Entomological effects of attractive targeted sugar bait station deployment in Western Zambia: vector surveillance findings from a two-arm cluster randomized phase III trial.
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Jul 2024
18 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
20
05
2024
accepted:
16
07
2024
medline:
19
7
2024
pubmed:
19
7
2024
entrez:
18
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Attractive targeted sugar bait (ATSB) stations are a novel tool with potential to complement current approaches to malaria vector control. To assess the public health value of ATSB station deployment in areas of high coverage with standard vector control, a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) of Sarabi ATSB® stations (Westham Ltd., Hod-Hasharon, Israel) was conducted in Western Province, Zambia, a high-burden location were Anopheles funestus is the dominant vector. The trial included 70 clusters and was designed to measure the effect of ATSBs on case incidence and infection prevalence over two 7-month deployments. Reported here are results of the vector surveillance component of the study, conducted in a subset of 20 clusters and designed to provide entomological context to guide overall interpretation of trial findings. Each month, 200 paired indoor-outdoor human landing catch (HLC) and 200 paired light trap (LT) collections were conducted to monitor An. funestus parity, abundance, biting rates, sporozoite prevalence, and entomological inoculation rates (EIR). During the study 20,337 female An. funestus were collected, 11,229 from control and 9,108 from intervention clusters. A subset of 3,131 HLC specimens were assessed for parity: The mean non-parous proportion was 23.0% (95% CI 18.2-28.7%, total n = 1477) in the control and 21.2% (95% CI 18.8-23.9%, total n = 1654) in the intervention arm, an OR = 1.05 (95% CI 0.82-1.34; p = 0.688). A non-significant reduction in LT abundance (RR = 0.65 [95% CI 0.30-1.40, p = 0.267]) was associated with ATSB deployment. HLC rates were highly variable, but model results indicate a similar non-significant trend with a RR = 0.68 (95%CI 0.22-2.00; p = 0.479). There were no effects on sporozoite prevalence or EIR. Anopheles funestus parity did not differ across study arms, but ATSB deployment was associated with a non-significant 35% reduction in vector LT density, results that are consistent with the epidemiological impact reported elsewhere. Additional research is needed to better understand how to maximize the potential impact of ATSB approaches in Zambia and other contexts. This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04800055, 16 March 2021).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Attractive targeted sugar bait (ATSB) stations are a novel tool with potential to complement current approaches to malaria vector control. To assess the public health value of ATSB station deployment in areas of high coverage with standard vector control, a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) of Sarabi ATSB® stations (Westham Ltd., Hod-Hasharon, Israel) was conducted in Western Province, Zambia, a high-burden location were Anopheles funestus is the dominant vector. The trial included 70 clusters and was designed to measure the effect of ATSBs on case incidence and infection prevalence over two 7-month deployments. Reported here are results of the vector surveillance component of the study, conducted in a subset of 20 clusters and designed to provide entomological context to guide overall interpretation of trial findings.
METHODS
METHODS
Each month, 200 paired indoor-outdoor human landing catch (HLC) and 200 paired light trap (LT) collections were conducted to monitor An. funestus parity, abundance, biting rates, sporozoite prevalence, and entomological inoculation rates (EIR).
RESULTS
RESULTS
During the study 20,337 female An. funestus were collected, 11,229 from control and 9,108 from intervention clusters. A subset of 3,131 HLC specimens were assessed for parity: The mean non-parous proportion was 23.0% (95% CI 18.2-28.7%, total n = 1477) in the control and 21.2% (95% CI 18.8-23.9%, total n = 1654) in the intervention arm, an OR = 1.05 (95% CI 0.82-1.34; p = 0.688). A non-significant reduction in LT abundance (RR = 0.65 [95% CI 0.30-1.40, p = 0.267]) was associated with ATSB deployment. HLC rates were highly variable, but model results indicate a similar non-significant trend with a RR = 0.68 (95%CI 0.22-2.00; p = 0.479). There were no effects on sporozoite prevalence or EIR.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Anopheles funestus parity did not differ across study arms, but ATSB deployment was associated with a non-significant 35% reduction in vector LT density, results that are consistent with the epidemiological impact reported elsewhere. Additional research is needed to better understand how to maximize the potential impact of ATSB approaches in Zambia and other contexts.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
BACKGROUND
This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04800055, 16 March 2021).
Identifiants
pubmed: 39026236
doi: 10.1186/s12936-024-05045-3
pii: 10.1186/s12936-024-05045-3
doi:
Substances chimiques
Sugars
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04800055']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
214Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Bhatt S, Weiss DJ, Cameron E, Bisanzio D, Mappin B, Dalrymple U, et al. The effect of malaria control on Plasmodium falciparum in Africa between 2000 and 2015. Nature. 2015;526:207–11.
doi: 10.1038/nature15535
pubmed: 26375008
pmcid: 4820050
WHO. World malaria report 2022. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2022. Available: https://www.who.int/teams/global-malaria-programme
Carnevale P, Manguin S. Review of issues on residual malaria transmission. J Infect Dis. 2021;223:S61–80.
doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiab084
pubmed: 33906221
pmcid: 8079138
WHO. World Malaria Report 2023. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2024. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240086173
Killeen GF. Characterizing, controlling and eliminating residual malaria transmission. Malar J. 2014;13:330.
doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-330
pubmed: 25149656
pmcid: 4159526
Killeen GF, Tatarsky A, Diabate A, Chaccour CJ, Marshall JM, Okumu FO, et al. Developing an expanded vector control toolbox for malaria elimination. BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2:2000211.
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000211
Eisele TP, Kleinschmidt I, Sarrassat S, terKuile F, Miller J, Chanda J, et al. Attractive targeted sugar bait phase III trials in Kenya, Mali, and Zambia. Trials. 2022;23:640.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06555-8
Fraser KJ, Mwandigha L, Traore SF, Traore MM, Doumbia S, Junnila A, et al. Estimating the potential impact of Attractive Targeted Sugar Baits (ATSBs) as a new vector control tool for Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Malar J. 2021;20:151.
doi: 10.1186/s12936-021-03684-4
pubmed: 33731111
pmcid: 7968277
Marshall JM, White MT, Ghani AC, Schlein Y, Muller GC, Beier JC. Quantifying the mosquito’s sweet tooth: modelling the effectiveness of attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) for malaria vector control. Malar J. 2013;12:291.
doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-12-291
pubmed: 23968494
pmcid: 3765557
Killeen GF, Marshall JM, Kiware SS, South AB, Tusting LS, Chaki PP, et al. Measuring, manipulating and exploiting behaviours of adult mosquitoes to optimise malaria vector control impact. BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2: e000212.
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000212
pubmed: 28589023
pmcid: 5444085
Traore MM, Junnila A, Traore SF, Doumbia S, Revay EE, Kravchenko VD, et al. Large-scale field trial of attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) for the control of malaria vector mosquitoes in Mali. West Africa Malar J. 2020;19:72.
pubmed: 32059671
Müller GC, Beier JC, Traore SF, Toure MB, Traore MM, Bah S, et al. Successful field trial of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) plant-spraying methods against malaria vectors in the Anopheles gambiae complex in Mali. West Africa Malar J. 2010;9:210.
pubmed: 20663142
Beier JC, Müller GC, Gu W, Arheart KL, Schlein Y. Attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) methods decimate populations of Anopheles malaria vectors in arid environments regardless of the local availability of favoured sugar-source blossoms. Malar J. 2012;11:31.
doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-31
pubmed: 22297155
pmcid: 3293779
Diarra RA, Traore MM, Junnila A, Traore SF, Doumbia S, Revay EE, et al. Testing configurations of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) stations in Mali, West Africa, for improving the control of malaria parasite transmission by vector mosquitoes and minimizing their effect on non-target insects. Malar J. 2021;20:184.
doi: 10.1186/s12936-021-03704-3
pubmed: 33853632
pmcid: 8048058
Zhu L, Marshall JM, Qualls WA, Schlein Y, McManus JW, Arheart KL, et al. Modelling optimum use of attractive toxic sugar bait stations for effective malaria vector control in Africa. Malar J. 2015;14:492.
doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-1012-9
pubmed: 26643110
pmcid: 4672472
Arnzen A, Wagman J, Chishya C, Orange E, Eisele TP, Yukich J, et al. Characteristics of the Western Province, Zambia, trial site for evaluation of attractive targeted sugar baits for malaria vector control. Malar J. 2024;23:153.
doi: 10.1186/s12936-024-04985-0
pubmed: 38762448
pmcid: 11102358
Chanda J, Wagman J, Chanda B, Kaniki T, N’gandu M, Muyabe R, et al. Feeding rates of malaria vectors from a prototype attractive sugar bait station in Western Province, Zambia: results of an entomological validation study. Malar J. 2023;22:70.
doi: 10.1186/s12936-023-04491-9
pubmed: 36855105
pmcid: 9974387
Yukich J, Eisele TP, terKuile F, Ashton R, Staedke S, Harris AF, et al. Master statistical analysis plan: attractive targeted sugar bait phase III trials in Kenya, Mali, and Zambia. Trials. 2023;24:771.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07762-7
pubmed: 38031086
pmcid: 10685482
Kyomuhangi I, Andrada A, Mao Z, Pollard D, Riley C, Bennett A, et al. Assessing national vector control micro-planning in Zambia using the 2021 malaria indicator survey. Malar J. 2023;22:365.
doi: 10.1186/s12936-023-04807-9
pubmed: 38037072
pmcid: 10688488
Orange E, Kyomuhangi I, Mwenya M, Mambo P, Kochelani S, Chama C, et al. Deployment of attractive targeted sugar baits in Western Zambia: installation, monitoring, removal, and disposal procedures during a Phase III cluster randomized control trial. Malar J. 2024;23:204.
doi: 10.1186/s12936-024-05030-w
pubmed: 38982496
pmcid: 11234656
WHO. Standard operating procedure for testing insecticide susceptibility of adult mosquitoes in WHO tube tests. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2022. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240043831 . Accessed 16 Apr 2024.
Parsons GJI, Lees RS, Balaska S, Vontas J. A practical insecticide resistance monitoring bioassay for orally ingested dinotefuran in Anopheles malaria vectors. Insects. 2022;13:13040311.
doi: 10.3390/insects13040311
Coetzee M. Key to the females of Afrotropical Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Malar J. 2020;19:70.
doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-3144-9
pubmed: 32054502
pmcid: 7020601
WHO. Training module on malaria control: malaria entomology and vector control. Guide for participants. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2013. https://www.who.int/malaria . Accessed 4 Jan 2022.
Detinova T. Age-grouping methods in Diptera of medical importance with special reference to some vectors of malaria. Monogr Ser World Health Organ. 1962;47:13–191.
pubmed: 13885800
Scott JA, Brogdon WG, Collins FH. Identification of single specimens of the Anopheles gambiae complex by the polymerase chain reaction. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993;49:520–9.
doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1993.49.520
pubmed: 8214283
Koekemoer LL, Kamau L, Hunt RH, Coetzee M. A cocktail polymerase chain reaction assay to identify members of the Anopheles funestus (Diptera: Culicidae) group. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002;66:804–11.
doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2002.66.804
pubmed: 12224596
Wirtz RA, Zavala F, Charoenvit Y, Campbell GH, Burkot TR, Schneider I, et al. Comparative testing of monoclonal antibodies against Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites for ELISA development. Bull World Health Organ. 1987;65:39–45.
pubmed: 3555879
pmcid: 2490858
Davidson G. Estimation of the survival rate of anopheline mosquitoes in nature. Nature. 1954;174:792–3.
doi: 10.1038/174792a0
pubmed: 13214009
Tusting LS, Bousema T, Smith DL, Drakeley C. Measuring changes in Plasmodium falciparum transmission: precision, accuracy and costs of metrics. Adv Parasitol. 2014;84:151–208.
doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800099-1.00003-X
pubmed: 24480314
pmcid: 4847140
Kelly-Hope LA, McKenzie FE. The multiplicity of malaria transmission: a review of entomological inoculation rate measurements and methods across sub-Saharan Africa. Malar J. 2009;8:19.
doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-8-19
pubmed: 19166589
pmcid: 2656515
van de Straat B, Russell TL, Staunton KM, Sinka ME, Burkot TR. A global assessment of surveillance methods for dominant malaria vectors. Sci Rep. 2021;11:15337.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-94656-w
pubmed: 34321525
pmcid: 8319300
Kilama M, Smith DL, Hutchinson R, Kigozi R, Yeka A, Lavoy G, et al. Estimating the annual entomological inoculation rate for Plasmodium falciparum transmitted by Anopheles gambiae s.l. using three sampling methods in three sites in Uganda. Malar J. 2014;13:111.
doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-111
pubmed: 24656206
pmcid: 4001112
Burkot TR, Bugoro H, Apairamo A, Cooper RD, Echeverry DF, Odabasi D, et al. Spatial-temporal heterogeneity in malaria receptivity is best estimated by vector biting rates in areas nearing elimination. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11:606.
doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-3201-1
pubmed: 30482239
pmcid: 6260740
Ntabaliba W, Vavassori L, Stica C, Makungwa N, Odufuwa OG, Swai JK, et al. Life expectancy of Anopheles funestus is double that of Anopheles arabiensis in southeast Tanzania based on mark-release-recapture method. Sci Rep. 2023;13:15775.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42761-3
pubmed: 37737323
pmcid: 10516982
Didham RK, Basset Y, Collins CM, Leather SR, Littlewood NA, Menz MHM, et al. Interpreting insect declines: seven challenges and a way forward. Insect Conserv Diversity. 2020;13:103–14.
doi: 10.1111/icad.12408
van Hul N, Braks M, van Bortel W. A systematic review to understand the value of entomological endpoints for assessing the efficacy of vector control interventions. EFSA Support Publ. 2021;18:6954E.
Brady OJ, Godfray HCJ, Tatem AJ, Gething PW, Cohen JM, Ellis McKenzie F, et al. Vectorial capacity and vector control: reconsidering sensitivity to parameters for malaria elimination. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2016;110:107–17.
doi: 10.1093/trstmh/trv113
pubmed: 26822603
pmcid: 4731004
Killeen GF, Chaki PP, Reed TE, L. Moyes C, Govella NJ, Killeen GF, et al. Entomological surveillance as a cornerstone of malaria elimination: a critical appraisal. In: Manguin S, Dev V (eds.). Towards malaria elimination—a leap forward. IntechOpen. 2018. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78007
Das S, Muleba M, Stevenson JC, Norris DE. Habitat partitioning of malaria vectors in Nchelenge District. Zambia Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;94:1234–44.
doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0735
pubmed: 27001755
Nambunga IH, Ngowo HS, Mapua SA, Hape EE, Msugupakulya BJ, Msaky DS, et al. Aquatic habitats of the malaria vector Anopheles funestus in rural south-eastern Tanzania. Malar J. 2020;19:219.
doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03295-5
pubmed: 32576200
pmcid: 7310514
Cross DE, Thomas C, McKeown N, Siaziyu V, Healey A, Willis T, et al. Geographically extensive larval surveys reveal an unexpected scarcity of primary vector mosquitoes in a region of persistent malaria transmission in western Zambia. Parasit Vectors. 2021;14:91.
doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04540-1
pubmed: 33522944
pmcid: 7849156
El-Sayed AM, Suckling DM, Byers JA, Jang EB, Wearing CH. Potential of “Lure and Kill” in long-term pest management and eradication of invasive species. J Econ Entomol. 2009;102:815–35.
doi: 10.1603/029.102.0301
pubmed: 19610395