A new WHO bottle bioassay method to assess the susceptibility of mosquito vectors to public health insecticides: results from a WHO-coordinated multi-centre study.

BACKGROUND: The continued spread of insecticide resistance in mosquito vectors of malaria and arboviral diseases may lead to operational failure of insecticide-based interventions if resistance is not monitored and managed efficiently. This study aimed to develop and validate a new WHO glass bottle bioassay method as an alternative to the WHO standard insecticide tube test to monitor mosquito susceptibility to new public health insecticides with particular modes of action, physical properties or both. METHODS: A multi-centre study involving 21 laboratories worldwide generated data on the susceptibility of seven mosquito species (Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto [An. gambiae s.s.], Anopheles funestus, Anopheles stephensi, Anopheles minimus and Anopheles albimanus) to seven public health insecticides in five classes, including pyrethroids (metofluthrin, prallethrin and transfluthrin), neonicotinoids (clothianidin), pyrroles (chlorfenapyr), juvenile hormone mimics (pyriproxyfen) and butenolides (flupyradifurone), in glass bottle assays. The data were analysed using a Bayesian binomial model to determine the concentration-response curves for each insecticide-species combination and to assess the within-bioassay variability in the susceptibility endpoints, namely the concentration that kills 50% and 99% of the test population (LC50 and LC99, respectively) and the concentration that inhibits oviposition of the test population by 50% and 99% (OI50 and OI99), to measure mortality and the sterilizing effect, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, about 200,000 mosquitoes were tested with the new bottle bioassay, and LC50/LC99 or OI50/OI99 values were determined for all insecticides. Variation was seen between laboratories in estimates for some mosquito species-insecticide combinations, while other test results were consistent. The variation was generally greater with transfluthrin and flupyradifurone than with the other compounds tested, especially against Anopheles species. Overall, the mean within-bioassay variability in mortality and oviposition inhibition were < 10% for most mosquito species-insecticide combinations. CONCLUSION: Our findings, based on the largest susceptibility dataset ever produced on mosquitoes, showed that the new WHO bottle bioassay is adequate for evaluating mosquito susceptibility to new and promising public health insecticides currently deployed for vector control. The datasets presented in this study have been used recently by the WHO to establish 17 new insecticide discriminating concentrations (DCs) for either Aedes spp. or Anopheles spp. The bottle bioassay and DCs can now be widely used to monitor baseline insecticide susceptibility of wild populations of vectors of malaria and Aedes-borne diseases worldwide.

Multi-site comparison of factors influencing progress of African insecticide testing facilities towards an international Quality Management System certification.

BACKGROUND: Insecticidal mosquito vector control products are vital components of malaria control programmes. Test facilities are key in assessing the effectiveness of vector control products against local mosquito populations, in environments where they will be used. Data from these test facilities must be of a high quality to be accepted by regulatory authorities, including the WHO Prequalification Team for vector control products. In 2013-4, seven insecticide testing facilities across sub-Saharan Africa, with technical and financial support from Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC), began development and implementation of quality management system compliant with the principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) to improve data quality and reliability. METHODS AND PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We conducted semi-structured interviews, emails, and video-call interviews with individuals at five test facilities engaged in the IVCC-supported programme and working towards or having achieved GLP. We used framework analysis to identify and describe factors affeting progress towards GLP. We found that eight factors were instrumental in progress, and that test facilities had varying levels of control over these factors. They had high control over the training programme, project planning, and senior leadership support; medium control over infrastructure development, staff structure, and procurement; and low control over funding the availability and accessibility of relevant expertise. Collaboration with IVCC and other partners was key to overcoming the challenges associated with low and medium control factors. CONCLUSION: For partnership and consortia models of research capacity strengthening, test facilities can use their own internal resources to address identified high-control factors. Project plans should allow additional time for interaction with external agencies to address medium-control factors, and partners with access to expertise and funding should concentrate their efforts on supporting institutions to address low-control factors. In practice, this includes planning for financial sustainability at the outset, and acting to strengthen national and regional training capacity.