Strengthening adult mosquito surveillance in Africa for disease control: learning from the present.

Mosquito surveillance is essential to successfully control and eliminate mosquito-borne diseases. Yet, it is often done by numerous organizations with little collaboration, incomplete understanding of existing gaps, and limited long-term vision. There is a clear disconnect between entomological and epidemiological indices, with entomological data informing control efforts inadequately. Here, we discuss current mosquito surveillance practises across the heterogeneous disease landscape in Africa. We advocate for the development of mosquito surveillance strategic plans to increase the impact and functionality of mosquito surveillance. We urge for a proactive approach to set up centralized mosquito data systems under the custodian of national governments, focus on epidemiologically relevant mosquito data, and increase the robustness of mosquito surveillance using a more spatially explicit sampling design.

House modifications for preventing malaria.

BACKGROUND: Malaria remains an important public health problem. Research in 1900 suggested house modifications may reduce malaria transmission. A previous version of this review concluded that house screening may be effective in reducing malaria. This update includes data from five new studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of house modifications that aim to reduce exposure to mosquitoes on malaria disease and transmission. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CAB) Abstracts (Web of Science); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) up to 25 May 2022. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry to identify ongoing trials up to 25 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, including cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), cross-over studies, and stepped-wedge designs were eligible, as were quasi-experimental trials, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled interrupted time series, and non-randomized cross-over studies. We sought studies investigating primary construction and house modifications to existing homes reporting epidemiological outcomes (malaria case incidence, malaria infection incidence or parasite prevalence). We extracted any entomological outcomes that were also reported in these studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used risk ratios (RR) to compare the effect of the intervention with the control for dichotomous data. For continuous data, we presented the mean difference; and for count and rate data, we used rate ratios. We presented all results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT and six cRCTs met our inclusion criteria, with an additional six ongoing RCTs. We did not identify any eligible non-randomized studies. All included trials were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa since 2009; two randomized by household and four at the block or village level. All trials assessed screening of windows, doors, eaves, ceilings, or any combination of these; this was either alone, or in combination with roof modification or eave tube installation (an insecticidal "lure and kill" device that reduces mosquito entry whilst maintaining some airflow). In one trial, the screening material was treated with 2% permethrin insecticide. In five trials, the researchers implemented the interventions. A community-based approach was adopted in the other trial. Overall, the implementation of house modifications probably reduced malaria parasite prevalence (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.82; 5 trials, 5183 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although an inconsistent effect was observed in a subpopulation of children in one study. House modifications reduced moderate to severe anaemia prevalence (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 3 trials, 3643 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was no consistent effect on clinical malaria incidence, with rate ratios ranging from 0.38 to 1.62 (3 trials, 3365 participants, 4126.6 person-years). House modifications may reduce indoor mosquito density (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.30; 4 trials, 9894 household-nights; low-certainty evidence), although two studies showed little effect on this parameter. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: House modifications - largely screening, sometimes combined with insecticide and lure and kill devices - were associated with a reduction in malaria parasite prevalence and a reduction in people with anaemia. Findings on malaria incidence were mixed. Modifications were also associated with lower indoor adult mosquito density, but this effect was not present in some studies.

House modifications for preventing malaria.

BACKGROUND: Despite being preventable, malaria remains an important public health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that overall progress in malaria control has plateaued for the first time since the turn of the century. Researchers and policymakers are therefore exploring alternative and supplementary malaria vector control tools. Research in 1900 indicated that modification of houses may be effective in reducing malaria: this is now being revisited, with new research now examining blocking house mosquito entry points or modifying house construction materials to reduce exposure of inhabitants to infectious bites. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of house modifications on malaria disease and transmission. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CAB) Abstracts (Web of Science); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS), up to 1 November 2019. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/) to identify ongoing trials up to the same date. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, including cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), cross-over studies, and stepped-wedge designs were eligible, as were quasi-experimental trials, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled interrupted time series, and non-randomized cross-over studies. We only considered studies reporting epidemiological outcomes (malaria case incidence, malaria infection incidence or parasite prevalence). We also summarised qualitative studies conducted alongside included studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used risk ratios (RR) to compare the effect of the intervention with the control for dichotomous data. For continuous data, we presented the mean difference; and for count and rate data, we used rate ratios. We presented all results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Six cRCTs met our inclusion criteria, all conducted in sub-Saharan Africa; three randomized by household, two by village, and one at the community level. All trials assessed screening of windows, doors, eaves, ceilings or any combination of these; this was either alone, or in combination with eave closure, roof modification or eave tube installation (a "lure and kill" device that reduces mosquito entry whilst maintaining some airflow). In two trials, the interventions were insecticide-based. In five trials, the researchers implemented the interventions. The community implemented the interventions in the sixth trial. At the time of writing the review, two of the six trials had published results, both of which compared screened houses (without insecticide) to unscreened houses. One trial in Ethiopia assessed screening of windows and doors. Another trial in the Gambia assessed full screening (screening of eaves, doors and windows), as well as screening of ceilings only. Screening may reduce clinical malaria incidence caused by Plasmodium falciparum (rate ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.82; 1 trial, 184 participants, 219.3 person-years; low-certainty evidence; Ethiopian study). For malaria parasite prevalence, the point estimate, derived from The Gambia study, was smaller (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.17; 713 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence), and showed an effect on anaemia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42, 0.89; 705 participants; 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence). Screening may reduce the entomological inoculation rate (EIR): both trials showed lower estimates in the intervention arm. In the Gambian trial, there was a mean difference in EIR between the control houses and treatment houses ranging from 0.45 to 1.50 (CIs ranged from -0.46 to 2.41; low-certainty evidence), depending on the study year and treatment arm. The Ethiopian trial reported a mean difference in EIR of 4.57, favouring screening (95% CI 3.81 to 5.33; low-certainty evidence). Pooled analysis of the trials showed that individuals living in fully screened houses were slightly less likely to sleep under a bed net (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.09; 2 trials, 203 participants). In one trial, bed net usage was also lower in individuals living in houses with screened ceilings (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95; 1 trial, 135 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the two trials published to date, there is some evidence that screening may reduce malaria transmission and malaria infection in people living in the house. The four trials awaiting publication are likely to enrich the current evidence base, and we will add these to this review when they become available.

House modifications for preventing malaria.

BACKGROUND: Despite being preventable, malaria remains an important public health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that overall progress in malaria control has plateaued for the first time since the turn of the century. Researchers and policymakers are therefore exploring alternative and supplementary malaria vector control tools. Research in 1900 indicated that modification of houses may be effective in reducing malaria: this is now being revisited, with new research now examining blocking house mosquito entry points or modifying house construction materials to reduce exposure of inhabitants to infectious bites. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of house modifications on malaria disease and transmission. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CAB) Abstracts (Web of Science); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS), up to 1 November 2019. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/) to identify ongoing trials up to the same date. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, including cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), cross-over studies, and stepped-wedge designs were eligible, as were quasi-experimental trials, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled interrupted time series, and non-randomized cross-over studies. We only considered studies reporting epidemiological outcomes (malaria case incidence, malaria infection incidence or parasite prevalence). We also summarised qualitative studies conducted alongside included studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used risk ratios (RR) to compare the effect of the intervention with the control for dichotomous data. For continuous data, we presented the mean difference; and for count and rate data, we used rate ratios. We presented all results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Six cRCTs met our inclusion criteria, all conducted in sub-Saharan Africa; three randomized by household, two by village, and one at the community level. All trials assessed screening of windows, doors, eaves, ceilings or any combination of these; this was either alone, or in combination with eave closure, roof modification or eave tube installation (a "lure and kill" device that reduces mosquito entry whilst maintaining some airflow). In two trials, the interventions were insecticide-based. In five trials, the researchers implemented the interventions. The community implemented the interventions in the sixth trial. At the time of writing the review, two of the six trials had published results, both of which compared screened houses (without insecticide) to unscreened houses. One trial in Ethiopia assessed screening of windows and doors. Another trial in the Gambia assessed full screening (screening of eaves, doors and windows), as well as screening of ceilings only. Screening may reduce clinical malaria incidence caused by Plasmodium falciparum (rate ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.82; 1 trial, 184 participants, 219.3 person-years; low-certainty evidence; Ethiopian study). For malaria parasite prevalence, the point estimate, derived from The Gambia study, was smaller (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.17; 713 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and showed an effect on anaemia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42, 0.89; 705 participants; 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence). Screening may reduce the entomological inoculation rate (EIR): both trials showed lower estimates in the intervention arm. In the Gambian trial, there was a mean difference in EIR between the control houses and treatment houses ranging from 0.45 to 1.50 (CIs ranged from -0.46 to 2.41; low-certainty evidence), depending on the study year and treatment arm. The Ethiopian trial reported a mean difference in EIR of 4.57, favouring screening (95% CI 3.81 to 5.33; low-certainty evidence). Pooled analysis of the trials showed that individuals living in fully screened houses were slightly less likely to sleep under a bed net (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.09; 2 trials, 203 participants). In one trial, bed net usage was also lower in individuals living in houses with screened ceilings (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95; 1 trial, 135 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the two trials published to date, there is some evidence that screening may reduce malaria transmission and malaria infection in people living in the house. The four trials awaiting publication are likely to enrich the current evidence base, and we will add these to this review when they become available.

Parasites and vectors of malaria on Rusinga Island, Western Kenya.

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of information on malaria endemicity in the islands of Lake Victoria in western Kenya. In this study malaria prevalence and Plasmodium sporozoite rates on Rusinga Island were investigated. The contribution of different Anopheles species to indoor and outdoor transmission of malaria was also determined. METHODS: Active case detection through microscopy was used to diagnose malaria in a 10% random sample of the human population on Rusinga Island and a longitudinal entomological survey conducted in Gunda village in 2012. Nocturnally active host-seeking mosquitoes were captured indoors and outdoors using odour-baited traps. Anopheles species were tested for the presence of Plasmodium parasites using an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. All data were analyzed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Single infections of Plasmodium falciparum (88.1%), P. malariae (3.96%) and P. ovale (0.79%) as well as multiple infections (7.14%) of these parasites were found on Rusinga Island. The overall malaria prevalence was 10.9%. The risk of contracting malaria was higher among dwellers of Rusinga West than Rusinga East locations (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.5, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.14 - 1.97, P = 0.003). Parasite positivity was significantly associated with individuals who did not use malaria protective measures (OR = 2.65, 95% CI 1.76 - 3.91, p < 0.001). A total of 1,684 mosquitoes, including 74 anophelines, were captured. Unlike Culex species, more of which were collected indoors than outdoors (P < 0.001), the females of An. gambiae s.l. (P = 0.477), An. funestus s.l. (P = 0.153) and Mansonia species captured indoors versus outdoors were not different. The 46 An. gambiae s.l. collected were mainly An. arabiensis (92.3%). Of the 62 malaria mosquitoes tested, 4, including 2 indoor and 2 outdoor-collected individuals had Plasmodium. CONCLUSION: The rather significant and unexpected contribution of P. malariae and P. ovale to the overall malaria prevalence on Rusinga Island underscores the epidemiological importance of these species in the big push towards eliminating malaria. Although current entomological interventions mainly target indoor environments, additional strategies should be considered to prevent outdoor transmission of malaria.

Attraction of Anopheles gambiae to odour baits augmented with heat and moisture.

BACKGROUND: The search for a standard human surrogate in the form of a synthetic mosquito attractant has been the goal of many laboratories around the world. Besides alleviating the occupational risk subjected to volunteers participating in vector surveillance and control, discovery of potent attractants underpins the development and deployment of mass trapping devices for controlling mosquito-borne diseases. METHODS: A dual-port olfactometer was used to assess behavioural responses of female Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes towards synthetic versus natural (whole human emanations and worn socks) attractants. The synthetic attractants included a standard blend consisting of ammonia, carbon dioxide and water; and Ifakara blend 1 (IB1) consisting of various aliphatic carboxylic acids. Natural attractants were obtained from two males known to be less and highly attractive (LA and HA, respectively) to the mosquitoes. Mosquito responses to the volunteers' worn socks were also investigated. The effect of heat (25-27 degrees C) and moisture (75-85%) on the mosquito behavioural responses was determined. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of mosquitoes was attracted to each volunteer when compared to the standard blend. Whereas the proportion of mosquitoes attracted to person LA versus IB1 (49% versus 51%, respectively; P = 0.417) or his worn socks did not differ (61% versus 39%, respectively; P = 0.163), far more mosquitoes were attracted to person HA relative to IB1 (96% versus 4%; P = 0.001) or his worn socks (91% versus 9%; P = 0.001). Person HA attracted a significantly higher proportion of mosquitoes than his worn socks, the standard blend and IB1 when these were augmented with heat, moisture or both (P = 0.001). Similar results were obtained with person LA except that the proportion of mosquitoes attracted to him versus his worn sock augmented with heat (P = 0.65) or IB1 augmented with heat and moisture (P = 0.416) did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that olfactory cues are key mediators of the mosquito host-seeking process and that heat and moisture play a minor role. The need for a standard, highly stringent positive control for screening synthetic attractants is strongly highlighted.