Implementing OECD GLP principles for the evaluation of novel vector control tools: a case study with two novel LLINs, SafeNet
Anopheles arabiensis
Experimental hut
Good laboratory practice
Interceptor® LLIN
SafeNet NF®
SafeNet® LLIN
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jun 2022
11 Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
25
10
2021
accepted:
30
05
2022
entrez:
11
6
2022
pubmed:
12
6
2022
medline:
15
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To sustain high universal Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets (LLINs) coverage, affordable nets that provide equivalent or better protection than standard LLINs, are required. Test facilities evaluating new LLINs require compliance to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards to ensure the quality and integrity of test data. Following GLP principles allows for the reconstruction of activities during the conduct of a study and minimizes duplication of efficacy testing. This case study evaluated the efficacy of two LLINs: SafeNet NF The study was conducted according to GLP principles and followed World Health Organization guidelines for evaluating LLINs. The LLINs were assessed in experimental huts against wild, pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes. Nets were either unwashed or washed 20 times and artificially holed to simulate a used torn net. Blood-feeding inhibition and mortality were compared with a positive control (Interceptor Mosquito entry in the huts was reduced compared to negative control for the unwashed SafeNet NF, washed Safenet LLIN and the positive control arms. Similar exiting rates were found for all the treatment arms. Significant blood-feeding inhibition was only found for the positive control, both when washed and unwashed. All insecticide treatments induced significantly higher mortality compared to an untreated net. Compared to the positive control, the washed and unwashed SafeNet NF SafeNet NF
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To sustain high universal Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets (LLINs) coverage, affordable nets that provide equivalent or better protection than standard LLINs, are required. Test facilities evaluating new LLINs require compliance to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards to ensure the quality and integrity of test data. Following GLP principles allows for the reconstruction of activities during the conduct of a study and minimizes duplication of efficacy testing. This case study evaluated the efficacy of two LLINs: SafeNet NF
METHODS
METHODS
The study was conducted according to GLP principles and followed World Health Organization guidelines for evaluating LLINs. The LLINs were assessed in experimental huts against wild, pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes. Nets were either unwashed or washed 20 times and artificially holed to simulate a used torn net. Blood-feeding inhibition and mortality were compared with a positive control (Interceptor
RESULTS
RESULTS
Mosquito entry in the huts was reduced compared to negative control for the unwashed SafeNet NF, washed Safenet LLIN and the positive control arms. Similar exiting rates were found for all the treatment arms. Significant blood-feeding inhibition was only found for the positive control, both when washed and unwashed. All insecticide treatments induced significantly higher mortality compared to an untreated net. Compared to the positive control, the washed and unwashed SafeNet NF
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
SafeNet NF
Identifiants
pubmed: 35690824
doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04208-4
pii: 10.1186/s12936-022-04208-4
pmc: PMC9188019
doi:
Substances chimiques
Insecticides
0
Pyrethrins
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
183Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Front Public Health. 2021 Mar 12;9:632043
pubmed: 33777885
J Med Entomol. 1990 Jul;27(4):716-9
pubmed: 2388250
Elife. 2015 Dec 29;4:
pubmed: 26714109
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1998 Jun;14(2):159-64
pubmed: 9673916
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Sep;8(9):e1132-e1141
pubmed: 32673577
Med Vet Entomol. 2015 Mar;29(1):51-9
pubmed: 25537754
Malar J. 2007 Nov 22;6:155
pubmed: 18034887
Nat Med. 2020 Sep;26(9):1411-1416
pubmed: 32770167
Gates Open Res. 2020 Jun 12;4:59
pubmed: 32789289
Biotechniques. 2013 Mar;54(3):134-9
pubmed: 23599926
Malar J. 2010 Jul 07;9:193
pubmed: 20609220
Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2008 Dec;102(8):717-27
pubmed: 19000389
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013 Jul;89(1):78-92
pubmed: 23716403
Malar J. 2016 Apr 19;15:225
pubmed: 27093890
Malar J. 2007 Aug 13;6:111
pubmed: 17697325
J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Nov;10(11):ZE10-ZE13
pubmed: 28050522
Nature. 2015 Oct 8;526(7572):207-211
pubmed: 26375008
J Cardiovasc Echogr. 2018 Jul-Sep;28(3):151-153
pubmed: 30306017
Malar J. 2020 Nov 16;19(1):411
pubmed: 33198747