Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

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.
Malar J. 2019 Mar 20; 18(1):87.MJ

Abstract

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania. ammbando@ihi.or.tz.Laboratory of Technological Innovation of Vector Control, Department of Parasitology, Biological Science Institue, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania. School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown, Republic of South Africa.Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania. School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown, Republic of South Africa.Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania. Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.Laboratory of Technological Innovation of Vector Control, Department of Parasitology, Biological Science Institue, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania. School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown, Republic of South Africa. Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30894185

Citation

Mmbando, Arnold S., et al. "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." Malaria Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, 2019, p. 87.
Mmbando AS, Batista EPA, Kilalangongono M, et al. 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. Malar J. 2019;18(1):87.
Mmbando, A. S., Batista, E. P. A., Kilalangongono, M., Finda, M. F., Mwanga, E. P., Kaindoa, E. W., Kifungo, K., Njalambaha, R. M., Ngowo, H. S., Eiras, A. E., & Okumu, F. O. (2019). 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. Malaria Journal, 18(1), 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-019-2714-1
Mmbando AS, et al. 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. Malar J. 2019 Mar 20;18(1):87. PubMed PMID: 30894185.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - 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. AU - Mmbando,Arnold S, AU - Batista,Elis P A, AU - Kilalangongono,Masoud, AU - Finda,Marceline F, AU - Mwanga,Emmanuel P, AU - Kaindoa,Emmanuel W, AU - Kifungo,Khamis, AU - Njalambaha,Rukiyah M, AU - Ngowo,Halfan S, AU - Eiras,Alvaro E, AU - Okumu,Fredros O, Y1 - 2019/03/20/ PY - 2018/12/11/received PY - 2019/03/08/accepted PY - 2019/3/22/entrez PY - 2019/3/22/pubmed PY - 2019/4/27/medline KW - CO2-baited BG-malaria traps KW - Early-night biting KW - Outdoor-biting KW - Push–pull KW - Semi-field chamber KW - Transfluthrin treated eave-ribbons SP - 87 EP - 87 JF - Malaria journal JO - Malar J VL - 18 IS - 1 N2 - 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. SN - 1475-2875 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30894185/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_ L2 - https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-019-2714-1 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -