Do Topical Repellents Divert Mosquitoes Within a\ud Community?

Repellents are compounds which interfere with the mosquito’s olfactory system hindering them to identify their hosts and succeeding in taking a blood-meal [1]. However, repellents do not eliminate the host-seeking mosquitoes, they simply reduce human-vector contact. Consequently, there is a possibility that individuals, who do not use repellents, experience more bites than usual because mosquitoes are diverted from the repellent users. The objective of this study was to measure if diversion occurs from households that use repellents to those that don’t within a community with incomplete topical repellent coverag An interventional study was performed in three villages of southern Tanzania using 15%-DEET (N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide) and a placebo lotion. Three coverage scenarios were investigated: complete repellent coverage (all households were given 15%-DEET), incomplete repellent coverage (80% of households were given DEET-15% and 20% were given a placebo lotion) and no repellent coverage (all households were given a placebo lotion). The coverage scenarios were rotated between villages. Mosquito densities were measured through aspiration of indoor and outdoor resting mosquitoes respective to each enrolled household. Data was analysed using mixed-effects models and the no coverage scenario was used as reference. Placebo users living in a village where 80% of the households used 15%-DEET were likely to have nearly three times more mosquitoes (p<0.001) resting in their dwellings in comparison to households in a village where nobody uses repellent (Table 1) There is strong evidence that mosquitoes are diverted between households that use repellent to those that don’t. This study arises questions on health equity associated with repellent usage. Policy makers should take into consideration these results while devising vector control programs, as less privileged individuals are likely to suffer more mosquito bites and therewith be more exposed to vector-borne diseases if universal coverage is not reached

Do topical repellents divert mosquitoes within a community? Health equity implications of topical repellents as a mosquito bite prevention tool.

OBJECTIVES: Repellents do not kill mosquitoes--they simply reduce human-vector contact. Thus it is possible that individuals who do not use repellents but dwell close to repellent users experience more bites than otherwise. The objective of this study was to measure if diversion occurs from households that use repellents to those that do not use repellents. METHODS: The study was performed in three Tanzanian villages using 15%-DEET and placebo lotions. All households were given LLINs. Three coverage scenarios were investigated: complete coverage (all households were given 15%-DEET), incomplete coverage (80% of households were given 15%-DEET and 20% placebo) and no coverage (all households were given placebo). A crossover study design was used and coverage scenarios were rotated weekly over a period of ten weeks. The placebo lotion was randomly allocated to households in the incomplete coverage scenario. The level of compliance was reported to be close to 100%. Mosquito densities were measured through aspiration of resting mosquitoes. Data were analysed using negative binomial regression models. FINDINGS: Repellent-users had consistently fewer mosquitoes in their dwellings. In villages where everybody had been given 15%-DEET, resting mosquito densities were fewer than half that of households in the no coverage scenario (Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR]=0.39 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.60); p<0.001). Placebo-users living in a village where 80% of the households used 15%-DEET were likely to have over four-times more mosquitoes (IRR=4.17; 95% CI: 3.08-5.65; p<0.001) resting in their dwellings in comparison to households in a village where nobody uses repellent. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that high coverage of repellent use could significantly reduce man-vector contact but with incomplete coverage evidence suggests that mosquitoes are diverted from households that use repellent to those that do not. Therefore, if repellents are to be considered for vector control, strategies to maximise coverage are required

The combined impact of LLINs, house screening, and pull‑push technology for improved malaria control and livelihoods in rural Ethiopia : study protocol for household randomised controlled trial

ADDITIONAL FILE 1. Ethics Review approval letter.ADDITIONAL FILE 2. Ethics information sheet and consent form.BACKGROUND : The combined application of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are commonly used malaria interventions that target indoor Anopheles vectors. Recent studies on the effects of house screening (HS) and LLINs have demonstrated a reduction in indoor vector densities and malaria when the interventions are combined. In addition, complementary interventions are needed to curb co-occurring pest populations which pose menace to agricultural crop productivity and food security. However, interventions that impact malaria mainly centre on public health strategies, overlooking subtle but important component of agricultural measures. Addressing the coexisting risks of malaria and crop pests could contribute to improved livelihood of communities. METHODS : A four-armed household, cluster-randomized, controlled study will be conducted to assess the combined impact of HS, LLINs and push-pull agricultural technology (PPT) against clinical malaria in children in Ethiopia. The unit of randomization will be the household, which includes a house and its occupants. A total of 838 households will be enrolled in this study. In this trial 246 households will receive LLINs and HS, 250 will receive LLINs, HS and PPT, 175 households will receive LLINs and PPT. The remaining 167 houses which receive LLINs only will be used as control. One child aged ≤14 years will be enrolled per household in each treatment and followed for clinical malaria using active case detection to estimate malaria incidence for two malaria transmission seasons. DISCUSSION : Episodes of clinical malaria, density of indoor biting malaria vectors, sporozoite infection rate, improved crop infestation rate, crop yield gain, livestock productivity and cost effectiveness analysis will be the end points of this study. Socio-economic, social demographic, cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted using qualitative and participatory methods to explore the acceptability of HS and PPT. Documenting the combined impact of LLINs, HS and PPT on the prevalence of clinical malaria and crop pest damage will be the first of its kind. TRIAL REGISTRATION : Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR202006878245287. 24/06/2020.Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) through the project Combating Arthropod Pests for Better Health, Food and Resilience to Climate Change (CAP-Africa).http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcpublichealtham2023School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH)UP Centre for Sustainable Malaria Control (UP CSMC

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

The economic impacts of house screening against malaria transmission : Experimental evidence from eastern Zambia

Malaria imposes an economic burden for human populations in many African countries, and this burden may be reduced through house screening initiatives. We use a randomized controlled trial to measure the economic impacts of house screening against malaria infection. We use a sample of 800 households from 89 villages in rural and peri-urban Zambia to collect baseline data in August 2019 and endline data in August 2020. The main outcome variables are (self-reported) malaria prevalence rates, labor supply, and income, and consider individual and household-level outcomes. House screening reduces malaria prevalence, the number of sick days due to malaria, and the number of malaria episodes. Impacts on adults are more pronounced than on children. In terms of economic impacts, house screening increases labor supply and (household) income. We find particularly large effects on labor supply for women household members. A cost-benefit analysis, based on estimated benefits and measured costs, suggests that the private benefits of house screening exceed the costs. While not all houses are suitable for house screening, we conclude that screening is a promising and cost-effective approach to reduce malaria infections

Mosquito collection sites and some households of the Mbingu area, Kilombero Valley, Tanzania.

<p>A – Household made with thatch wall and thatch roof with a blue barrel and a car tyre serving as artificial resting places. B – Household made with brick walls and thatch roof, the artificial resting places are not visible because they were deployed behind the household. C – Household made of mud walls and thatch roof with a blue barrel and a car tyre serving as artificial resting places. D – <i>Kibanda</i>, outdoor kitchen area.</p