Small-scale field evaluation of push-pull system against early- and outdoor-biting malaria mosquitoes in an area of high pyrethroid resistance in Tanzania

The effect of novel mosquito bite prevention tools on Anopheles minimus landing and key secondary endpoints: semi-field evaluations in Thailand

BACKGROUND

The Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) aims to eliminate all human malaria by 2030 and is making substantial progress toward this goal, with malaria increasingly confined to forest foci. These transmission foci are predominantly inhabited by ethnic minorities, local populations, and rural mobile and migrant populations working in mining and agriculture. The recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) on malaria elimination states that small population groups which constitute a large proportion of the malaria transmission reservoir should benefit from targeted strategies to reduce transmission overall. These population groups are exposed to malaria vector bites during the day due to Anopheles daytime biting, and during the night, due to low bed net use and open sleeping structures. Such characteristics limit the effectiveness of the WHO core vector control strategies [indoor residual spraying (IRS), insecticide-treated nets (ITNs)], which target indoor resting and indoor feeding mosquitoes. Interventions that target daytime and outdoor resting or biting mosquitoes, and which complement IRS and ITNs and drug strategies, may hasten a decline in the malaria burden.

METHODS

This study evaluated two transfluthrin- and one metofluthrin-based volatile pyrethroid spatial repellents (VPSRs), and etofenprox insecticide-treated clothing (ITC) with and without a topical repellent in a semi-field system (SFS) at two research sites in Thailand, across two trial rounds. The study estimated the protective efficacies of the vector control tools against two pyrethroid-susceptible Anopheles minimus strains in the form of 15 interventions, including a combined VPSR and ITC intervention. The interventions' modes of action were studied by measuring their impact on mosquito landing, and on key life history traits known to affect vectoral capacity (knockdown, post-exposure blood feeding, and 24-h mortality) using a block-randomized crossover design. The odds ratio (OR) for each intervention compared to the control on each outcome was estimated.

RESULTS

All interventions substantially reduced An. minimus landings and prevented more than 50% mosquito landings when new (VPSRs) or unwashed (treated clothing). In addition to landing reduction, all interventions decreased post-exposure blood feeding, induced knockdown and increased mortality at 24 h. The VPSR interventions were generally more protective against landing than the treated clothing intervention. The combined intervention (VPSR + ITC) provided the greatest protection overall.

CONCLUSION

This SFS evaluation indicates an effect of these VPSR and ITC interventions in reducing An. minimus landing for the user, and indicates their potential for community protection by secondary modes of action. This study demonstrates the utility of SFS trials in the evaluation of bite prevention tools and emphasizes the need for multiple evaluations at different sites. It also highlights possible sources of biases observed, including the measuring of mosquito landing rather than biting, weather parameters, and low mosquito recapture.

Field evaluation of a volatile pyrethroid spatial repellent and etofenprox treated clothing for outdoor protection against forest malaria vectors in Cambodia

Cambodia's goal to eliminate malaria by 2025 is challenged by persistent transmission in forest and forest fringe areas, where people are exposed to Anopheles mosquito bites during the day and night. Volatile pyrethroid spatial repellents (VPSRs) and insecticide-treated clothing (ITC) could address these gaps. This study evaluated the outdoor application of one passive transfluthrin-based VPSR, four etofenprox-ITCs paired with a picaridin topical repellent, and a combination of VPSR and ITC against wild Anopheles landing in Cambodia. A 7 × 7 Latin-square study was conducted over 49 collection nights in temporary open structures in Mondulkiri Province. All interventions substantially reduced Anopheles landing, with protective efficacy ranging from 61 to 95%. Mathematical modeling showed significant reductions in vectoral capacity, especially with the combined ITC and VPSR and VPSR alone, albeit with decreased effectiveness over time. These interventions have the potential to reduce outdoor and daytime Anopheles biting, offering valuable contributions to malaria elimination efforts in Cambodia and the Greater Mekong Subregion, contingent upon achieving effective coverage and adherence.

Entomological assessment of hessian fabric transfluthrin vapour emanators for protecting against outdoor-biting Aedes aegypti in coastal Tanzania

BACKGROUND

A low technology emanator device for slowly releasing vapour of the volatile pyrethroid transfluthrin was recently developed in Tanzania that provides robust protection against night biting Anopheles and Culex vectors of malaria and filariasis for several months. Here these same emanator devices were assessed in Dar es Salaam city, as a means of protection against outdoor-biting Aedes (Stegomia) aegypti, the most important vector of human arboviruses worldwide, in parallel with similar studies in Haiti and Brazil.

METHODS

A series of entomological experiments were conducted under field and semi-field conditions, to evaluate whether transfluthrin emanators protect against wild Ae. aegypti, and also compare the transfluthrin responsiveness of Ae. aegypti originating from wild-caught eggs to established pyrethroid-susceptible Ae. aegypti and Anopheles gambiae colonies. Preliminary measurements of transfluthrin vapour concentration in air samples collected near treated emanators were conducted by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Two full field experiments with four different emanator designs and three different transfluthrin formulations consistently indicated negligible reduction of human landing rates by wild Ae. aegypti. Under semi-field conditions in large cages, 50 to 60% reductions of landing rates were observed, regardless of which transfluthrin dose, capture method, emanator placement position, or source of mosquitoes (mildly pyrethroid resistant wild caught Ae. aegypti or pyrethroid-susceptible colonies of Ae. aegypti and An. gambiae) was used. Air samples collected immediately downwind from an emanator treated with the highest transfluthrin dose (15g), contained 12 to 19 μg/m3 transfluthrin vapour.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears unlikely that the moderate levels of pyrethroid resistance observed in wild Ae. aegypti can explain the modest-to-undetectable levels of protection exhibited. While potential inhalation exposure could be of concern for the highest (15g) dose evaluated, 3g of transfluthrin appears sufficient to achieve the modest levels of protection that were demonstrated entomologically. While the generally low levels of protection against Aedes reported here from Tanzania, and from similar entomological studies in Haiti and Brazil, are discouraging, complementary social science studies in Haiti and Brazil suggest end-users perceive valuable levels of protection against mosquitoes. It therefore remains unclear whether transfluthrin emanators have potential for protecting against Aedes vectors of important human arboviruses.

Mosquito bites and stage-specific antibody responses against Plasmodium falciparum in southern Ghana

BACKGROUND

The human host elicits specific immune responses after exposure to various life stages of the malaria parasite as well as components of mosquito saliva injected into the host during a mosquito bite. This study describes differences in IgG responses against antigens derived from the sporozoite (PfCSP), asexual stage parasite (PfEBA175) and the gametocyte (Pfs230), in addition to an Anopheles gambiae salivary gland antigen (gSG6-P1), in two communities in Ghana with similar blood stage malaria parasite prevalence.

METHODS

This study used archived plasma samples collected from an earlier cross-sectional study that enrolled volunteers aged from 6 months to 70 years from Simiw, peri-urban community (N = 347) and Obom, rural community (N = 291). An archived thick and thin blood smear for microscopy was used for the estimation of Plasmodium parasite density and species and DNA extraction from blood spots and P. falciparum confirmation was performed using PCR. This study used the stored plasma samples to determine IgG antibody levels to P. falciparum and Anopheles salivary antigens using indirect ELISA.

RESULTS

Individuals from Simiw had significantly higher levels of IgG against mosquito gSG6-P1 [median (95%CI)] [2.590 (2.452-2.783) ng/mL] compared to those from Obom [2.119 (1.957-2.345) ng/mL], p < 0.0001. Both IgG responses against Pfs230proC (p = 0.0006), and PfCSP (p = 0.002) were significantly lower in volunteers from Simiw compared to the participants from Obom. The seroprevalence of PfEBA-175.5R (p = 0.8613), gSG6-P1 (p = 0.0704), PfCSP (p = 0.7798) IgG were all similar in Obom and Simiw. However, Pfs230 seroprevalence was significantly higher at Obom compared to Simiw (p = 0.0006). Spearman correlation analysis showed no significant association between IgG responses against gSG6-P1, PfCSP, Pfs230proC and PfEBA-175.5R and parasite density at both Obom and Simiw (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the study showed that participants from Simiw had higher concentrations of circulating gSG6-P1 IgG antibodies but lower concentrations of P. falciparum antibodies, PfCSP IgG and Pfs230proC IgG compared to participants from Obom.

Human landing catches provide a useful measure of protective efficacy for the evaluation of volatile pyrethroid spatial repellents

BACKGROUND

The human landing catch (HLC) method, in which human volunteers collect mosquitoes that land on them before they can bite, is used to quantify human exposure to mosquito vectors of disease. Comparing HLCs in the presence and absence of interventions such as repellents is often used to measure protective efficacy (PE). Some repellents have multiple actions, including feeding inhibition, whereby mosquitoes may be unable to bite even if they land on a host. A comparison was made between the PE of the volatile pyrethroid spatial repellent (VPSR) transfluthrin determined using a landing method (HLC) and a biting method (allowing the mosquitoes that landed to blood-feed) to evaluate whether HLC is a suitable method for the estimation of the personal PE of a VPSR.

METHODS

A fully balanced, two-arm crossover design study was conducted using a 6 × 6 × 2-m netted cage within a semi-field system. Hessian strips (4 m × 0.1 m) treated with a 5-, 10-, 15-, or 20-g dose of transfluthrin were evaluated against a paired negative control for three strains of laboratory-reared Anopheles and Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Six replicates were performed per dose using either the landing or the biting method. The number of recaptured mosquitoes was analysed by negative binomial regression, and the PEs calculated using the two methods were compared by Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

For Anopheles, fewer mosquitoes blood-fed in the biting arm than landed in the landing arm (incidence rate ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.93, P < 0.001). For Ae. aegypti, biting was overestimated by around 37% with the landing method (incidence rate ratio = 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.70, P = 0.001). However, the PEs calculated for each method were in close agreement when tested by the Bland Altman plot.

CONCLUSIONS

The HLC method led to underestimation of mosquito feeding inhibition as a mode of action of transfluthrin, and there were species- and dose-dependent differences in the relationship between landing and biting. However, the estimated PEs were similar between the two methods. The results of this study indicate that HLC can be used as a proxy for personal PE for the evaluation of a VPSR, especially when the difficulties associated with enumerating blood-fed mosquitoes in a field setting are taken into consideration.

A systematic review assessing the potential for release of vector species from competition following insecticide-based population suppression of Anopheles species in Africa

BACKGROUND

While insecticide-based vector control can effectively target vector species in areas of high malaria endemicity, such as Anopheles gambiae in Africa, residual disease transmission can occur. Understanding the potential role of competitive displacement between vector species could inform both current insecticide-based vector control programmes and the development of future complementary interventions.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify published studies of insecticide-based vector control of Anopheles species in Africa that reported indices for absolute densities of vector species. After screening against inclusion, exclusion and risk of bias criteria, studies were assigned to three categories based on whether they showed population density changes involving decreases in two or more vector species (D), increases in two or more vector species (I), or increases in one vector species concomitant with decreases in another vector species (ID). Category ID studies could thus provide evidence consistent with the release of vector species from competition following the insecticide-based population suppression of Anopheles species.

RESULTS

Of 5569 papers identified in searches, 30 were selected for quantitative and qualitative analysis. Nineteen studies were assigned to category D and one to category I. Ten studies categorised as ID provided evidence ranging from weak to persuasive that release from competition could have contributed to changes in species composition. Category ID showed no statistical differences from category D for reductions in malaria transmission and levels of insecticide resistance, but did so for insecticide type, pyrethroids being associated with category ID. A qualitative assessment identified five studies that provided the most convincing evidence that release from competition could have contributed to changes in species composition.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified evidence that insecticide-based reductions in the density of Anopheles species in Africa could facilitate the release of other vector species from competition. While it remains uncertain whether this evidence is representative of most entomological sequelae of insecticide-based vector control in the field, five studies provided persuasive evidence that insecticide use could lead, at least under some circumstances, to competitive release of non-targeted vector species. These results should inform current and future integrated vector management approaches to malaria control.

Transfluthrin eave-positioned targeted insecticide (EPTI) reduces human landing rate (HLR) of pyrethroid resistant and susceptible malaria vectors in a semi-field simulated peridomestic space

Background

Volatile pyrethroids (VPs) are proven to reduce human–vector contact for mosquito vectors. With increasing resistance to pyrethroids in mosquitoes, the efficacy of VPs, such as transfluthrin, may be compromised. Therefore, experiments were conducted to determine if the efficacy of transfluthrin eave-positioned targeted insecticide (EPTI) depends on the resistance status of malaria vectors.

Methods

Ribbons treated with 5.25 g transfluthrin or untreated controls were used around the eaves of an experimental hut as EPTI inside a semi-field system. Mosquito strains with different levels of pyrethroid resistance were released simultaneously, recaptured by means of human landing catches (HLCs) and monitored for 24-h mortality. Technical-grade (TG) transfluthrin was used, followed by emulsifiable concentrate (EC) transfluthrin and additional mosquito strains. Generalized linear mixed models with binomial distribution were used to determine the impact of transfluthrin and mosquito strain on mosquito landing rates and 24-h mortality.

Results

EPTI treated with 5.25 g of either TG or EC transfluthrin significantly reduced HLR of all susceptible and resistant Anopheles mosquitoes (Odds Ratio (OR) ranging from 0.14 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.11–0.17], P < 0.001) to 0.57, (CI [0.42–0.78] P < 0.001). Both TG and EC EPTI had less impact on landing for the resistant Anopheles arabiensis (Mbita strain) compared to the susceptible Anopheles gambiae (Ifakara strain) (OR 1.50 [95% CI 1.18–1.91] P < 0.001) and (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.29–2.17] P < 0.001), respectively. The EC EPTI also had less impact on the resistant An. arabiensis (Kingani strain) (OR 2.29 [95% CI 1.78–2.94] P < 0.001) compared to the control however the TG EPTI was equally effective against the resistant Kingani strain and susceptible Ifakara strain (OR 1.03 [95% CI 0.82–1.32] P = 0.75). Finally the EC EPTI was equally effective against the susceptible An. gambiae (Kisumu strain) and the resistant An. gambiae (Kisumu-kdr strain) (OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.74–1.30] P = 0.90).

Conclusions

Transfluthrin-treated EPTI could be useful in areas with pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes, but it remains unclear whether stronger resistance to pyrethroids will undermine the efficacy of transfluthrin. At this dosage, transfluthrin EPTI cannot be used to kill exposed mosquitoes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-021-03880-2.

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.

Semi-field evaluation of freestanding transfluthrin passive emanators and the BG sentinel trap as a "push-pull control strategy" against Aedes aegypti mosquitoes

Background

Spatial repellents that drive mosquitoes away from treated areas, and odour-baited traps, that attract and kill mosquitoes, can be combined and work synergistically in a push-pull system. Push-pull systems have been shown to reduce house entry and outdoor biting rates of malaria vectors and so have the potential to control other outdoor biting mosquitoes such as Aedes aegypti that transmit arboviral diseases. In this study, semi-field experiments were conducted to evaluate whether a push-pull system could be used to reduce bites from Aedes mosquitoes.

Methods

The push and pull under investigation consisted of two freestanding transfluthrin passive emanators (FTPE) and a BG sentinel trap (BGS) respectively. The FTPE contained hessian strips treated with 5.25 g of transfluthrin active ingredient. The efficacies of FTPE and BGS alone and in combination were evaluated by human landing catch in a large semi-field system in Tanzania. We also investigated the protection of FTPE over six months. The data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with binomial distribution.

Results

Two FTPE had a protective efficacy (PE) of 61.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 52.2–69.9%) against the human landing of Ae. aegypti. The BGS did not significantly reduce mosquito landings; the PE was 2.1% (95% CI: −2.9–7.2%). The push-pull provided a PE of 64.5% (95% CI: 59.1–69.9%). However, there was no significant difference in the PE between the push-pull and the two FTPE against Ae. aegypti (P = 0.30). The FTPE offered significant protection against Ae. aegypti at month three, with a PE of 46.4% (95% CI: 41.1–51.8%), but not at six months with a PE of 2.2% (95% CI: −9.0–14.0%).

Conclusions

The PE of the FTPE and the full push-pull are similar, indicative that bite prevention is primarily due to the activity of the FTPE. While these results are encouraging for the FTPE, further work is needed for a push-pull system to be recommended for Ae. aegypti control. The three-month protection against Ae. aegypti bites suggests that FTPE would be a useful additional control tool during dengue outbreaks, that does not require regular user compliance.

Eave ribbons treated with transfluthrin can protect both users and non-users against malaria vectors

BACKGROUND

Eave ribbons treated with spatial repellents effectively prevent human exposure to outdoor-biting and indoor-biting malaria mosquitoes, and could constitute a scalable and low-cost supplement to current interventions, such as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs). This study measured protection afforded by transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons to users (personal and communal protection) and non-users (only communal protection), and whether introducing mosquito traps as additional intervention influenced these benefits.

METHODS

Five experimental huts were constructed inside a 110 m long, screened tunnel, in which 1000 Anopheles arabiensis were released nightly. Eave ribbons treated with 0.25 g/m2 transfluthrin were fitted to 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 huts, achieving 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% coverage, respectively. Volunteers sat near each hut and collected mosquitoes attempting to bite them from 6 to 10 p.m. (outdoor-biting), then went indoors to sleep under untreated bed nets, beside which CDC-light traps collected mosquitoes from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. (indoor-biting). Caged mosquitoes kept inside the huts were monitored for 24 h-mortality. Separately, eave ribbons, UV-LED mosquito traps (Mosclean) or both the ribbons and traps were fitted, each time leaving the central hut unfitted to represent non-user households and assess communal protection. Biting risk was measured concurrently in all huts, before and after introducing interventions.

RESULTS

Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons provided 83% and 62% protection indoors and outdoors respectively to users, plus 57% and 48% protection indoors and outdoors to the non-user. Protection for users remained constant, but protection for non-users increased with eave ribbons coverage, peaking once 80% of huts were fitted. Mortality of mosquitoes caged inside huts with eave ribbons was 100%. The UV-LED traps increased indoor exposure to users and non-users, but marginally reduced outdoor-biting. Combining the traps and eave ribbons did not improve user protection relative to eave ribbons alone.

CONCLUSION

Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons protect both users and non-users against malaria mosquitoes indoors and outdoors. The mosquito-killing property of transfluthrin can magnify the communal benefits by limiting unwanted diversion to non-users, but should be validated in field trials against pyrethroid-resistant vectors. Benefits of the UV-LED traps as an intervention alone or alongside eave ribbons were however undetectable in this study. These findings extend the evidence that transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons could complement ITNs.

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

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.

Eave ribbons treated with the spatial repellent, transfluthrin, can effectively protect against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting malaria mosquitoes

Background

Long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying protect against indoor-biting and indoor-resting mosquitoes but are largely ineffective for early-biting and outdoor-biting malaria vectors. Complementary tools are, therefore, needed to accelerate control efforts. This paper describes simple hessian ribbons treated with spatial repellents and wrapped around eaves of houses to prevent outdoor-biting and indoor-biting mosquitoes over long periods of time.

Methods

The eave ribbons are 15 cm-wide triple-layered hessian fabrics, in lengths starting 1 m. They can be fitted onto houses using nails, adhesives or Velcro, without completely closing eave-spaces. In 75 experimental nights, untreated ribbons and ribbons treated with 0.02%, 0.2%, 1.5% or 5% transfluthrin emulsion (spatial repellent) were evaluated against blank controls using two experimental huts inside a 202 m² semi-field chamber where 500 laboratory-reared Anopheles arabiensis were released nightly. Two volunteers sat outdoors (one/hut) and collected mosquitoes attempting to bite them from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. (outdoor-biting), then went indoors and slept under bed nets, beside which CDC-light traps collected mosquitoes from 10 p.m. to 6.30 a.m. (indoor-biting). To assess survival, 200 caged mosquitoes were suspended near the huts nightly and monitored for 24 h thereafter. Additionally, field tests were done in experimental huts in a rural Tanzanian village to evaluate treated ribbons (1.5% transfluthrin). Here, indoor-biting was assessed using window traps and Prokopack^® aspirators, and outdoor-biting assessed using volunteer-occupied double-net traps.

Results

Indoor-biting and outdoor-biting decreased > 99% in huts fitted with eave ribbons having ≥ 0.2% transfluthrin. Even 0.02% transfluthrin-treated ribbons provided 79% protection indoors and 60% outdoors. Untreated ribbons however reduced indoor-biting by only 27% and increased outdoor-biting by 18%, though these were non-significant (P > 0.05). Of all caged mosquitoes exposed near treated huts, 99.5% died within 24 h. In field tests, the ribbons provided 96% protection indoors and 84% outdoors against An. arabiensis, plus 42% protection indoors and 40% outdoors against Anopheles funestus. Current prototypes cost ~ 7USD/hut, are made of widely-available hessian and require no specialized expertise.

Conclusion

Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons significantly prevented outdoor-biting and indoor-biting malaria vectors and could potentially complement current tools. The technique is simple, low-cost, highly-scalable and easy-to-use; making it suitable even for poorly-constructed houses and low-income groups.