Efficacy of the spatial repellent product Mosquito Shield™ against wild pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles arabiensis in south-eastern Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Spatial repellents that create airborne concentrations of an active ingredient (AI) within a space offer a scalable solution to further reduce transmission of malaria, by disrupting mosquito behaviours in ways that ultimately lead to reduced human-vector contact. Passive emanator spatial repellents can protect multiple people within the treated space and can last for multiple weeks without the need for daily user touchpoints, making them less intrusive interventions. They may be particularly advantageous in certain use cases where implementation of core tools may be constrained, such as in humanitarian emergencies and among mobile at-risk populations. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of Mosquito Shield™ deployed in experimental huts against wild, free-flying, pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in Tanzania over 1 month. METHODS: The efficacy of Mosquito Shield™ transfluthrin spatial repellent in reducing mosquito lands and blood-feeding was evaluated using 24 huts: sixteen huts were allocated to Human Landing Catch (HLC) collections and eight huts to estimating blood-feeding. In both experiments, half of the huts received no intervention (control) while the remaining received the intervention randomly allocated to huts and remained fixed for the study duration. Outcomes measured were mosquito landings, blood-fed, resting and dead mosquitoes. Data were analysed by multilevel mixed effects regression with appropriate dispersion and link function accounting for volunteer, hut and day. RESULTS: Landing inhibition was estimated to be 70% (57-78%) [IRR 0.30 (95% CI 0.22-0.43); p < 0.0001] and blood-feeding inhibition was estimated to be 69% (56-79%) [IRR 0.31 (95% CI 0.21-0.44; p < 0.0001] There was no difference in the protective efficacy estimates of landing and blood-feeding inhibition [IRR 0.98 (95% CI 0.53-1.82; p = 0.958]. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that Mosquito Shield™ was efficacious against a wild pyrethroid-resistant strain of An. arabiensis mosquitoes in Tanzania for up to 1 month and could be used as a complementary or stand-alone tool where gaps in protection offered by core malaria vector control tools exist. HLC is a suitable technique for estimating bite reductions conferred by spatial repellents especially where direct blood-feeding measurements are not practical or are ethically limited.

CDC light traps underestimate the protective efficacy of an indoor spatial repellent against bites from wild Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Methods for evaluating efficacy of core malaria interventions in experimental and operational settings are well established but gaps exist for spatial repellents (SR). The objective of this study was to compare three different techniques: (1) collection of blood-fed mosquitoes (feeding), (2) human landing catch (HLC), and (3) CDC light trap (CDC-LT) collections for measuring the indoor protective efficacy (PE) of the volatile pyrethroid SR product Mosquito Shield™ METHODS: The PE of Mosquito Shield™ against a wild population of pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes was determined via feeding, HLC, or CDC-LT using four simultaneous 3 by 3 Latin squares (LS) run using 12 experimental huts in Tanzania. On any given night each technique was assigned to two huts with control and two huts with treatment. The LS were run twice over 18 nights to give a sample size of 72 replicates for each technique. Data were analysed by negative binomial regression. RESULTS: The PE of Mosquito Shield™ measured as feeding inhibition was 84% (95% confidence interval (CI) 58-94% [Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 0.16 (0.06-0.42), p < 0.001]; landing inhibition 77% [64-86%, (IRR 0.23 (0.14-0.36) p < 0.001]; and reduction in numbers collected by CDC-LT 30% (0-56%) [IRR 0.70 (0.44-1.0) p = 0.160]. Analysis of the agreement of the PE measured by each technique relative to HLC indicated no statistical difference in PE measured by feeding inhibition and landing inhibition [IRR 0.73 (0.25-2.12) p = 0.568], but a significant difference in PE measured by CDC-LT and landing inhibition [IRR 3.13 (1.57-6.26) p = 0.001]. CONCLUSION: HLC gave a similar estimate of PE of Mosquito Shield™ against An. arabiensis mosquitoes when compared to measuring blood-feeding directly, while CDC-LT underestimated PE relative to the other techniques. The results of this study indicate that CDC-LT could not effectively estimate PE of the indoor spatial repellent in this setting. It is critical to first evaluate the use of CDC-LT (and other tools) in local settings prior to their use in entomological studies when evaluating the impact of indoor SR to ensure that they reflect the true PE of the intervention.

Comparing the new Ifakara Ambient Chamber Test with WHO cone and tunnel tests for bioefficacy and non-inferiority testing of insecticide-treated nets.

BACKGROUND: Insecticide-treated net (ITN) durability, measured through physical integrity and bioefficacy, must be accurately assessed in order to plan the timely replacement of worn out nets and guide procurement of longer-lasting, cost-effective nets. World Health Organization (WHO) guidance advises that new intervention class ITNs be assessed 3 years after distribution, in experimental huts. In order to obtain information on whole-net efficacy cost-effectively and with adequate replication, a new bioassay, the Ifakara Ambient Chamber Test (I-ACT), a semi-field whole net assay baited with human host, was compared to established WHO durability testing methods. METHODS: Two experiments were conducted using pyrethroid-susceptible female adult Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto comparing bioefficacy of Olyset®, PermaNet® 2.0 and NetProtect® evaluated by I-ACT and WHO cone and tunnel tests. In total, 432 nets (144/brand) were evaluated using I-ACT and cone test. Olyset® nets (132/144) that did not meet the WHO cone test threshold criteria (≥ 80% mortality or ≥ 95% knockdown) were evaluated using tunnel tests with threshold criteria of ≥ 80% mortality or ≥ 90% feeding inhibition for WHO tunnel and I-ACT. Pass rate of nets tested by WHO combined standard WHO bioassays (cone/tunnel tests) was compared to pass in I-ACT only by net brand and time after distribution. RESULTS: Overall, more nets passed WHO threshold criteria when tested with I-ACT than with standard WHO bioassays 92% vs 69%, (OR: 4.1, 95% CI 3.5-4.7, p < 0.0001). The proportion of Olyset® nets that passed differed if WHO 2005 or WHO 2013 LN testing guidelines were followed: 77% vs 71%, respectively. Based on I-ACT results, PermaNet® 2.0 and NetProtect® demonstrated superior mortality and non-inferior feeding inhibition to Olyset® over 3 years of field use in Tanzania. CONCLUSION: Ifakara Ambient Chamber Test may have use for durability studies and non-inferiority testing of new ITN products. It measures composite bioefficacy and physical integrity with both mortality and feeding inhibition endpoints, using fewer mosquitoes than standard WHO bioassays (cone and tunnel tests). The I-ACT is a high-throughput assay to evaluate ITN products that work through either contact toxicity or feeding inhibition. I-ACT allows mosquitoes to interact with a host sleeping underneath a net as encountered in the field, without risk to human participants.

Life expectancy of Anopheles funestus is double that of Anopheles arabiensis in southeast Tanzania based on mark-release-recapture method.

Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus sensu stricto mosquitoes are major East African malaria vectors. Understanding their dispersal and population structure is critical for developing effective malaria control tools. Three mark-release-recapture (MRR) experiments were conducted for 51 nights to assess daily survival and flight range of An. arabiensis and An. funestus mosquitoes in south-eastern, Tanzania. Mosquitoes were marked with a fluorescent dye as they emerged from breeding sites via a self-marking device. Mosquitoes were collected indoors and outdoors using human landing catches (HLC) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention light traps (CDC-LT). In total, 4210 An. arabiensis and An. funestus were collected with 316 (7.5%) marked and recaptured (MR). Daily mean MR was 6.8, standard deviation (SD ± 7.6) for An. arabiensis and 8.9 (SD ± 8.3) for An. funestus. Probability of daily survival was 0.76 for An. arabiensis and 0.86 for An. funestus translating into average life expectancy of 3.6 days for An. arabiensis and 6.5 days for An. funestus. Dispersal distance was 654 m for An. arabiensis and 510 m for An. funestus. An. funestus life expectancy was substantially longer than that of An. arabiensis. The MRR method described here could be routinely utilized when evaluating the impact of new vector control tools on mosquito survival.

Hearing of malaria mosquitoes is modulated by a beta-adrenergic-like octopamine receptor which serves as insecticide target.

Malaria mosquitoes acoustically detect their mating partners within large swarms that form transiently at dusk. Indeed, male malaria mosquitoes preferably respond to female flight tones during swarm time. This phenomenon implies a sophisticated context- and time-dependent modulation of mosquito audition, the mechanisms of which are largely unknown. Using transcriptomics, we identify a complex network of candidate neuromodulators regulating mosquito hearing in the species Anopheles gambiae. Among them, octopamine stands out as an auditory modulator during swarm time. In-depth analysis of octopamine auditory function shows that it affects the mosquito ear on multiple levels: it modulates the tuning and stiffness of the flagellar sound receiver and controls the erection of antennal fibrillae. We show that two α- and ß-adrenergic-like octopamine receptors drive octopamine's auditory roles and demonstrate that the octopaminergic auditory control system can be targeted by insecticides. Our findings highlight octopamine as key for mosquito hearing and mating partner detection and as a potential novel target for mosquito control.

Hitting the right note at the right time: Circadian control of audibility in Anopheles mosquito mating swarms is mediated by flight tones.

Mating swarms of malaria mosquitoes form every day at sunset throughout the tropical world. They typically last less than 30 minutes. Activity must thus be highly synchronized between the sexes. Moreover, males must identify the few sporadically entering females by detecting the females' faint flight tones. We show that the Anopheles circadian clock not only ensures a tight synchrony of male and female activity but also helps sharpen the males' acoustic detection system: By raising their flight tones to 1.5 times the female flight tone, males enhance the audibility of females, specifically at swarm time. Previously reported "harmonic convergence" events are only a random by-product of the mosquitoes' flight tone variance and not a signature of acoustic interaction between males and females. The flight tones of individual mosquitoes occupy narrow, partly non-overlapping frequency ranges, suggesting that the audibility of individual females varies across males.

Influence of testing modality on bioefficacy for the evaluation of Interceptor® G2 mosquito nets to combat malaria mosquitoes in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Insecticide-treated net (ITN) durability is evaluated using longitudinal bioefficacy and fabric integrity sampling post-distribution. Interceptor® G2 was developed for resistance management and contains two adulticides: alpha-cypermethrin and chlorfenapyr; it is a pro-insecticide that is metabolized into its active form by mosquito-detoxifying enzymes and may be enhanced when the mosquito is physiologically active. To elucidate the impact of bioassay modality, mosquito exposures of the alphacypermethrin ITN Interceptor® and dual adulticide Interceptor® G2 were investigated. METHODS: This study evaluated the performance of Interceptor® G2 compared to Interceptor® against local strains of mosquitoes in Tanzania. Unwashed and 20× times washed nets were tested. Efficacy of ITNs was measured by four bioassay types: (1) World Health Organisation (WHO) cone test (cone), (2) WHO tunnel test (tunnel), (3) Ifakara ambient chamber test (I-ACT) and (4) the WHO gold standard experimental hut test (hut). Hut tests were conducted against free-flying wild pyrethroid metabolically resistant Anopheles arabiensis and Culex quinquefasciatus. Cone, tunnel and I-ACT bioassays used laboratory-reared metabolically resistant An. arabiensis and Cx. quinquefasciatus and pyrethroid susceptible Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto and Aedes aegypti. RESULTS: Against resistant strains, superiority of Interceptor® G2 over Interceptor® was observed in all "free-flying bioassays". In cone tests (which restrict mosquito flight), superiority of Interceptor® over Interceptor® G2 was recorded. Mortality of unwashed Interceptor® G2 among An. arabiensis was lowest in hut tests at 42.9% (95% CI: 37.3-48.5), although this increased to 66.7% (95% CI: 47.1-86.3) by blocking hut exit traps so mosquitoes presumably increased frequencies of contact with ITNs. Higher odds of mortality were consistently observed in Interceptor® G2 compared to Interceptor® in "free-flying" bioassays using An. arabiensis: tunnel (OR = 1.42 [95% CI:1.19-1.70], p < 0.001), I-ACT (OR = 1.61 [95% CI: 1.05-2.49], p = 0.031) and hut (OR = 2.53 [95% CI: 1.96-3.26], p < 0.001). Interceptor® and Interceptor® G2 showed high blood-feeding inhibition against all strains. CONCLUSION: Both free-flying laboratory bioassays (WHO Tunnel and I-ACT) consistently measured similarly, and both predicted the results of the experimental hut test. For bioefficacy monitoring and upstream product evaluation of ITNs in situ, the I-ACT may provide an alternative bioassay modality with improved statistical power. Interceptor G2® outperformed Interceptor ® against pyrethroid-resistant strains, demonstrating the usefulness of chlorfenapyr in mitigation of malaria.