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.

The Centres for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) and the human decoy trap (HDT) compared to the human landing catch (HLC) for measuring Anopheles biting in rural Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Vector mosquito biting intensity is an important measure to understand malaria transmission. Human landing catch (HLC) is an effective but labour-intensive, expensive, and potentially hazardous entomological surveillance tool. The Centres for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) and the human decoy trap (HDT) are exposure-free alternatives. This study compared the CDC-LT and HDT against HLC for measuring Anopheles biting in rural Tanzania and assessed their suitability as HLC proxies. METHODS: Indoor mosquito surveys using HLC and CDC-LT and outdoor surveys using HLC and HDT were conducted in 2017 and in 2019 in Ulanga, Tanzania in 19 villages, with one trap/house/night. Species composition, sporozoite rates and density/trap/night were compared. Aggregating the data by village and month, the Bland-Altman approach was used to assess agreement between trap types. RESULTS: Overall, 66,807 Anopheles funestus and 14,606 Anopheles arabiensis adult females were caught with 6,013 CDC-LT, 339 indoor-HLC, 136 HDT and 195 outdoor-HLC collections. Indoors, CDC-LT caught fewer An. arabiensis (Adjusted rate ratio [Adj.RR] = 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.46, p < 0.001) and An. funestus (Adj.RR = 0.63, 95%CI: 0.51-0.79, p < 0.001) than HLC per trap/night. Outdoors, HDT caught fewer An. arabiensis (Adj.RR = 0.04, 95%CI: 0.01-0.14, p < 0.001) and An. funestus (Adj.RR = 0.10, 95%CI: 0.07-0.15, p < 0.001) than HLC. The bias and variability in number of mosquitoes caught by the different traps were dependent on mosquito densities. The relative efficacies of both CDC-LT and HDT in comparison to HLC declined with increased mosquito abundance. The variability in the ratios was substantial for low HLC counts and decreased as mosquito abundance increased. The numbers of sporozoite positive mosquitoes were low for all traps. CONCLUSIONS: CDC-LT can be suitable for comparing mosquito populations between study arms or over time if accuracy in the absolute biting rate, compared to HLC, is not required. CDC-LT is useful for estimating sporozoite rates because large numbers of traps can be deployed to collect adequate mosquito samples. The present design of the HDT is not amenable for use in large-scale entomological surveys. Use of HLC remains important for estimating human exposure to mosquitoes as part of estimating the entomological inoculation rate (EIR).