28 research outputs found
Creating mosquito-free outdoor spaces using transfuthrin-treated chairs and ribbons
This research article published by Springer Nature, 2020Background: Residents of malaria-endemic communities spend several hours outdoors performing diferent
activities, e.g. cooking, story-telling or eating, thereby exposing themselves to potentially-infectious mosquitoes. This
compromises efectiveness of indoor interventions, notably long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) and indoor
residual spraying (IRS). This study characterized common peri-domestic spaces in rural south-eastern Tanzania, and
assessed protective efcacy against mosquitoes of hessian fabric mats and ribbons treated with the spatial repellent,
transfuthrin, and ftted to chairs and outdoor kitchens, respectively.
Methods: Two hundred households were surveyed, and their most-used peri-domestic spaces physically characterized. Protective efcacies of locally-made transfuthrin-emanating chairs and hessian ribbons were tested in outdoor
environments of 28 households in dry and wet seasons, using volunteer-occupied exposure-free double net traps.
CDC light traps were used to estimate host-seeking mosquito densities within open-structure outdoor kitchens. Fieldcollected Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus mosquitoes were exposed underneath the chairs to estimate
24 h-mortality. Finally, The World Health Organization insecticide susceptibility tests were conducted on wild-caught
Anopheles from the villages.
Results: Approximately half (52%) of houses had verandas. Aside from these verandas, most houses also had peridomestic spaces where residents stayed most times (67% of houses with verandas and 94% of non-veranda houses).
Two-thirds of these spaces were sited under trees, and only one third (34.4%) were built-up. The outdoor structures
were usually makeshift kitchens having roofs and partial walls. Transfuthrin-treated chairs reduced outdoor-biting
An. arabiensis densities by 70–85%, while transfuthrin-treated hessian ribbons ftted to the outdoor kitchens caused
77–81% reduction in the general peri-domestic area. Almost all the feld-collected An. arabiensis (99.4%) and An.
funestus (100%) exposed under transfuthrin-treated chairs died. The An. arabiensis were susceptible to non-pyrethroids (pirimiphos methyl and bendiocarb), but resistant to pyrethroids commonly used on LLINs (deltamethrin and
permethrin).
Conclusion: Most houses had actively-used peri-domestic outdoor spaces where exposure to mosquitoes occurred.
The transfuthrin-treated chairs and ribbons reduced outdoor-biting malaria vectors in these peri-domestic spaces,
and also elicited signifcant mortality among pyrethroid-resistant feld-caught malaria vectors. These two new prototype formats for transfuthrin emanators, if developed further, may constitute new options for complementing LLINs
and IRS with outdoor protection against malaria and other mosquito-borne pathogens in areas where peri-domestic
human activities are common
Opinions of key stakeholders on alternative interventions for malaria control and elimination in Tanzania
Malaria control in Tanzania currently relies primarily on long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying, alongside effective case management and behaviour change communication. This study explored opinions of key stakeholders on the national progress towards malaria elimination, the potential of currently available vector control interventions in helping achieve elimination by 2030, and the need for alternative interventions that could be used to supplement malaria elimination efforts in Tanzania. In this exploratory qualitative study, Focus group discussions were held with policy-makers, regulators, research scientists and community members. Malaria control interventions discussed were: (a) improved housing, (b) larval source management, (c) mass drug administration (MDA) with ivermectin to reduce vector densities, (d) release of modified mosquitoes, including genetically modified or irradiated mosquitoes, (e) targeted spraying of mosquito swarms, and (f) spatial repellents. Larval source management and spatial repellents were widely supported across all stakeholder groups, while insecticide-spraying of mosquito swarms was the least preferred. Support for MDA with ivermectin was high among policy makers, regulators and research scientists, but encountered opposition among community members, who instead expressed strong support for programmes to improve housing for poor people in high transmission areas. Policy makers, however, challenged the idea of government-supported housing improvement due to its perceived high costs. Techniques of mosquito modification, specifically those involving gene drives, were viewed positively by community members, policy makers and regulators, but encountered a high degree of scepticism among scientists. Overall, policy-makers, regulators and community members trusted scientists to provide appropriate advice for decision-making. Stakeholder opinions regarding alternative malaria interventions were divergent except for larval source management and spatial repellents, for which there was universal support. MDA with ivermectin, housing improvement and modified mosquitoes were also widely supported, though each faced concerns from at least one stakeholder group. While policy-makers, regulators and community members all noted their reliance on scientists to make informed decisions, their reasoning on the benefits and disadvantages of specific interventions included factors beyond technical efficiency. This study suggests the need to encourage and strengthen dialogue between research scientists, policy makers, regulators and communities regarding new interventions
Dramatic decreases of malaria transmission intensities in Ifakara, south-eastern Tanzania since early 2000s.
BACKGROUND: Ongoing epidemiological transitions across Africa are particularly evident in fast-growing towns, such as Ifakara in the Kilombero valley, south-eastern Tanzania. This town and its environs (population ~ 70,000) historically experienced moderate to high malaria transmission, mediated mostly by Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus. In early 2000s, malaria transmission [Plasmodium falciparum entomological inoculation rate (PfEIR)] was estimated at ~ 30 infectious bites/person/year (ib/p/yr). This study assessed the PfEIR after 15 years, during which there had been rapid urbanization and expanded use of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs). METHODS: Randomly-selected 110 households were sampled across Ifakara town and four adjacent wards. Mosquitoes were trapped nightly or monthly (June.2015-May.2016) using CDC-light-traps indoors, Suna® traps outdoors and human landing catches (HLC) indoors and outdoors. All Anopheles mosquitoes were morphologically identified and analysed by ELISA for Plasmodium circumsporozoite proteins. Mosquito blood meals were identified using ELISA, and sub-samples of An. gambiae and An. funestus examined by PCR to distinguish morphologically-similar siblings. Insecticide resistance was assessed using WHO-susceptibility assays, and some Anopheles were dissected to examine ovariole tracheoles for parity. RESULTS: After 3572 trap-nights, one Plasmodium-infected Anopheles was found (an An. funestus caught outdoors in Katindiuka-ward by HLC), resulting in overall PfEIR of 0.102 ib/p/yr. Nearly 80% of malaria vectors were from Katindiuka and Mlabani wards. Anopheles gambiae densities were higher outdoors (64%) than indoors (36%), but no such difference was observed for An. funestus. All An. funestus and 75% of An. gambiae dissected were parous. Anopheles gambiae complex consisted entirely of Anopheles arabiensis, while An. funestus included 84.2% An. funestus s.s., 4.5% Anopheles rivulorum, 1.4% Anopheles leesoni and 9.9% with unamplified-DNA. Anopheles gambiae were susceptible to bendiocarb and malathion, but resistant to pyrethroids, DDT and pirimiphos-methyl. Most houses had brick walls and/or iron roofs (> 90%), and 52% had screened windows. CONCLUSION: Malaria transmission in Ifakara has decreased by > 99% since early-2000s, reaching levels nearly undetectable with current entomological methods. These declines are likely associated with ITNs use, urbanization and improved housing. Remaining risk is now mostly in peri-urban wards, but concerted efforts could further decrease local transmission. Parasitological surveys are required to assess actual prevalence, incidence and importation rates
Observing the distribution of mosquito bites on humans to inform personal protection measures against malaria and dengue vectors
Background Understanding mosquito biting behaviours is important for designing and evaluating protection methods against nuisance biting and mosquito-borne diseases (e.g. dengue, malaria and zika). We investigated the preferred biting sites by Aedes aegypti and Anopheles arabiensis on adult volunteers in standing or sleeping positions; and estimated the theoretical protection limits affordable from protective clothing or repellent-treated footwear. Methods Adult volunteers dressed in shorts and t-shirts were exposed to infection-free laboratory-reared mosquitoes inside screened chambers from 6am to noon (for day-biting Ae. aegypti) or 6pm to midnight (night-biting An. arabiensis). Attempted bites on different body parts were recorded. Comparative observations were made on same volunteers while wearing sandals treated with transfluthrin, a vapour-phase pyrethroid that kills and repels mosquitoes. Results An. arabiensis bites were mainly on the lower limbs of standing volunteers (95.9% of bites below the knees) but evenly-distributed over all exposed body surfaces when the volunteers were on sleeping positions (only 28.8% bites below knees). Ae. aegypti bites were slightly concentrated on lower limbs of standing volunteers (47.7% below knees), but evenly-distributed on sleeping volunteers (23.3% below knees). Wearing protective clothing that leave only hands and head uncovered (e.g. socks + trousers + long-sleeved shirts) could theoretically prevent 78–83% of bites during sleeping, and at least 90% of bites during non-sleeping hours. If the feet are also exposed, protection declines to as low as 36.3% against Anopheles. The experiments showed that transfluthrin-treated sandals reduced An. arabiensis by 54–86% and Ae. aegypti by 32–39%, but did not change overall distributions of bites. Conclusion Biting by An. arabiensis and Ae. aegypti occur mainly on the lower limbs, though this proclivity is less pronounced in the Aedes species. However, when hosts are on sleeping positions, biting by both species is more evenly-distributed over the exposed body surfaces. High personal protection might be achieved by simply wearing long-sleeved clothing, though protection against Anopheles particularly requires covering of feet and lower legs. The transfluthrin-treated footwear can reduce biting risk, especially by An. arabiensis. These findings could inform the design and use of personal protection tools (both insecticidal and non-insecticidal) against mosquitoes and mosquito-borne diseases
Protecting migratory farmers in rural Tanzania using eave ribbons treated with the spatial mosquito repellent, transfluthrin.
BACKGROUND: Many subsistence farmers in rural southeastern Tanzania regularly relocate to distant farms in river valleys to tend to crops for several weeks or months each year. While there, they live in makeshift semi-open structures, usually far from organized health systems and where insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) do not provide adequate protection. This study evaluated the potential of a recently developed technology, eave ribbons treated with the spatial repellent transfluthrin, for protecting migratory rice farmers in rural southeastern Tanzania against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. METHODS: In the first test, eave ribbons (0.1 m × 24 m each) treated with 1.5% transfluthrin solution were compared to untreated ribbons in 24 randomly selected huts in three migratory communities over 48 nights. Host-seeking mosquitoes indoors and outdoors were monitored nightly (18.00-07.00 h) using CDC light traps and CO2-baited BG malaria traps, respectively. The second test compared efficacies of eave ribbons treated with 1.5% or 2.5% transfluthrin in 12 huts over 21 nights. Finally, 286 farmers were interviewed to assess perceptions about eave ribbons, and their willingness to pay for them. RESULTS: In the two experiments, when treated eave ribbons were applied, the reduction in indoor densities ranged from 56 to 77% for Anopheles arabiensis, 36 to 60% for Anopheles funestus, 72 to 84% for Culex, and 80 to 98% for Mansonia compared to untreated ribbons. Reduction in outdoor densities was 38 to 77% against An. arabiensis, 36 to 64% against An. funestus, 63 to 88% against Culex, and 47 to 98% against Mansonia. There was no difference in protection between the two transfluthrin doses. In the survey, 58% of participants perceived the ribbons to be effective in reducing mosquito bites. Ninety per cent were willing to pay for the ribbons, the majority of whom were willing to pay but less than US$2.17 (5000 TZS), one-third of the current prototype cost. CONCLUSIONS: Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons can protect migratory rice farmers, living in semi-open makeshift houses in remote farms, against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. The technology is acceptable to users and could potentially complement ITNs. Further studies should investigate durability and epidemiological impact of eave ribbons, and the opportunities for improving affordability to users
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 configurations of a push–pull system consisting of spatial repellents [transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons (0.25 g/m2 ai)] and odour-baited traps (CO2-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
Prevalence and determinants of undernutrition in schoolchildren in the Kilombero district, south-eastern Tanzania
Childhood undernutrition is a major issue in low- and middle-income countries, affecting the health, well-being, and educational outcomes of schoolchildren. This study aimed to assess the prevalence and associated factors of stunting, wasting, and underweight among schoolchildren in peri-urban areas in the south-eastern part of Tanzania. A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 930 children aged 6–12 years from four primary schools from July to August 2019. The WHO Anthro Survey Analyzer was employed to estimate the prevalence of stunting, wasting, and underweight, while logistic regression analyses examined sociodemographic background, malaria infection, anaemia, anthropometric measures, and dietary diversity score as potential factors. The prevalence of stunting, wasting, underweight, overweight, and obesity was 11.8%, 4.3%, 3.9%, 11.1%, and 2.0%, respectively. Overall, 1.5% of the children had malaria, as determined by rapid diagnostic tests, and 0.4% had severe anaemia. Univariate analysis indicated higher odds of undernutrition among children aged 9–12 compared to their younger peers. Stunting was more common among children with low and medium dietary diversity. Anaemia was found in 11.2% of schoolchildren, and severe anaemia was associated with wasting. Multivariate analysis revealed that age and low dietary diversity were significantly associated with undernutrition. These findings emphasise the need for school-based health and nutrition programmes targeting children beyond the age of 5 to improve their nutritional status and mitigate potential adverse effects on health, cognition, and academic achievement. Regular assessment of the nutritional status of schoolchildren is warranted
Eave ribbons treated with transfluthrin can protect both users and non-users against malaria vectors
Eave ribbons treated with spatial repellents effectively prevent human exposure to outdoor-biting and indoor-biting malaria mosquitoes, and could constitute a scalable and low-cost supplement to current interventions, such as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs). This study measured protection afforded by transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons to users (personal and communal protection) and non-users (only communal protection), and whether introducing mosquito traps as additional intervention influenced these benefits.; Five experimental huts were constructed inside a 110Â m long, screened tunnel, in which 1000 Anopheles arabiensis were released nightly. Eave ribbons treated with 0.25Â g/m; 2; transfluthrin were fitted to 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 huts, achieving 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% coverage, respectively. Volunteers sat near each hut and collected mosquitoes attempting to bite them from 6 to 10Â p.m. (outdoor-biting), then went indoors to sleep under untreated bed nets, beside which CDC-light traps collected mosquitoes from 10Â p.m. to 6Â a.m. (indoor-biting). Caged mosquitoes kept inside the huts were monitored for 24Â h-mortality. Separately, eave ribbons, UV-LED mosquito traps (Mosclean) or both the ribbons and traps were fitted, each time leaving the central hut unfitted to represent non-user households and assess communal protection. Biting risk was measured concurrently in all huts, before and after introducing interventions.; Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons provided 83% and 62% protection indoors and outdoors respectively to users, plus 57% and 48% protection indoors and outdoors to the non-user. Protection for users remained constant, but protection for non-users increased with eave ribbons coverage, peaking once 80% of huts were fitted. Mortality of mosquitoes caged inside huts with eave ribbons was 100%. The UV-LED traps increased indoor exposure to users and non-users, but marginally reduced outdoor-biting. Combining the traps and eave ribbons did not improve user protection relative to eave ribbons alone.; Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons protect both users and non-users against malaria mosquitoes indoors and outdoors. The mosquito-killing property of transfluthrin can magnify the communal benefits by limiting unwanted diversion to non-users, but should be validated in field trials against pyrethroid-resistant vectors. Benefits of the UV-LED traps as an intervention alone or alongside eave ribbons were however undetectable in this study. These findings extend the evidence that transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons could complement ITNs
Small-scale field evaluation of transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and sandals for the control of malaria vectors in rural Tanzania
Background: Early-evening and outdoor-biting mosquitoes may compromise the effectiveness of frontline malaria interventions, notably insecticide-treated nets (ITNs). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of low-cost insecticide-treated eave ribbons and sandals as supplementary interventions against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting mosquitoes in south-eastern Tanzania, where ITNs are already widely used.
Methods: This study was conducted in three villages, with 72 households participating (24 households per village). The households were divided into four study arms and assigned: transfluthrin-treated sandals (TS), transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons (TER), a combination of TER and TS, or experimental controls. Each arm had 18 households, and all households received new ITNs. Mosquitoes were collected using double net traps (to assess outdoor biting), CDC light traps (to assess indoor biting), and Prokopack aspirators (to assess indoor resting). Protection provided by the interventions was evaluated by comparing mosquito densities between the treatment and control arms. Additional tests were done in experimental huts to assess the mortality of wild mosquitoes exposed to the treatments or controls.
Results: TERs reduced indoor-biting, indoor-resting and outdoor-biting Anopheles arabiensis by 60%, 73% and 41%, respectively, while TS reduced the densities by 18%, 40% and 42%, respectively. When used together, TER & TS reduced indoor-biting, indoor-resting and outdoor-biting An. arabiensis by 53%, 67% and 57%, respectively. Protection against Anopheles funestus ranged from 42 to 69% with TER and from 57 to 74% with TER & TS combined. Mortality of field-collected mosquitoes exposed to TER, TS or both interventions was 56–78% for An. arabiensis and 47–74% for An. funestus.
Conclusion: Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons and sandals or their combination can offer significant household-level protection against malaria vectors. Their efficacy is magnified by the transfluthrin-induced mortality, which was observed despite the prevailing pyrethroid resistance in the study area. These results suggest that TER and TS could be useful supplementary tools against residual malaria transmission in areas where ITN coverage is high but additional protection is needed against early-evening and outdoor-biting mosquitoes. Further research is needed to validate the performance of these tools in different settings, and assess their long-term effectiveness and feasibility for malaria control
Linking human behaviours and malaria vector biting risk in south-eastern Tanzania
To accelerate malaria elimination in areas where core interventions such as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) are already widely used, it is crucial to consider additional factors associated with persistent transmission. Qualitative data on human behaviours and perceptions regarding malaria risk was triangulated with quantitative data on Anopheles mosquito bites occurring indoors and outdoors in south-eastern Tanzania communities where ITNS are already used but lower level malaria transmission persists. Each night (18:00h-07:00h), trained residents recorded human activities indoors, in peri-domestic outdoor areas, and in communal gatherings. Host-seeking mosquitoes were repeatedly collected indoors and outdoors hourly, using miniaturized exposure-free double net traps (DN-Mini) occupied by volunteers. In-depth interviews were conducted with household representatives to explore perceptions on persistent malaria and its control. Higher proportions of people stayed outdoors than indoors in early-evening and early-morning hours, resulting in higher exposures outdoors than indoors during these times. However, exposure during late-night hours (22:00h-05:00h) occurred mostly indoors. Some of the popular activities that kept people outdoors included cooking, eating, relaxing and playing. All households had at least one bed net, and 83.9% of people had access to ITNs. Average ITN use was 96.3%, preventing most indoor exposure. Participants recorgnized the importance of ITNs but also noted that the nets were not perfect. No complementary interventions were reported being used widely. Most people believed transmission happens after midnight. We conclude that insecticide-treated nets, where properly used, can still prevent most indoor exposures, but significant risk continues unabated before bedtime, outdoors and at communal gatherings. Such exposure is greatest for rural and low-income households. There is therefore an urgent need for complementary interventions, particularly those targeting outdoor-biting and are applicable for all people including the marginalised populations such as migratory farmers and fishermen. Besides, the differences in community understanding of ongoing transmission, and feedback on imperfections of ITNs should be considered when updating malaria-related communication and interventions