| Literature DB >> 23028499 |
Laura Brosseau1, Papa Makhtar Drame, Patrick Besnard, Jean-Claude Toto, Vincent Foumane, Jacques Le Mire, François Mouchet, Franck Remoue, Richard Allan, Filomeno Fortes, Pierre Carnevale, Sylvie Manguin.
Abstract
Human antibody (Ab) response to Anopheles whole saliva, used as biomarker of Anopheles exposure, was investigated over a period of two years (2008-2009), in children between 2 to 9 years old, before and after the introduction of three different malaria vector control methods; deltamethrin treated long lasting impregnated nets (LLIN) and insecticide treated plastic sheeting (ITPS)--Zero Fly®) (ITPS-ZF), deltamethrin impregnated Durable (Wall) Lining (ITPS-DL--Zerovector®) alone, and indoor residual spraying (IRS) with lambdacyhalothrin alone. These different vector control methods resulted in considerable decreases in all three entomological (82.4%), parasitological (54.8%) and immunological criteria analyzed. The highest reductions in the number of Anopheles collected and number of positive blood smears, respectively 82.1% and 58.3%, were found in Capango and Canjala where LLIN and ITPS-ZF were implemented. The immunological data based on the level of anti-saliva IgG Ab in children of all villages dropped significantly from 2008 to 2009, except in Chissequele. These results indicated that these three vector control methods significantly reduced malaria infections amongst the children studied and IRS significantly reduced the human-Anopheles contact. The number of Anopheles, positive blood smears, and the levels of anti-saliva IgG Ab were most reduced when LLIN and ITPS-ZF were used in combination, compared to the use of one vector control method alone, either ITPS-DL or IRS. Therefore, as a combination of two vector control methods is significantly more effective than one control method only, this control strategy should be further developed at a more global scale.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23028499 PMCID: PMC3454387 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Implementation of each vector control method in pair villages (population size) in December 2008.
| Villages | Parasitic index | Vector control methods |
| Capango (∼200 inhabitants) | 86% | LLIN + ITPS-ZF |
| Canjala (∼900 inhabitants) | 65% | |
| Chissequele (∼420 inhabitants) | 95% | ITPS-DL (green) |
| Barragem (∼620 inhabitants) | 70% | ITPS-DL (grey) |
| Libata (∼1,350 inhabitants) | 95% | IRS |
| Candiero (∼660 inhabitants) | 63% |
LLIN, Long lasting insecticidal net; ITPS-ZF, insecticide treated plastic sheeting-Zero Fly®; ITPS-DL, Durable wall lining; IRS, Insecticide residual spraying.
, Parasitic index (% of infected people) based on a survey done in April 2006.
, IRS done twice in Dec 08 and June 09.
Figure 1Map of the Balombo area with the localization of the six study sites.
Number and frequency of Anopheles specimens collected in each village and for all villages in 2008 and 2009 and density peaks per village.
| Villages | Number of | Decrease (%) between 2008 and 2009 |
| ||
| 2008 | 2009 | ||||
| Capango (n = 175) | 147 (84%) | 28 (16%) | 81.0 | 82.1 | April 08, n = 76 (43%) |
| Oct 08, n = 53 (30%) | |||||
| Canjala (n = 42) | 37 (88%) | 5 (12%) | 86.4 | April 08, n = 18 (43%) | |
| Chissequele (n = 56) | 53 (95%) | 3 (5%) | 94.3 | 73.2 | April 08, n = 19 (34%) |
| Oct 08, n = 11 (20%) | |||||
| Nov 08, n = 13 (23%) | |||||
| Barragem (n = 34) | 18 (53%) | 16 (47%) | 11.1 | Oct 08, n = 5 (15%) | |
| Sept 09, n = 7 (21%) | |||||
| Libata (n = 57) | 46 (81%) | 11 (19%) | 76.1 | 77.7 | Feb 08, n = 24 (42%) |
| Candiero (n = 58) | 48 (83%) | 10 (17%) | 79.2 | Feb 08, n = 14 (24%) | |
| April 08, n = 23 (40%) | |||||
|
|
|
|
| ||
, Number of Anopheles collected by CDC light traps in 10 houses per village once every 2 months from Feb. 2008 to Dec. 2009.
, χ2 values: between 82.1% and 73.2%, χ2 = 1.576 (p = 0.209, NS); between 82.1% and 77.7%, χ2 = 0.515 (p = 0.473, NS); between 77.7% and 73.2%, χ2 = 0.261 (p = 0.609, NS), (NS: non-significant).
Number of positive blood smears on the total of collected samples (frequency of positive blood smears) for 2–9 years old children in each village in 2008 and 2009, and decrease (%) in number of positive blood smears between 2009 and 2008.
| Villages | Number of positive blood smears on total of collected samples (%) | Decrease (%) between 2008 and 2009 | Peaks of infection rate (% positive blood smears) | |||
| 2008 | 2009 | 2008 | 2009 | |||
| Capango | 84/258 (32.6%) | 38/303 (12.5%) | 61.7 | 58.3 | April (51.1%) | April (22.2%) |
| Canjala | 255/539 (47.3%) | 79/356 (22.2%) | 53.1 | February (53.5%) | February (40.4%) | |
| Chissequele | 124/421 (29.5%) | 68/400 (17.0%) | 42.4 | 51.0 | February (38.6%) | February (28.4%) |
| Barragem | 142/382 (37.2%) | 51/333 (15.3%) | 58.9 | February (57.1%) | April (27.1%) | |
| Libata | 307/618 (49.7%) | 85/403 (21.1%) | 57.5 | 53.7 | February (63.6%) | February (32.7%) |
| Candiero | 141/488 (28.9%) | 70/423 (16.5%) | 42.9 | October (34.2%) | February (32.8%) | |
| TOTAL | 1053/2706 (38.9%) | 391/2218 (17.6%) | 54.8 | |||
, χ2 values: between 58.3% and 51.0%, χ2 = 0.33 (p = 0.56, NS); between 58.3% and 53.7%, χ2 = 0.17 (p = 0.68, NS); between 53.7% and 51.0%, χ2 = 0.03 (p = 0.85, NS), (NS: non-significant).
Figure 2Evolution of the median values of the IgG antibody response to Anopheles saliva for all 6 villages combined according to the survey period in 2008 and 2009 (VC: vector control methods implemented in December 2008).
Figure 3Evolution of the median values of the IgG antibody response to Anopheles saliva for each vector control method according to the survey period in 2008 and 2009.
A, Insecticide treated plastic sheeting-durable wall lining (ITPS-DL); B, Long lasting insecticide net (LLIN) and Zero fly (ITPS-ZF); C, Insecticide residual spraying (IRS) done in December 2008 and June 2009 (Not available data for 6 surveys: April 2008 for Capango, Chissequele and Libata; February 2009 for Candiero; June 2009 for Canjala and Barragem).
Significance of the implementation of each vector control method on IgG antibody response to Anopheles saliva in each village by comparison of years 2008 and 2009 and specific surveys in 2008 and 2009.
| Vector control methods | LLIN+ITPS-ZF | ITPS-DL | IRS | |||
| Villages | Capango | Canjala | Chissequele | Barragem | Libata | Candiero |
| Surveys | P value | |||||
| 2008/2009 |
|
| NS |
|
|
|
| Dec 08/Feb 09 |
|
|
|
| NS |
|
| Feb 08/Feb 09 | NS |
| NA | NS |
| NS |
| Dec 08/Dec 09 | NS |
|
| NS |
|
|
LLIN+ITPS-ZF, ITPS-DL, and IRS.
NS, non significant;
, significant at p<0.05;
, significant at p<0.001;
NA, non applicable.
Figure 4Comparison of median values of the IgG antibody response to Anopheles saliva obtained before and after implementation of each vector control method respectively in 2008 and 2009.
LLIN+ITPS-ZF (Canjala, Capango); ITPS-DL (Barragem, Chissequele) ; IRS (Libata, Candiero).