Characterization of vector communities and biting behavior in South Sulawesi with host decoy traps and human landing catches

Which trap is best? Alternatives to outdoor human landing catches for malaria vector surveillance: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Human landing catches (HLC) are an entomological collection technique in which humans are used as attractants to capture medically relevant host-seeking mosquitoes. The use of this method has been a topic of extensive debate for decades mainly due to ethical concerns. Many alternatives to HLC have been proposed; however, no quantitative review and meta-analysis comparing HLC to outdoor alternative trapping methods has been conducted.

METHODS

A total of 58 comparisons across 12 countries were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing the standardized mean difference of Anopheles captured by HLC and alternative traps. To explain heterogeneity, three moderators were chosen for analysis: trap type, location of study, and species captured. A meta-regression was fit to understand how the linear combination of moderators helped in explaining heterogeneity. The possibility of biased results due to publication bias was also explored.

RESULTS

Random-effects meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the mean difference of Anopheles collected. Moderator analysis was conducted to determine the effects of trap type, geographical location of study, and the species of Anopheles captured. On average, tent-based traps captured significantly more Anopheles than outdoor HLC (95% CI: [- .9065, - 0.0544]), alternative traps in Africa captured on average more mosquitoes than outdoor HLC (95% CI: [- 2.8750, - 0.0294]), and alternative traps overall captured significantly more Anopheles gambiae s.l. than outdoor HLC (95% CI: [- 4.4613, - 0.2473]) on average. Meta-regression showed that up to 55.77% of the total heterogeneity found can be explained by a linear combination of the three moderators and the interaction between trap type and species. Subset analysis on An. gambiae s.l. showed that light traps specifically captured on average more of this species than HLC (95% CI: [- 18.3751, - 1.0629]). Publication bias likely exists. With 59.65% of studies reporting p-values less than 0.025, we believe there is an over representation in the literature of results indicating that alternative traps are superior to outdoor HLC.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no consensus on a single "magic bullet" alternative to outdoor HLC. The diversity of many alternative trap comparisons restricts potential metrics for comparisons to outdoor HLC. Further standardization and specific question-driven trap evaluations that consider target vector species and the vector control landscape are needed to allow for robust meta-analyses with less heterogeneity and to develop data-driven decision-making tools for malaria vector surveillance and control.

Comparison of Vector Trapping Methods for Outdoor Biting Malaria Vector Surveillance in Thailand and Vietnam

The performances of the human-baited double net trap (HDNT) and the human-baited host decoy trap (HDT) methods were compared against the outdoor human landing catch (OHLC) method in Thailand and Vietnam. Two study sites were selected in each country: a rural village and a nearby forest setting. The three outdoor trap methods were rotated nightly between three set trapping positions, in a pre-assigned Latin square design. Volunteers were rotated following the trap rotation to avoid bias. The greatest number of adult mosquitoes was collected from the forest sites in both countries, showing Anopheles minimus (s.s.) Theobald (96.54%) and Anopheles dirus (s.s.) Peyton & Harrison (25.71%) as the primary malaria vectors in Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. At the Thai forest site, OHLC collected significantly more anopheline mosquitoes per trap night than HDNT and HDT, with mean ± standard error values of 14.17 ± 4.42, 4.83 ± 1.56, and 4.44 ± 1.45, respectively, whilst HDNT and HDT were significantly less productive at 0.34 times and 0.31 times, respectively, than OHLC in capturing anopheline mosquitoes. However, there were no significant differences among the three methods of trapping malaria vectors for the village site. At the Vietnamese forest site, HDNT achieved the highest performance in collecting Anopheline mosquitoes at 1.54 times compared to OHLC, but there was no significant difference between the two traps. The results suggested HDNT could be a possible alternative trap to OHLC in this area. Although HDT was less efficient at attracting Anopheline mosquitoes, it was highly efficient at trapping culicine mosquitoes.

Semi-field evaluation of human landing catches versus human double net trap for estimating human biting rate of Anopheles minimus and Anopheles harrisoni in Thailand

Background

Whilst the human landing catch (HLC) technique is considered the 'gold standard' for estimating human-biting rates, it is labor-intensive and fraught with potential risk of exposure to infectious mosquito bites. This study evaluated the feasibility and performance of an alternative method, the human double net trap (HDNT) relative to HLC for monitoring host-seeking malaria vectors of the Anopheles minimus complex in a semi-field system (SFS).

Methods

HDNT and HLC were positioned in two rooms, 30 m apart at both ends of the SFS. Two human volunteers were rotated between both traps and collected released mosquitoes (n = 100) from 6:00 pm till 6:00 am. Differences in Anopheles mosquito densities among the trapping methods were compared using a generalized linear model based on a negative binomial distribution.

Results

There were 82.80% (2,136/2,580) of recaptures of wild-caught and 94.50% (2,835/3,000) of laboratory-reared mosquitoes that were molecularly identified as An. harrisoni and An. minimus, respectively. Mean density of An. harrisoni was significantly lower in HNDT (15.50 per night, 95% CI [12.48-18.52]) relative to HLC (25.32 per night (95% CI [22.28-28.36]), p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean density of a laboratory strain of An. minimus recaptured in HDNT was significantly lower (37.87 per night, 95% CI [34.62-41.11]) relative to HLC (56.40 per night, 95% CI [55.37-57.43]), p < 0.001. Relative sampling efficiency analysis showed that HLC was the more efficient trap in collecting the An. minimus complex in the SFS.

Conclusion

HDNT caught proportionately fewer An. minimus complex than HLC. HDNT was not sensitive nor significantly correlated with HLC, suggesting that it is not an alternative method to HLC.

The Centres for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) and the human decoy trap (HDT) compared to the human landing catch (HLC) for measuring Anopheles biting in rural Tanzania

Background

Vector mosquito biting intensity is an important measure to understand malaria transmission. Human landing catch (HLC) is an effective but labour-intensive, expensive, and potentially hazardous entomological surveillance tool. The Centres for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) and the human decoy trap (HDT) are exposure-free alternatives. This study compared the CDC-LT and HDT against HLC for measuring Anopheles biting in rural Tanzania and assessed their suitability as HLC proxies.

Methods

Indoor mosquito surveys using HLC and CDC-LT and outdoor surveys using HLC and HDT were conducted in 2017 and in 2019 in Ulanga, Tanzania in 19 villages, with one trap/house/night. Species composition, sporozoite rates and density/trap/night were compared. Aggregating the data by village and month, the Bland–Altman approach was used to assess agreement between trap types.

Results

Overall, 66,807 Anopheles funestus and 14,606 Anopheles arabiensis adult females were caught with 6,013 CDC-LT, 339 indoor-HLC, 136 HDT and 195 outdoor-HLC collections. Indoors, CDC-LT caught fewer An. arabiensis (Adjusted rate ratio [Adj.RR] = 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27–0.46, p < 0.001) and An. funestus (Adj.RR = 0.63, 95%CI: 0.51–0.79, p < 0.001) than HLC per trap/night. Outdoors, HDT caught fewer An. arabiensis (Adj.RR = 0.04, 95%CI: 0.01–0.14, p < 0.001) and An. funestus (Adj.RR = 0.10, 95%CI: 0.07–0.15, p < 0.001) than HLC. The bias and variability in number of mosquitoes caught by the different traps were dependent on mosquito densities. The relative efficacies of both CDC-LT and HDT in comparison to HLC declined with increased mosquito abundance. The variability in the ratios was substantial for low HLC counts and decreased as mosquito abundance increased. The numbers of sporozoite positive mosquitoes were low for all traps.

Conclusions

CDC-LT can be suitable for comparing mosquito populations between study arms or over time if accuracy in the absolute biting rate, compared to HLC, is not required. CDC-LT is useful for estimating sporozoite rates because large numbers of traps can be deployed to collect adequate mosquito samples. The present design of the HDT is not amenable for use in large-scale entomological surveys. Use of HLC remains important for estimating human exposure to mosquitoes as part of estimating the entomological inoculation rate (EIR).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-022-04192-9.

The human-baited host decoy trap (HDT) is an efficient sampling device for exophagic Anopheles arabiensis within irrigated lands in southern Malawi

Irrigation schemes provide an ideal habitat for Anopheles mosquitoes particularly during the dry season. Reliable estimates of outdoor host-seeking behaviour are needed to assess the impact of vector control options and this is particularly the case for Anopheles arabiensis which displays a wide range of behaviours that circumvent traditional indoor-insecticide based control. In this study we compared the sampling efficiency of the host decoy trap (HDT) with the human landing catch (HLC) and Suna trap in a repeated Latin square design in two villages (Lengwe and Mwanza) on an irrigated sugar estate in southern Malawi. Over the course of 18 trapping nights, we caught 379 female Anopheles, the majority of which were identified as An. arabiensis. Across both villages, there was no detectable difference in Anopheles catch between the HDT compared with the HLC (RR = 0.85, P = 0.508). The overall sensitivity of the HLC was greater than the Suna trap regardless of mosquito density (Lengwe, α = 2.75, 95% credible interval: 2.03-3.73; Mwanza, α = 3.38, 95% credible interval: 1.50-9.30) whereas the sensitivity of the HDT was only greater than the Suna trap when mosquito numbers were high (Lengwe, α = 2.63, 95% credible interval: 2.00-3.85).We conclude that the HDT is an effective sampling device for outdoor host seeking An. arabiensis in southern Malawi. The presence of An. arabiensis in irrigated lands during the dry season poses a challenge for ongoing indoor vector control efforts.

The Risk of Mosquito-borne Diseases Related to Mosquito Fauna Richness and Livestock Placements in South and West Sulawesi, Indonesia

BACKGROUND: The local fauna of mosquitoes may have an essential role in the transmission of mosquito-borne pathogens. AIM: The future risk of mosquito-borne diseases needs to be considered by the presence of factors that support mosquitoes and pathogens, such as the habitats, presence of host reservoirs, and placement of livestock in settlements. METHODS: Mosquito catching methods used Animal Barrier Screen (ABS), Kelambu Trap (KT), and Human Landing Catch (HLC) in the wet and dry season. The role of a large animal in getting mosquito bites was analyzed based on the proportion of mosquitoes sampled by HLC to all collected mosquitoes. The potential vector of mosquitoes was projected based on the habitat, species density, and presence of host reservoirs. RESULTS: Pasangkayu district had more mosquito fauna compared to North Toraja and Maros. However, the separated placement of livestock in North Toraja resulted in fewer mosquito bites to humans compare with Maros, where livestock was caged or tied directly beside individual houses. The separated placement of livestock in North Toraja and Pasangkayu acted as a barrier, while scattered placement among houses at Maros acted more as a mosquito attractant. CONCLUSION: The habit of placing livestock separate from human settlements may reduce mosquito bites, reducing the risk of contracting mosquito-borne diseases. This finding proves using livestock as an outdoor vector control strategy to protect mosquito bites and disease transmission.

Capture of high numbers of Simulium vectors can be achieved with Host Decoy Traps to support data acquisition in the onchocerciasis elimination endgame

Onchocerciasis elimination is within reach in many countries but requires enhanced surveillance of the Simulium vectors of Onchocerca volvulus. Collection of sufficient numbers of adult Simulium to detect infective O. volvulus larvae is hindered by limited sampling tools for these flies. Here, we tested for the first time the Host Decoy Trap (HDT), an exposure free method previously developed for Anopheles vectors of malaria parasites, as a potential sampling tool for adult Simulium. In three replicates of a randomized Latin square experimental design, the HDT was compared to Human Landing Catches (HLC) and the Esperanza Window Trap (EWT). A total of 8,531 adult S. damnosum sensu lato blackflies (S. squamosum group) were found in catches from the three different trapping methods. The HDT (mean catch 533 ± 111) caught significantly more S. squamosum than the EWT (mean catch 9.1 ± 2.2), a nearly 60-fold difference. There was no significant difference between the HLC (mean catch 385.6 ± 80.9) and the HDT. Larvae indistinguishable from those of O. volvulus were dissected from 2.86% of HDT samples (n = 70) and 0.35% of HLC samples (n = 285); a single infective third-stage larvae (L3) was  found during dissection of a sample from the HDT. Owing to its very high capture rate, which was comparable to the HLC and significantly greater than EWT, alongside the presence of infected flies in its catch, the HDT represents a potentially valuable new tool for blackfly collection in elimination settings, where thousands of flies are needed for parasite screening.

Semi-field evaluation of the exposure-free mosquito electrocuting trap and BG-Sentinel trap as an alternative to the human landing catch for measuring the efficacy of transfluthrin emanators against Aedes aegypti

BACKGROUND

The human landing catch (HLC) measures human exposure to mosquito bites and evaluates the efficacy of vector control tools. However, it may expose volunteers to potentially infected mosquitoes. The mosquito electrocuting trap (MET) and BG-Sentinel traps (BGS) represent alternative, exposure-free methods for sampling host-seeking mosquitoes. This study investigates whether these methods can be effectively used as alternatives to HLC for measuring the efficacy of transfluthrin emanator against Aedes aegypti.

METHODS

The protective efficacy (PE) of freestanding passive transfluthrin emanators (FTPEs), measured by HLC, MET and BGS, was compared in no-choice and choice tests. The collection methods were conducted 2 m from an experimental hut with FTPEs positioned at 3 m on either side of them. For the choice experiment, a competitor HLC was included 10 m from the first collection point. One hundred laboratory-reared Ae. aegypti mosquitoes were released and collected for 3 consecutive h.

RESULTS

In the no-choice test, each method measured similar PE: HLC: 66% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 50-82), MET: 55% (95% CI: 48-63) and BGS: 64% (95% CI: 54-73). The proportion of mosquitoes recaptured was consistent between methods (20-24%) in treatment and varied (47-71%) in the control. However, in choice tests, the PE measured by each method varied: HLC: 37% (95% CI: 25-50%), MET: 76% (95% CI: 61-92) and BGS trap: 0% (95% CI: 0-100). Recaptured mosquitoes were no longer consistent between methods in treatment (2-26%) and remained variable in the control (7-42%). FTPE provided 50% PE to the second HLC 10 m away. In the control, the MET and the BGS were less efficacious in collecting mosquitoes in the presence of a second HLC.

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring the PE in isolation was fairly consistent for HLC, MET and BGS. Because HLC is not advisable, it is reasonable to use either MET or BGS as a proxy for HLC for testing volatile pyrethroid (VP) in areas of active arbovirus-endemic areas. The presence of a human host in close proximity invalidated the PE estimates from BGS and METs. Findings also indicated that transfluthrin can protect multiple people in the peridomestic area and that at short range mosquitoes select humans over the BGS.

New vectors that are early feeders for Plasmodium knowlesi and other simian malaria parasites in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo

Plasmodium knowlesi is the main cause of malaria in Sarawak, where studies on vectors of P. knowlesi have been conducted in only two districts. Anopheles balabacensis and An. donaldi were incriminated as vectors in Lawas and An. latens in Kapit. We studied a third location in Sarawak, Betong, where of 2169 mosquitoes collected over 36 days using human-landing catches, 169 (7.8%) were Anopheles spp. PCR and phylogenetic analyses identified P. knowlesi and/or P. cynomolgi, P. fieldi, P. inui, P. coatneyi and possibly novel Plasmodium spp. in salivary glands of An. latens and An. introlatus from the Leucosphyrus Group and in An. collessi and An. roperi from the Umbrosus Group. Phylogenetic analyses of cytochrome oxidase subunit I sequences indicated three P. knowlesi-positive An. introlatus had been misidentified morphologically as An. latens, while An. collessi and An. roperi could not be delineated using the region sequenced. Almost all vectors from the Leucosphyrus Group were biting after 1800 h but those belonging to the Umbrosus Group were also biting between 0700 and 1100 h. Our study incriminated new vectors of knowlesi malaria in Sarawak and underscores the importance of including entomological studies during the daytime to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the transmission dynamics of malaria.