| Literature DB >> 21477321 |
Tanya L Russell1, Nicodem J Govella, Salum Azizi, Christopher J Drakeley, S Patrick Kachur, Gerry F Killeen.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) represent the front-line tools for malaria vector control globally, but are optimally effective where the majority of baseline transmission occurs indoors. In the surveyed area of rural southern Tanzania, bed net use steadily increased over the last decade, reducing malaria transmission intensity by 94%.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21477321 PMCID: PMC3084176 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-80
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Kilombero and Ulanga districts (8.1°S and 36.6°E) in Tanzania showing Njagi and Lupiro villages.
Figure 2The hourly indoor and outdoor biting profile of . The grey shading represents the proportion of the human population indoors. The value of 1 was added to each mean to avoid zero values for presentation using a log scale.
The proportion (bites per person per night) of mosquitoes caught indoors and during sleeping hours during 1997, 2004 and 2009.
| Year | n/Na, b | Odds ratio [95% CI] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | ||||
| 1997c | 0.585 ± 0.019 | 394/674 | 1.00 | NA |
| 2004 | 0.660 ± 0.006 | 3,916/5,931 | 1.113 [0.887 - 1.395] | 0.354 |
| 2009 | 0.575 ± 0.008 | 2,390/4,160 | 0.970 [0.770 - 1.221] | 0.796 |
| Overall influence of Year | 6,700/10,765 | NA | 0.248 | |
| | ||||
| 1997c | 0.608 ± 0.025 | 217/357 | 1.00 | NA |
| 2004 | 0.463 ± 0.055 | 38/82 | 0.726 [0.461 - 1.142] | 0.166 |
| 2009 | 0.298 ± 0.027 | 86/288 | 0.455 [0.323 - 0.641] | <0.0001 |
| Overall influence of Year | 341/727 | NA | 0.0001 | |
| | ||||
| 1997c | 0.957 ± 0.008 | 645/674 | 1.00 | NA |
| 2004 | 0.902 ± 0.004 | 5,347/5,931 | 0.942 [0.840 - 1.056] | 0.305 |
| 2009 | 0.794 ± 0.006 | 3,303/4,160 | 0.829 [0.738 - 0.933] | 0.0018 |
| Overall influence of Year | 9,295/10,765 | NA | <0.0001 | |
| | ||||
| 1997c | 0.980 ± 0.007 | 350/357 | 1.00 | NA |
| 2004 | 0.829 ± 0.042 | 68/82 | 0.846 [0.594 - 1.208] | 0.354 |
| 2009 | 0.704 ± 0.027 | 203/288 | 0.719 [0.570 - 0.907] | 0.0054 |
| Overall influence of Year | 621/727 | NA | 0.0200 | |
Proportions for each survey period are compared using GLMMs with a binomial distribution, a categorical explanatory variable for study year and a random factor for date.
a Proportion of mosquitoes caught indoors calculated as: (I18→06 hrs)/(I18→06 hrs + O18→06 hrs)
b Proportion of mosquitoes caught during hours when most people are asleep calculated as: (I21→05 hrs + O21→05 hrs)/(I18→06 hrs + O18→06 hrs)
c Formed the reference category for the GLMM
Figure 3The hourly indoor and outdoor profile of human contact with . This stacked line graph presents estimates of human indoor and outdoor contact rates, taking into consideration the movement pattern of people by weighting the mean indoor and outdoor biting rates throughout the night by the proportion of humans that are typically indoors or outdoors at each time period [3]. The value of 1 was added to each mean to avoid zero values for presentation using a log scale.
The proportion of human contact with mosquito bites occurring indoors (πi) in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania during 1997, 2004 and 2009.
| Year | n/Na | Odds ratio [95% CI] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997b | 0.997 ± 0.002 | 366/367 | 1.00 | NA |
| 2004 | 0.926 ± 0.004 | 3,622/3,912 | 0.928 [0.797 - 1.080] | 0.337 |
| 2009 | 0.820 ± 0.008 | 1,964/2,395 | 0.822 [0.703 - 0.962] | 0.0143 |
| Overall influence of Year | 5,952/6,674 | NA | 0.0019 | |
| 1997b | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 210/210 | 1.00 | NA |
| 2004 | 0.761 ± 0.063 | 35/46 | 0.761 [0.471 - 1.229] | 0.264 |
| 2009 | 0.505 ± 0.048 | 54/107 | 0.504 [0.345 - 0.737] | 0.0004 |
| Overall influence of Year | 299/363 | NA | 0.0014 | |
Proportions for each survey period are compared using GLMMs with a binomial distribution, a categorical explanatory variable for study year and a random factor for date.
a Calculated as: (I21→05 hrs)/(I21→05 hrs + O18,19,20,06 hrs)
b Formed reference category for GLMM
Figure 4Graphical comparison of the historical and recent estimates of the proportion of human contact with Anophelines occurring indoors (π. The proportion of human contact with mosquito bites occurring indoor (πi) was calculated by taking into consideration the movement pattern of people using two methods: (A) by weighting the mean indoor and outdoor biting rates throughout the night by the proportion of humans that are typically indoors or outdoors at each time period and (B) using the formula: (I21→05 hrs)/(I21→05 hrs + O05→21 hrs).
Figure 5The sibling species composition of the . For (A), the plotted line represents the predicted fit (β) of a GLM with a binary distribution and a logistic link function (Solid line = fitted; Dashed lines = se). References: 2002: [19]; 2003: [30]; 2005: [31]; 2007: [26,32]; 2008: [33] and Moore et al. Unpublished data; 2009: [34] and current data.