Evaluating human landing catches as a measure of mosquito biting and the importance of considering additional modes of action.

Entomological evaluations of vector control tools often use human landing catches (HLCs) as a standard measure of a direct human-vector contact. However, some tools have additional characteristics, such as mortality, and HLCS are not sensitive for measuring other effects beyond landing inhibition. Therefore, additional measures may need to be considered when evaluating these tools for public health use. This study has two main aims (1) the evaluate the accuracy of HLCs as a proxy for feeding and (2) to compare the predicted reduction in vectorial capacity when we do and do not consider these additional characteristics. To achieve this, we analyse previously published semi-field data from an experiment which used HLCs and another where mosquitoes were allowed to feed in the presence of different dosages of the volatile pyrethroid spatial repellent, transfluthrin. We compare results for two mathematical models: one which only considers the reduction in feeding effect and one which also considers mortality before and after feeding (using data gathered by the aspiration of mosquitoes after the semi-field feeding/landing period and 24 h survival monitoring). These Bayesian hierarchical models are parameterised using Bayesian inference. We observe that, for susceptible mosquitoes, reduction in landing is underestimated by HLCs. For knockdown resistant mosquitoes the relationship is less clear; with HLCs sometimes appearing to overestimate this characteristic. We find HLCs tend to under-predict the relative reduction in vectorial capacity in susceptible mosquitoes while over-predicting this impact in knockdown-resistant mosquitoes. Models without secondary effects have lower predicted relative reductions in vectorial capacities. Overall, this study highlights the importance of considering additional characteristics to reduction in biting of volatile pyrethroid spatial repellents. We recommend that these are considered when evaluating novel vector control tools.

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.

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.