Feeding rates of malaria vectors from a prototype attractive sugar bait station in Western Province, Zambia: results of an entomological validation study.
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Mar 2023
01 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
03
11
2022
accepted:
13
02
2023
entrez:
1
3
2023
pubmed:
2
3
2023
medline:
3
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Attractive targeted sugar bait (ATSB) stations are a promising new approach to malaria vector control that could compliment current tools by exploiting the natural sugar feeding behaviors of mosquitoes. Recent proof of concept work with a prototype ATSB The product evaluated was the Sarabi v1.1.1 ASB station, which did not include insecticide but did include 0.8% uranine as a dye allowing for the detection, using UV fluorescence light microscopy, of mosquitoes that have acquired a sugar meal from the ASB. A two-phase, crossover study design was conducted in 10 village-based clusters in Western Province, Zambia. One study arm initially received 2 ASB stations per eligible structure while the other initially received 3. Primary mosquito sampling occurred via indoor and outdoor CDC Miniature UV Light Trap collection from March 01 through April 09, 2021 (Phase 1) and from April 19 to May 28, 2021 (Phase 2). The dominant vector in the study area is Anopheles funestus s.l., which was the most abundant species group collected (31% of all Anophelines; 45,038/144,5550), had the highest sporozoite rate (3.16%; 66 positives out of 2,090 tested), and accounted for 94.3% (66/70) of all sporozoite positive specimens. Of those An. funestus specimens further identified to species, 97.2% (2,090/2,150) were An. funestus sensu stricto (s.s.). Anopheles gambiae s.l. (96.8% of which were Anopheles arabiensis) is a likely secondary vector and Anopheles squamosus may play a minor role in transmission. Overall, 21.6% (9,218/42,587) of An. funestus specimens and 10.4% (201/1,940) of An. gambiae specimens collected were positive for uranine, translating into an estimated daily feeding rate of 8.9% [7.7-9.9%] for An. funestus (inter-cluster range of 5.5% to 12.7%) and 3.9% [3.3-4.7%] for An. gambiae (inter-cluster range of 1.0-5.2%). Feeding rates were no different among mosquitoes collected indoors or outdoors, or among mosquitoes from clusters with 2 or 3 ASBs per eligible structure. Similarly, there were no correlations observed between feeding rates and the average number of ASB stations per hectare or with weekly rainfall amounts. Anopheles funestus and An. gambiae vector populations in Western Province, Zambia readily fed from the prototype Sarabi v1.1.1 ASB sugar bait station. Observed feeding rates are in line with those thought to be required for ATSB stations to achieve reductions in malaria transmission when used in combination with conventional control methods (IRS or LLIN). These results supported the decision to implement a large-scale, epidemiological cluster randomized controlled trial of ATSB in Zambia, deploying 2 ATSB stations per eligible structure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Attractive targeted sugar bait (ATSB) stations are a promising new approach to malaria vector control that could compliment current tools by exploiting the natural sugar feeding behaviors of mosquitoes. Recent proof of concept work with a prototype ATSB
METHODS
METHODS
The product evaluated was the Sarabi v1.1.1 ASB station, which did not include insecticide but did include 0.8% uranine as a dye allowing for the detection, using UV fluorescence light microscopy, of mosquitoes that have acquired a sugar meal from the ASB. A two-phase, crossover study design was conducted in 10 village-based clusters in Western Province, Zambia. One study arm initially received 2 ASB stations per eligible structure while the other initially received 3. Primary mosquito sampling occurred via indoor and outdoor CDC Miniature UV Light Trap collection from March 01 through April 09, 2021 (Phase 1) and from April 19 to May 28, 2021 (Phase 2).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The dominant vector in the study area is Anopheles funestus s.l., which was the most abundant species group collected (31% of all Anophelines; 45,038/144,5550), had the highest sporozoite rate (3.16%; 66 positives out of 2,090 tested), and accounted for 94.3% (66/70) of all sporozoite positive specimens. Of those An. funestus specimens further identified to species, 97.2% (2,090/2,150) were An. funestus sensu stricto (s.s.). Anopheles gambiae s.l. (96.8% of which were Anopheles arabiensis) is a likely secondary vector and Anopheles squamosus may play a minor role in transmission. Overall, 21.6% (9,218/42,587) of An. funestus specimens and 10.4% (201/1,940) of An. gambiae specimens collected were positive for uranine, translating into an estimated daily feeding rate of 8.9% [7.7-9.9%] for An. funestus (inter-cluster range of 5.5% to 12.7%) and 3.9% [3.3-4.7%] for An. gambiae (inter-cluster range of 1.0-5.2%). Feeding rates were no different among mosquitoes collected indoors or outdoors, or among mosquitoes from clusters with 2 or 3 ASBs per eligible structure. Similarly, there were no correlations observed between feeding rates and the average number of ASB stations per hectare or with weekly rainfall amounts.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Anopheles funestus and An. gambiae vector populations in Western Province, Zambia readily fed from the prototype Sarabi v1.1.1 ASB sugar bait station. Observed feeding rates are in line with those thought to be required for ATSB stations to achieve reductions in malaria transmission when used in combination with conventional control methods (IRS or LLIN). These results supported the decision to implement a large-scale, epidemiological cluster randomized controlled trial of ATSB in Zambia, deploying 2 ATSB stations per eligible structure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36855105
doi: 10.1186/s12936-023-04491-9
pii: 10.1186/s12936-023-04491-9
pmc: PMC9974387
doi:
Substances chimiques
Sugars
0
Fluorescein
TPY09G7XIR
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
70Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 2020 Apr 18;395(10232):1292-1303
pubmed: 32305094
J Med Entomol. 1992 Sep;29(5):854-7
pubmed: 1404266
PLoS Med. 2017 Nov 30;14(11):e1002455
pubmed: 29190291
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002 Jun;66(6):804-11
pubmed: 12224596
Malar J. 2020 Feb 14;19(1):72
pubmed: 32059671
Nature. 2015 Oct 8;526(7572):207-211
pubmed: 26375008
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993 Oct;49(4):520-9
pubmed: 8214283
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jun;18(6):640-649
pubmed: 29650424
Commun Biol. 2021 Oct 7;4(1):1161
pubmed: 34620990
Malar J. 2015 Apr 23;14:173
pubmed: 25899397
Malar J. 2021 Apr 14;20(1):184
pubmed: 33853632
Malar J. 2013 Aug 23;12:291
pubmed: 23968494
Malar J. 2020 Feb 13;19(1):70
pubmed: 32054502
Malar J. 2010 Jul 21;9:210
pubmed: 20663142
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 May 16;2(2):e000176
pubmed: 29242750
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Apr 10;14(4):
pubmed: 28394284
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005 Aug;73(2):336-42
pubmed: 16103600
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 Apr 26;2(2):e000211
pubmed: 28589022
Bull World Health Organ. 1987;65(1):39-45
pubmed: 3555879
Malar J. 2021 Mar 17;20(1):151
pubmed: 33731111
Malar J. 2020 Jan 7;19(1):11
pubmed: 31910831
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