Which indoor residual spraying insecticide best complements standard pyrethroid long-lasting insecticidal nets for improved control of pyrethroid resistant malaria vectors?
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
20
10
2020
accepted:
07
01
2021
entrez:
28
1
2021
pubmed:
29
1
2021
medline:
7
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Where resources are available, non-pyrethroid IRS can be deployed to complement standard pyrethroid LLINs with the aim of achieving improved vector control and managing insecticide resistance. The impact of the combination may however depend on the type of IRS insecticide deployed. Studies comparing combinations of pyrethroid LLINs with different types of non-pyrethroid IRS products will be necessary for decision making. The efficacy of combining a standard pyrethroid LLIN (DuraNet®) with IRS insecticides from three chemical classes (bendiocarb, chlorfenapyr and pirimiphos-methyl CS) was evaluated in an experimental hut trial against wild pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l. in Cové, Benin. The combinations were also compared to each intervention alone. WHO cylinder and CDC bottle bioassays were performed to assess susceptibility of the local An. gambiae s.l. vector population at the Cové hut site to insecticides used in the combinations. Susceptibility bioassays revealed that the vector population at Cové, was resistant to pyrethroids (<20% mortality) but susceptible to carbamates, chlorfenapyr and organophosphates (≥98% mortality). Mortality of wild free-flying pyrethroid resistant An. gambiae s.l. entering the hut with the untreated net control (4%) did not differ significantly from DuraNet® alone (8%, p = 0.169). Pirimiphos-methyl CS IRS induced the highest mortality both on its own (85%) and in combination with DuraNet® (81%). Mortality with the DuraNet® + chlorfenapyr IRS combination was significantly higher than each intervention alone (46% vs. 33% and 8%, p<0.05) demonstrating an additive effect. The DuraNet® + bendiocarb IRS combination induced significantly lower mortality compared to the other combinations (32%, p<0.05). Blood-feeding inhibition was very low with the IRS treatments alone (3-5%) but increased significantly when they were combined with DuraNet® (61% - 71%, p<0.05). Blood-feeding rates in the combinations were similar to the net alone. Adding bendiocarb IRS to DuraNet® induced significantly lower levels of mosquito feeding compared to adding chlorfenapyr IRS (28% vs. 37%, p = 0.015). Adding non-pyrethroid IRS to standard pyrethroid-only LLINs against a pyrethroid-resistant vector population which is susceptible to the IRS insecticide, can provide higher levels of vector mosquito control compared to the pyrethroid net alone or IRS alone. Adding pirimiphos-methyl CS IRS may provide substantial improvements in vector control while adding chlorfenapyr IRS can demonstrate an additive effect relative to both interventions alone. Adding bendiocarb IRS may show limited enhancements in vector control owing to its short residual effect.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Where resources are available, non-pyrethroid IRS can be deployed to complement standard pyrethroid LLINs with the aim of achieving improved vector control and managing insecticide resistance. The impact of the combination may however depend on the type of IRS insecticide deployed. Studies comparing combinations of pyrethroid LLINs with different types of non-pyrethroid IRS products will be necessary for decision making.
METHODS
The efficacy of combining a standard pyrethroid LLIN (DuraNet®) with IRS insecticides from three chemical classes (bendiocarb, chlorfenapyr and pirimiphos-methyl CS) was evaluated in an experimental hut trial against wild pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l. in Cové, Benin. The combinations were also compared to each intervention alone. WHO cylinder and CDC bottle bioassays were performed to assess susceptibility of the local An. gambiae s.l. vector population at the Cové hut site to insecticides used in the combinations.
RESULTS
Susceptibility bioassays revealed that the vector population at Cové, was resistant to pyrethroids (<20% mortality) but susceptible to carbamates, chlorfenapyr and organophosphates (≥98% mortality). Mortality of wild free-flying pyrethroid resistant An. gambiae s.l. entering the hut with the untreated net control (4%) did not differ significantly from DuraNet® alone (8%, p = 0.169). Pirimiphos-methyl CS IRS induced the highest mortality both on its own (85%) and in combination with DuraNet® (81%). Mortality with the DuraNet® + chlorfenapyr IRS combination was significantly higher than each intervention alone (46% vs. 33% and 8%, p<0.05) demonstrating an additive effect. The DuraNet® + bendiocarb IRS combination induced significantly lower mortality compared to the other combinations (32%, p<0.05). Blood-feeding inhibition was very low with the IRS treatments alone (3-5%) but increased significantly when they were combined with DuraNet® (61% - 71%, p<0.05). Blood-feeding rates in the combinations were similar to the net alone. Adding bendiocarb IRS to DuraNet® induced significantly lower levels of mosquito feeding compared to adding chlorfenapyr IRS (28% vs. 37%, p = 0.015).
CONCLUSIONS
Adding non-pyrethroid IRS to standard pyrethroid-only LLINs against a pyrethroid-resistant vector population which is susceptible to the IRS insecticide, can provide higher levels of vector mosquito control compared to the pyrethroid net alone or IRS alone. Adding pirimiphos-methyl CS IRS may provide substantial improvements in vector control while adding chlorfenapyr IRS can demonstrate an additive effect relative to both interventions alone. Adding bendiocarb IRS may show limited enhancements in vector control owing to its short residual effect.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33507978
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245804
pii: PONE-D-20-32956
pmc: PMC7842967
doi:
Substances chimiques
Insecticides
0
Pyrethrins
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0245804Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/L004437/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R006040/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Malar J. 2015 Mar 24;14:124
pubmed: 25879231
Malar J. 2020 Jul 13;19(1):249
pubmed: 32660479
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 23;8(7):e69516
pubmed: 23936033
Malar J. 2010 Jun 16;9:167
pubmed: 20553593
Parasit Vectors. 2019 Dec 30;12(1):612
pubmed: 31888730
Malar J. 2019 Feb 21;18(1):44
pubmed: 30791906
Genes (Basel). 2019 Oct 11;10(10):
pubmed: 31614683
Malar J. 2015 Nov 18;14:464
pubmed: 26581678
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 02;11(9):e0162210
pubmed: 27588945
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2009 Jun;25(2):156-67
pubmed: 19653497
Malar J. 2014 Oct 09;13:396
pubmed: 25301219
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 22;10(1):12227
pubmed: 32699237
Parasit Vectors. 2016 May 05;9:266
pubmed: 27151229
Lancet. 2015 Apr 11;385(9976):1436-46
pubmed: 25498847
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 07;9(1):e83897
pubmed: 24409286
Parasit Vectors. 2010 Aug 03;3(1):65
pubmed: 20682050
Malar J. 2011 Nov 16;10:343
pubmed: 22087506
Malar J. 2017 Aug 16;16(1):340
pubmed: 28814307
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 16;11(11):e0165925
pubmed: 27851828
Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 11;10(1):4518
pubmed: 32161302
Emerg Infect Dis. 2012 Sep;18(9):1508-11
pubmed: 22932478
Elife. 2016 Aug 22;5:
pubmed: 27547988
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009 Sep;81(3):519-24
pubmed: 19706925
Acta Trop. 2011 Aug;119(2-3):107-13
pubmed: 21565149
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 May 23;5:CD012688
pubmed: 31120132
Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 26;9(1):4982
pubmed: 30478327
Malar J. 2020 Apr 10;19(1):150
pubmed: 32276585
Trop Med Int Health. 2009 Apr;14(4):396-403
pubmed: 19254231
BMC Res Notes. 2013 Nov 13;6:458
pubmed: 24220151
Pathog Glob Health. 2013 Jan;107(1):1-4
pubmed: 23432856
Malar J. 2019 Apr 18;18(1):141
pubmed: 30999957
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Dec 26;114(52):E11267-E11275
pubmed: 29229808
Lancet. 2018 Apr 21;391(10130):1577-1588
pubmed: 29655496
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 16;10(11):e0142671
pubmed: 26569492
Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Aug;12(8):617-26
pubmed: 22682536