An affordable, quality-assured community-based system for high-resolution entomological surveillance of vector mosquitoes that reflects human malaria infection risk patterns.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: More sensitive and scalable entomological surveillance tools are required to monitor low levels of transmission that are increasingly common across the tropics, particularly where vector control has been successful. A large-scale larviciding programme in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania is supported by a community-based (CB) system for trapping adult mosquito densities to monitor programme performance. Methodology An intensive and extensive CB system for routine, longitudinal, programmatic surveillance of malaria vectors and other mosquitoes using the Ifakara Tent Trap (ITT-C) was developed in Urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and validated by comparison with quality assurance (QA) surveys using either ITT-C or human landing catches (HLC), as well as a cross-sectional survey of malaria parasite prevalence in the same housing compounds. RESULTS: Community-based ITT-C had much lower sensitivity per person-night of sampling than HLC (Relative Rate (RR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] = 0.079 [0.051, 0.121], P < 0.001 for Anopheles gambiae s.l. and 0.153 [0.137, 0.171], P < 0.001 for Culicines) but only moderately differed from QA surveys with the same trap (0.536 [0.406,0.617], P = 0.001 and 0.747 [0.677,0.824], P < 0.001, for An. gambiae or Culex respectively). Despite the poor sensitivity of the ITT per night of sampling, when CB-ITT was compared with QA-HLC, it proved at least comparably sensitive in absolute terms (171 versus 169 primary vectors caught) and cost-effective (153US$versus 187US$ per An. gambiae caught) because it allowed more spatially extensive and temporally intensive sampling (4284 versus 335 trap nights distributed over 615 versus 240 locations with a mean number of samples per year of 143 versus 141). Despite the very low vectors densities (Annual estimate of about 170 An gambiae s.l bites per person per year), CB-ITT was the only entomological predictor of parasite infection risk (Odds Ratio [95% CI] = 4.43[3.027,7. 454] per An. gambiae or Anopheles funestus caught per night, P =0.0373). Discussion and conclusion CB trapping approaches could be improved with more sensitive traps, but already offer a practical, safe and affordable system for routine programmatic mosquito surveillance and clusters could be distributed across entire countries by adapting the sample submission and quality assurance procedures accordingly

Evaluation of alternative mosquito sampling methods for malaria vectors in Lowland South - East Zambia.

Sampling malaria vectors and measuring their biting density is of paramount importance for entomological surveys of malaria transmission. Human landing catch (HLC) has been traditionally regarded as a gold standard method for surveying human exposure to mosquito bites. However, due to the risk of human participant exposure to mosquito-borne parasites and viruses, a variety of alternative, exposure-free trapping methods were compared in lowland, south-east Zambia. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention miniature light trap (CDC-LT), Ifakara Tent Trap model C (ITT-C), resting boxes (RB) and window exit traps (WET) were all compared with HLC using a 3 × 3 Latin Squares design replicated in 4 blocks of 3 houses with long lasting insecticidal nets, half of which were also sprayed with a residual deltamethrin formulation, which was repeated for 10 rounds of 3 nights of rotation each during both the dry and wet seasons. The mean catches of HLC indoor, HLC outdoor, CDC-LT, ITT-C, WET, RB indoor and RB outdoor, were 1.687, 1.004, 3.267, 0.088, 0.004, 0.000 and 0.008 for Anopheles quadriannulatus Theobald respectively, and 7.287, 6.784, 10.958, 5.875, 0.296, 0.158 and 0.458, for An. funestus Giles, respectively. Indoor CDC-LT was more efficient in sampling An. quadriannulatus and An. funestus than HLC indoor (Relative rate [95% Confidence Interval] = 1.873 [1.653, 2.122] and 1.532 [1.441, 1.628], respectively, P < 0.001 for both). ITT-C was the only other alternative which had comparable sensitivity (RR = 0.821 [0.765, 0.881], P < 0.001), relative to HLC indoor other than CDC-LT for sampling An. funestus. While the two most sensitive exposure-free techniques primarily capture host-seeking mosquitoes, both have substantial disadvantages for routine community-based surveillance applications: the CDC-LT requires regular recharging of batteries while the bulkiness of ITT-C makes it difficult to move between sampling locations. RB placed indoors or outdoors and WET had consistently poor sensitivity so it may be useful to evaluate additional alternative methods, such as pyrethrum spray catches and back packer aspirators, for catching resting mosquitoes

Methods to collect Anopheles mosquitoes and evaluate malaria transmission: A comparative study in two villages in Senegal

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Various methods have been studied as replacement of human landing catches (HLC) for mosquito sampling in entomological studies on malaria transmission. Conflicting results have been obtained in comparing relative efficiency of alternative methods, according to the area, the species present and their density. The aim of this study was to compare the number and characteristics of mosquitoes sampled in two areas of Senegal by three different methods: HLC, light traps adjacent to an occupied bed net (LT/N), pyrethrum spray catches (PSC).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Collections were performed in two villages: Dielmo (Soudan savanna) and Bandafassi (Soudan Guinean savanna), two or three nights per month for a 4-5 months period during the maximal transmission season in 2001-2002. Species were identified and <it>Plasmodium </it>infection determined by ELISA. The specific composition, circumsporozoite protein rate and entomological inoculation rate were calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The diversity of mosquito species captured was maximal with LT/N, minimal with PSC. The mean number of anopheles captures each night was significantly different according to the method used and the species. PSC displayed a significantly lower anopheles density. HLC was the most efficient sampling method when <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>was the main vector (in Bandafassi); LT/N when it was <it>Anopheles funestus </it>(in Dielmo). A significant correlation was found between HLC and LT/M but correlation parameters were different according to the species. Circumsporozoite protein rates were not significantly different between methods or species. The entomological inoculation rate varied along with vector density and thus with methods and species.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The choice of sampling method influenced entomological data recorded. Therefore, the sampling technique has to be chosen according to the vector studied and the aim of the study. Only HLC must be considered as the reference method, but in some conditions LT/N can be used as an alternative method.</p

Comparative Evaluation of Light-Trap Catches, Electric Motor Mosquito Catches and Human Biting Catches of Anopheles in the Three Gorges Reservoir

The mosquito sampling efficiency of light-trap catches and electric motor mosquito catches were compared with that of human biting catches in the Three Gorges Reservoir. There was consistency in the sampling efficiency between light-trap catches and human biting catches for Anopheles sinensis (r = 0.82, P<0.01) and light-trap catches were 1.52 (1.35–1.71) times that of human biting catches regardless of mosquito density (r = 0.33, P>0.01), while the correlation between electric motor mosquito catches and human biting catches was found to be not statistically significant (r = 0.43, P>0.01) and its sampling efficiency was below that of human biting catches. It is concluded that light-traps can be used as an alternative to human biting catches of Anopheles sinensis in the study area and is a promising tool for sampling malaria vector populations

Sampling adult populations of anopheles mosquitoes

For the control and elimination of malaria, information on the local vector dynamics is essential. This information provides guidance on appropriate and timely deployment of vector control tools and their subsequent success. The data on the dynamics of local mosquito populations can be collected using many different Anopheles sampling methods. Dependent on the objectives, resources, time, and local environment, different traps and methods can be chosen. This chapter describes the sampling of adult populations, focusing on the important preparatory stages and some of the widely used sampling methods. The trapping methods discussed in this chapter are the human landing catch, human-baited net trap, animal landing catch, animal-baited net trap, CDC miniature light trap, Biogents Suna trap, peripheral net collection, pyrethrum collection, exit/entry trap, and resting shelter. For optimal deployment in the field, a step-by-step description of the sampling methods is given.</p