Larviciding to control malaria

Current and future opportunities of autodissemination of pyriproxyfen approach for malaria vector control in urban and rural Africa

Despite the progress made in reducing malaria burden, new ways to address the increasing challenges of insecticide resistance and the invasion and spread of exotic malaria vectors such as Anopheles stephensi in Africa are urgently needed. While African countries are adopting larviciding as a complementary intervention for malaria vector control, the autodissemination technology has the potential to overcome barriers associated with the identification and treatment of prolific habitats that impede conventional larviciding approaches in rural settings. The autodissemination technology as a "lure and release" strategy works by exploiting the resting behavior of gravid mosquitoes to transfer lethal concentration of biological or chemical insecticide such as pyriproxyfen (PPF), an insect growth regulator (IGRs) to their oviposition sites and result in adult emergence inhibition. Despite the evidence of the autodissemination approach to control other mosquito-borne diseases, there is growing and promising evidence for its use in controlling malaria vectors in Africa, which highlights the momentous research that needs to be sustained. This article reviews the evidence for efficacy of the autodissemination approach using PPF and discusses its potential as efficient and affordable complementary malaria vector control intervention in Africa. In the previous studies that were done in controlled semi-field environments, autodissemination with PPF demonstrated its potential in reducing densities of captive population of malaria vectors such as Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles arabiensis. Of importance, empirical evidence and biology-informed mathematical models to demonstrate the utility of the autodissemination approach to control wild populations of malaria vectors under field environment either alone or in combination with other tools are underway. Among others, the key determining factors for future introduction of this approach at scale is having scalable autodissemination devices, optimized PPF formulations, assess its integration/complementarity to existing conventional larviciding, and community perception and acceptance of the autodissemination approach.

Current and future opportunities of autodissemination of pyriproxyfen approach for malaria vector control in urban and rural Africa

Despite the progress made in reducing malaria burden, new ways to address the increasing challenges of insecticide resistance and the invasion and spread of exotic malaria vectors such as Anopheles stephensi in Africa are urgently needed. While African countries are adopting larviciding as a complementary intervention for malaria vector control, the autodissemination technology has the potential to overcome barriers associated with the identification and treatment of prolific habitats that impede conventional larviciding approaches in rural settings. The autodissemination technology as a “lure and release” strategy works by exploiting the resting behavior of gravid mosquitoes to transfer lethal concentration of biological or chemical insecticide such as pyriproxyfen (PPF), an insect growth regulator (IGRs) to their oviposition sites and result in adult emergence. Despite the evidence of the autodissemination approach to control other mosquito-borne diseases, there is growing and promising evidence for its use in controlling malaria vectors in Africa, which highlights the momentous research that needs to be sustained. This article reviews the evidence for efficacy of the autodissemination approach using PPF and discusses its potential as efficient and affordable complementary malaria vector control intervention in Africa. In the previous studies that were done in controlled semi-field environments, autodissemination with PPF demonstrated its potential in reducing densities of captive population of malaria vectors such as Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles arabiensis. Of importance, empirical evidence and biology-informed mathematical models to demonstrate the utility of the autodissemination approach to control wild populations of malaria vectors under field environment either alone or in combination with other tools are underway. Among others, the key determining factors for future introduction of this approach at scale is having scalable autodissemination devices, optimized PPF formulations, assess its integration/complementarity to existing conventional larviciding, and community perception and acceptance of the autodissemination approach.

High efficacy of microbial larvicides for malaria vectors control in the city of Yaounde Cameroon following a cluster randomized trial

The rapid expansion of insecticide resistance and outdoor malaria transmission are affecting the efficacy of current malaria control measures. In urban settings, where malaria transmission is focal and breeding habitats are few, fixed and findable, the addition of anti-larval control measures could be efficient for malaria vector control. But field evidences for this approach remains scarce. Here we provide findings of a randomized-control larviciding trial conducted in the city of Yaoundé that support the efficacy of this approach. A two arms random control trial design including 26 clusters of 2 to 4 km2 each (13 clusters in the intervention area and 13 in the non-intervention area) was used to assess larviciding efficacy. The microbial larvicide VectoMax combining Bacillus thuringiensis var israelensis (Bti) and Bacillus sphaericus in a single granule was applied every 2 weeks in all standing water collection points. The anopheline density collected using CDC light traps was used as the primary outcome, secondary outcomes included the entomological inoculation rate, breeding habitats with anopheline larvae, and larval density. Baseline entomological data collection was conducted for 17 months from March 2017 to July 2018 and the intervention lasted 26 months from September 2018 to November 2020. The intervention was associated with a reduction of 68% of adult anopheline biting density and of 79% of the entomological inoculation rate (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.14-0.30, P < 0.0001). A reduction of 68.27% was recorded for indoor biting anophelines and 57.74% for outdoor biting anophelines. No impact on the composition of anopheline species was recorded. A reduction of over 35% of adult Culex biting densities was recorded. The study indicated high efficacy of larviciding for reducing malaria transmission intensity in the city of Yaoundé. Larviciding could be part of an integrated control approach for controlling malaria vectors and other mosquito species in the urban environment.

Larviciding to prevent malaria transmission

BACKGROUND

Larviciding refers to the regular application of chemical or microbial insecticides to water bodies or water containers to kill the aquatic immature forms of the mosquito (the larvae and pupae).

OBJECTIVES

To summarize research evidence evaluating whether larviciding with chemical or microbial insecticides prevents malaria transmission.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CAB Abstracts; LILACS; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the ISRCTN registry up to 6 June 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), interrupted time series (ITS), randomized cross-over studies, non-randomized cross-over studies, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) that compared larviciding with no larviciding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies (one cRCT, two CBAs, and one non-randomized cross-over design) met the inclusion criteria. All used ground application of larvicides (people hand-delivering larvicides); one evaluated chemical and three evaluated microbial agents. Studies were carried out in The Gambia, Tanzania, Kenya, and Sri Lanka. Three studies were conducted in areas where mosquito aquatic habitats were less extensive (< 1 km²), and one where habitats were more extensive (> 1 km²; a cross-over study from The Gambia).For aquatic habitats of less than 1 km², one cRCT randomized eight villages in Sri Lanka to evaluate chemical larviciding using insect growth regulator; and two CBA studies undertaken in Kenya and Tanzania evaluated microbial larvicides. In the cRCT, larviciding across all villages was associated with lower malaria incidence (rate ratio 0.24, 4649 participants, low-certainty evidence) and parasite prevalence (risk ratio (RR) 0.26, 5897 participants, low-certainty evidence) compared to no larviciding. The two CBA studies reported lower malaria prevalence during the intervention period (parasite prevalence RR 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.89; 70,902 participants; low-certainty evidence). The Kenyan study also reported a reduction in the incidence of new malaria cases (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.01; 720 participants; very low-certainty evidence).For aquatic habitats of more than 1 km², the non-randomized cross-over trial using microbial larvicides did not detect an effect for malaria incidence (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.65; 4226 participants), or parasite prevalence (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.20; 3547 participants); both were very low-certainty evidence. The Gambia trial also reported the mean haemoglobin level, and there was no difference across the four comparisons (mean difference -0.13, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.13; 3586 participants).We were unable to summarize or pool entomological outcomes due to unreported and missing data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most controlled studies on larviciding have been performed with microbial agents. Ground larviciding for non-extensive larval habitats may have an effect on malaria transmission, and we do not know if there is an effect in large-scale aquatic habitats. We found no studies using larviciding application techniques that could cover large aquatic habitats, such as aerial spraying using aircraft.

Artemisinin-Resistant Malaria as a Global Catastrophic Biological Threat

The global spread of artemisinin resistance brings with it the threat of incurable malaria. Already, this disease threatens over 219 million lives per year and causes 5-6% losses in GDP in endemic areas, even with current advances in prevention and treatment. This chapter discusses the currently tenuous position we are in globally, and the impact that could be seen if artemisinin treatment is lost, whether due to the unchecked spread of K13 mutations or poor global investment in treatment and prevention advances. Artemisinin is the backbone of current ACT treatment programs and severe malarial treatment; without it, the success of future malaria eradication programs will be in jeopardy.

Larvivorous fish for preventing malaria transmission

BACKGROUND

Adult female Anopheles mosquitoes can transmit Plasmodium parasites that cause malaria. Some fish species eat mosquito larvae and pupae. In disease control policy documents, the World Health Organization (WHO) includes biological control of malaria vectors by stocking ponds, rivers, and water collections near where people live with larvivorous fish to reduce Plasmodium parasite transmission. In the past, the Global Fund has financed larvivorous fish programmes in some countries, and, with increasing efforts in eradication of malaria, policymakers may return to this option. Therefore, we assessed the evidence base for larvivorous fish programmes in malaria control.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether introducing larvivorous fish to anopheline larval habitats impacts Plasmodium parasite transmission. We also sought to summarize studies that evaluated whether introducing larvivorous fish influences the density and presence of Anopheles larvae and pupae in water sources.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (Ovid); CABS Abstracts; LILACS; and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) up to 6 July 2017. We checked the reference lists of all studies identified by the search. We examined references listed in review articles and previously compiled bibliographies to look for eligible studies. Also we contacted researchers in the field and the authors of studies that met the inclusion criteria for additional information regarding potential studies for inclusion and ongoing studies. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled time series, and controlled interrupted time series studies from malaria-endemic regions that introduced fish as a larvicide and reported on malaria in the community or the density of the adult anopheline population. In the absence of direct evidence of an effect on transmission, we performed a secondary analysis on studies that evaluated the effect of introducing larvivorous fish on the density or presence of immature anopheline mosquitoes (larvae and pupae forms) in water sources to determine whether this intervention has any potential that may justify further research in the control of malaria vectors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened each article by title and abstract, and examined potentially relevant studies for inclusion using an eligibility form. At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. If relevant data were unclear or were not reported, we contacted the study authors for clarification. We presented data in tables, and we summarized studies that evaluated the effects of introducing fish on anopheline immature density or presence, or both. We used the GRADE approach to summarize the certainty of the evidence. We also examined whether the included studies reported any possible adverse impact of introducing larvivorous fish on non-target native species.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no studies that reported the effects of introducing larvivorous fish on the primary outcomes of this review: malaria infection in nearby communities, entomological inoculation rate, or on adult Anopheles density.For the secondary analysis, we examined the effects of introducing larvivorous fish on the density and presence of anopheline larvae and pupae in community water sources, and found 15 small studies with a follow-up period between 22 days and five years. These studies were undertaken in Sri Lanka (two studies), India (three studies), Ethiopia (one study), Kenya (two studies), Sudan (one study), Grande Comore Island (one study), Korea (two studies), Indonesia (one study), and Tajikistan (two studies). These studies were conducted in a variety of settings, including localized water bodies (such as wells, domestic water containers, fishponds, and pools (seven studies); riverbed pools below dams (two studies)); rice field plots (five studies); and water canals (two studies). All included studies were at high risk of bias. The research was insufficient to determine whether larvivorous fish reduce the density of Anopheles larvae and pupae (12 studies, unpooled data, very low certainty evidence). Some studies with high stocking levels of fish seemed to arrest the increase in immature anopheline populations, or to reduce the number of immature anopheline mosquitoes, compared with controls. However, this finding was not consistent, and in studies that showed a decrease in immature anopheline populations, the effect was not always consistently sustained. In contrast, some studies reported larvivorous fish reduced the number of water sources withAnopheles larvae and pupae (five studies, unpooled data, low certainty evidence).None of the included studies reported effects of larvivorous fish on local native fish populations or other species.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We do not know whether introducing larvivorous fish reduces malaria transmission or the density of adult anopheline mosquito populations.In research studies that examined the effects on immature anopheline stages of introducing fish to potential malaria vector larval habitats, high stocking levels of fish may reduce the density or presence of immature anopheline mosquitoes in the short term. We do not know whether this translates into impact on malaria transmission. Our interpretation of the current evidence is that countries should not invest in fish stocking as a stand alone or supplementary larval control measure in any malaria transmission areas outside the context of research using carefully controlled field studies or quasi-experimental designs. Such research should examine the effects on native fish and other non-target species.