Attraction of Anopheles gambiae to odour baits augmented with heat and moisture

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The search for a standard human surrogate in the form of a synthetic mosquito attractant has been the goal of many laboratories around the world. Besides alleviating the occupational risk subjected to volunteers participating in vector surveillance and control, discovery of potent attractants underpins the development and deployment of mass trapping devices for controlling mosquito-borne diseases.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A dual-port olfactometer was used to assess behavioural responses of female <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>mosquitoes towards synthetic versus natural (whole human emanations and worn socks) attractants. The synthetic attractants included a standard blend consisting of ammonia, carbon dioxide and water; and Ifakara blend 1 (IB1) consisting of various aliphatic carboxylic acids. Natural attractants were obtained from two males known to be less and highly attractive (LA and HA, respectively) to the mosquitoes. Mosquito responses to the volunteers' worn socks were also investigated. The effect of heat (25-27°C) and moisture (75-85%) on the mosquito behavioural responses was determined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A significantly higher proportion of mosquitoes was attracted to each volunteer when compared to the standard blend. Whereas the proportion of mosquitoes attracted to person LA versus IB1 (49% versus 51%, respectively; P = 0.417) or his worn socks did not differ (61% versus 39%, respectively; P = 0.163), far more mosquitoes were attracted to person HA relative to IB1 (96% versus 4%; P = 0.001) or his worn socks (91% versus 9%; P = 0.001). Person HA attracted a significantly higher proportion of mosquitoes than his worn socks, the standard blend and IB1 when these were augmented with heat, moisture or both (P = 0.001). Similar results were obtained with person LA except that the proportion of mosquitoes attracted to him versus his worn sock augmented with heat (P = 0.65) or IB1 augmented with heat and moisture (P = 0.416) did not differ significantly.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These findings indicate that olfactory cues are key mediators of the mosquito host-seeking process and that heat and moisture play a minor role. The need for a standard, highly stringent positive control for screening synthetic attractants is strongly highlighted.</p

Housing interventions for preventing malaria (protocol)

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: Primary To assess the effects of different structural house modifications on malaria disease burden. Secondary To explore whether effects vary with level of transmissio

House modifications for preventing malaria

Background Despite being preventable, malaria remains an important public health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that overall progress in malaria control has plateaued for the first time since the turn of the century. Researchers and policymakers are therefore exploring alternative and supplementary malaria vector control tools. Research in 1900 indicated that modification of houses may be effective in reducing malaria: this is now being revisited, with new research now examining blocking house mosquito entry points or modifying house construction materials to reduce exposure of inhabitants to infectious bites

House modifications for preventing malaria

Background Malaria remains an important public health problem. Research in 1900 suggested house modifications may reduce malaria transmission. A previous version of this review concluded that house screening may be effective in reducing malaria. This update includes data from five new studies. Objectives To assess the effects of house modifications that aim to reduce exposure to mosquitoes on malaria disease and transmission. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CAB) Abstracts (Web of Science); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) up to 25 May 2022. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry to identify ongoing trials up to 25 May 2022. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials, including cluster‐randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), cross‐over studies, and stepped‐wedge designs were eligible, as were quasi‐experimental trials, including controlled before‐and‐after studies, controlled interrupted time series, and non‐randomized cross‐over studies. We sought studies investigating primary construction and house modifications to existing homes reporting epidemiological outcomes (malaria case incidence, malaria infection incidence or parasite prevalence). We extracted any entomological outcomes that were also reported in these studies. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used risk ratios (RR) to compare the effect of the intervention with the control for dichotomous data. For continuous data, we presented the mean difference; and for count and rate data, we used rate ratios. We presented all results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results One RCT and six cRCTs met our inclusion criteria, with an additional six ongoing RCTs. We did not identify any eligible non‐randomized studies. All included trials were conducted in sub‐Saharan Africa since 2009; two randomized by household and four at the block or village level. All trials assessed screening of windows, doors, eaves, ceilings, or any combination of these; this was either alone, or in combination with roof modification or eave tube installation (an insecticidal "lure and kill" device that reduces mosquito entry whilst maintaining some airflow). In one trial, the screening material was treated with 2% permethrin insecticide. In five trials, the researchers implemented the interventions. A community‐based approach was adopted in the other trial. Overall, the implementation of house modifications probably reduced malaria parasite prevalence (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.82; 5 trials, 5183 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), although an inconsistent effect was observed in a subpopulation of children in one study. House modifications reduced moderate to severe anaemia prevalence (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 3 trials, 3643 participants; high‐certainty evidence). There was no consistent effect on clinical malaria incidence, with rate ratios ranging from 0.38 to 1.62 (3 trials, 3365 participants, 4126.6 person‐years). House modifications may reduce indoor mosquito density (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.30; 4 trials, 9894 household‐nights; low‐certainty evidence), although two studies showed little effect on this parameter. Authors' conclusions House modifications – largely screening, sometimes combined with insecticide and lure and kill devices – were associated with a reduction in malaria parasite prevalence and a reduction in people with anaemia. Findings on malaria incidence were mixed. Modifications were also associated with lower indoor adult mosquito density, but this effect was not present in some studies