Abstract

BackgroundThe development of insecticide resistance and the increased outdoor-biting behaviour of malaria vectors reduce the efficiency of indoor vector control methods. Attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSBs), a method targeting the sugar-feeding behaviours of vectors both indoors and outdoors, is a promising supplement to indoor tools. The number and configuration of these ATSB stations needed for malaria control in a community needs to be determined.MethodsA hypothetical village, typical of those in sub-Saharan Africa, 600 × 600 m, consisting of houses, humans and essential resource requirements of Anopheles gambiae (sugar sources, outdoor resting sites, larval habitats) was simulated in a spatial individual-based model. Resource-rich and resource-poor environments were simulated separately. Eight types of configurations and different densities of ATSB stations were tested. Anopheles gambiae population size, human biting rate (HBR) and entomological inoculation rates (EIR) were compared between different ATSB configurations and densities. Each simulated scenario was run 50 times.ResultsCompared to the outcomes not altered by ATSB treatment in the control scenario, in resource-rich and resource-poor environments, respectively, the optimum ATSB treatment reduced female abundance by 98.22 and 91.80 %, reduced HBR by 99.52 and 98.15 %, and reduced EIR by 99.99 and 100 %. In resource-rich environments, n × n grid design, stations at sugar sources, resting sites, larval habitats, and random locations worked better in reducing vector population and HBRs than other configurations (P < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference of EIR reductions between all ATSB configurations (P > 0.05). In resource-poor environments, there was no significant difference of female abundances, HBRs and EIRs between all ATSB configurations (P > 0.05). The optimum number of ATSB stations was about 25 for resource-rich environments and nine for resource-poor environments.ConclusionsATSB treatment reduced An. gambiae population substantially and reduced EIR to near zero regardless of environmental resource availability. In resource-rich environments, dispersive configurations worked better in reducing vector population, and stations at or around houses worked better in preventing biting and parasite transmission. In resource-poor environments, all configurations worked similarly. Optimum numbers of bait stations should be adjusted according to seasonality when resource availability changes.

Highlights

  • The development of insecticide resistance and the increased outdoor-biting behaviour of malaria vectors reduce the efficiency of indoor vector control methods

  • To make the graphs more concise, only high densities of Attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSBs) stations placed in resource-rich environments and low densities of ATSB stations placed in resource-poor environments are shown

  • In resource-rich environments, compared to the outcomes not altered by ATSB treatment in the control scenario, male abundance was reduced by 95.80 %, female abundance was reduced by 98.22 %, human biting rate (HBR) were reduced by 99.52 %, and entomological inoculation rates (EIR) was reduced by 99.99 %, with the optimum ATSB station configuration

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The development of insecticide resistance and the increased outdoor-biting behaviour of malaria vectors reduce the efficiency of indoor vector control methods. The increased use of pyrethroids for the treatment of nets has resulted in increased pyrethroid resistance in anopheline mosquitoes, reducing the efficacy of both IRS and ITNs/LLINs [6,7,8] The use of these two indoor tools has caused behavioural changes in anopheline mosquitoes in multiple locations over the world: the indoor host-seeking behaviour has shifted to a more exophilic (outdoors) behaviour [9,10,11,12]. It is questionable whether IRS and ITNs/LLINs alone will achieve malaria elimination [13]. Evaluating the impact of ATSB on malaria transmission is a step forward toward the assessment of the method

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call