquito-borne diseases. Secondary outcomes encompassed entomological indicators of the disease transmission. I2 values were used to explore heterogeneity between studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to assess the primary and secondary outcomes, with sub-group analyses for type of interventions on home environment, study settings (rural, urban, or mixed), and overall house type (traditional or modern housing).
RESULTS: The literature search yielded 4,869 articles. After screening, 18 studies were included in the qualitative review, of which nine were included in the meta-analysis. The studies enrolled 7,200 households in Africa and South America, reporting on malaria or dengue only. The type of home environmental interventions included modification to ceilings and ribbons to close eaves, screening doors and windows with nets, insecticide-treated wall linings in homes, nettings over gables and eaves openings, mosquito trapping systems, metal-roofed houses with mosquito screening, gable windows and closed eaves, and prototype houses using southeast Asian designs. Pooled analysis depicted a lower risk of mosquito-borne diseases in the housing intervention group (OR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.95; P = 0.03). Subgroup analysis depicted housing intervention reduced the risk of malaria in all settings (OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.01; P = 0.05). In urban environment, housing intervention was found to decrease the risk of both malaria and dengue infections (OR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.99; P = 0.05).Meta-analysis of pooled odds ratio showed a significant benefit of improved housing in reducing indoor vector densities of both Aedes and Anopheles (OR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.54; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Housing intervention could reduce transmission of malaria and dengue among people living in the homes. Future research should evaluate the protective effect of specific house features and housing improvements associated with urban development.
METHODS AND ANALYSES: We will conduct a systematic review of intervention that assess the effect of environmental management on the incidence of dengue and/or entomological indices. We will include any studies that include intervention through environmental management for dengue control, involving environmental modification, environmental manipulation and changes to human behaviour. A comprehensive search will be performed in electronic databases PUBMED, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Web of Science and relevant research websites such as PROPSERO, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies that meet our inclusion criteria. A systematic approach to searching, screening, reviewing and data extraction will be applied based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis. Titles, abstract, keywords for eligibility will be examined independently by researchers. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using quality assessment tool for studies with diverse design and Cochrane risk of bias tool. The characteristics of the selected articles will be described based on the study design, types of intervention and outcomes of the study in various countries. These include the types of environmental management intervention methods and the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing dengue cases or incidence and impact on entomological indices.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will register this systematic review with the National Medical Research Register, Ministry of Health Malaysia. This protocol also had been registered with the PROSPERO. No ethical approval is necessary, as there will be no collection of primary data. The results will be disseminated though a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018092189.
RESULTS: Over 31 days, 2243 mosquitoes were collected in 5748 discrete collections. Nine mosquito genera were sampled with Aedes and Culex species being present in all habitats and most abundant. RB and CDC backpack aspiration were most efficient for sampling Culex whereas CDC backpack aspiration and SRB were most efficient for Aedes. Most Aedes identified to species level were Ae. albopictus (91%), with their abundance being highest in forest edge habitats. In contrast, Culex were most abundant under houses. Most blood-fed mosquitoes (76%) were found in human settlements; with humans and chickens being the only blood source.
CONCLUSIONS: RB and SRB traps proved capable of sampling mosquitoes resting in all sampled habitats. However, sampling efficiency was generally low (c.0.1 per trap per day), necessitating traps to be deployed in high numbers for mosquito detection. None of the traps were effective for sampling zoonotic malaria vectors; however, SRB collected relatively higher numbers of the dengue vector Ae. albopictus. The higher abundance of mosquitoes in forest edge habitats indicates the potential value of these traps for investigating sylvatic dengue transmission. This study has demonstrated the merits in application of simple resting traps for characterising mosquito vector resting behaviour outside of the home.
METHODS: We employ a dynamic Markov model of the effects of vector control on dengue in both vectors and humans over a 15-year period, in six countries: Brazil, Columbia, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, and Thailand. We evaluate the cost (direct medical costs and control programme costs) and cost-effectiveness of sustained vector control, outbreak response and/or medical case management, in the presence of a (hypothetical) highly targeted and low cost immunization strategy using a (non-hypothetical) medium-efficacy vaccine.
RESULTS: Sustained vector control using existing technologies would cost little more than outbreak response, given the associated costs of medical case management. If sustained use of existing or upcoming technologies (of similar price) reduce vector populations by 70-90%, the cost per disability-adjusted life year averted is 2013 US$ 679-1331 (best estimates) relative to no intervention. Sustained vector control could be highly cost-effective even with less effective technologies (50-70% reduction in vector populations) and in the presence of a highly targeted and low cost immunization strategy using a medium-efficacy vaccine.
DISCUSSION: Economic evaluation of the first-ever dengue vaccine is ongoing. However, even under very optimistic assumptions about a highly targeted and low cost immunization strategy, our results suggest that sustained vector control will continue to play an important role in mitigating the impact of environmental change and urbanization on human health. If additional benefits for the control of other Aedes borne diseases, such as Chikungunya, yellow fever and Zika fever are taken into account, the investment case is even stronger. High-burden endemic countries should proceed to map populations to be covered by sustained vector control.
METHODS: On Ambae Island, blood samples were collected from 231 and 282 individuals in 2003 and 2007, respectively. Parasite prevalence was determined by microscopy. Antibodies to three Plasmodium falciparum (PfSE, PfMSP-119, and PfAMA-1) and three Plasmodium vivax (PvSE, PvMSP-119, and PvAMA-1) antigens, as well as the Anopheles-specific salivary antigen gSG6, were detected by ELISA. Age-specific seroprevalence was analysed using a reverse catalytic modelling approach to estimate seroconversion rates (SCRs).
RESULTS: Parasite rate decreased significantly (P