| Literature DB >> 27660149 |
Vanderson S Sampaio1,2,3, Tatiana P Beltrán4,5, Kevin C Kobylinski6, Gisely C Melo5, José B P Lima7, Sara G M Silva4, Íria C Rodriguez4, Henrique Silveira4,8, Maria G V B Guerra4,5, Quique Bassat9,10, Paulo F P Pimenta4,11, Marcus V G Lacerda4,12, Wuelton M Monteiro4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Strategies designed to advance towards malaria elimination rely on the detection and treatment of infections, rather than fever, and the interruption of malaria transmission between mosquitoes and humans. Mass drug administration with anti-malarials directed at eliminating parasites in blood, either to entire populations or targeting only those with malaria infections, are considered useful strategies to progress towards malaria elimination, but may be insufficient if applied on their own. These strategies assume a closer contact with populations, so incorporating a vector control intervention tool to those approaches could significantly enhance their efficacy. Ivermectin, an endectocide drug efficacious against a range of Anopheles species, could be added to other drug-based interventions. Interestingly, ivermectin could also be useful to target outdoor feeding and resting vectors, something not possible with current vector control tools, such as impregnated bed nets or indoor residual spraying (IRS).Entities:
Keywords: Amazon; Anopheles aquasalis; Ivermectin; Malaria elimination; Vector control
Year: 2016 PMID: 27660149 PMCID: PMC5034551 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-016-1540-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Lethal concentrations of ivermectin for Anopheles aquasalis
| LC (%) | Drug concentration (ng/ml) [95 % CI] |
|---|---|
| 5 | 18.28 [14.51–21.45] |
| 10 | 22.52 [18.73–25.62] |
| 15 | 25.92 [22.23–28.90] |
| 20 | 29.00 [25.47–31.81] |
| 25 | 31.92 [28.60–34.57] |
| 30 | 34.79 [31.70–37.29] |
| 40 | 40.66 [38.03–42.91] |
| 50 | 47.03 [44.68–49.40] |
LC lethal concentration
Fig. 1Effects of ivermectin on the survivorship of Anopheles aquasalis. a Mosquitoes fed on a volunteer blood meal with ivermectin 4 h post ingestion (HPI 4); b Mosquitoes fed on volunteers’ blood meal with ivermectin 2 days post ingestion (DPI 2); c Mosquitoes fed on volunteers’ blood meal with ivermectin 7 days post ingestion (DPI 7); d Mosquitoes fed on volunteers’ blood meal with ivermectin 14 days post ingestion (DPI 14)
Shared frailty Cox model of time post-ingestion effects on Anopheles aquasalis survivorship
| HR [95 % CI] | p value | |
|---|---|---|
| Time post ingestion | ||
| Control | 1 | – |
| HPI 4 | 3.184 [2.775–3.653] | 0.0001 |
| DPI 2 | 1.972 [1.734–2.244] | 0.0001 |
| DPI 5 | 1.727 [1.510–1.976] | 0.0001 |
| DPI 7 | 1.380 [1.213–1.572] | 0.0001 |
| DPI 14 | 1.437 [1.259–1.640] | 0.0001 |
Hazard ratios for time post-ingestion
HPI hours post ingestion, DPI days post ingestion, LR likelihood-ratio
Fig. 2Effects of ivermectin on the reproductive fitness of Anopheles aquasalis. a Effects on number of eggs per female (fecundity); b Effects on eggs that produced larvae (eggs hatch rate); c Effects on number of pupae that developed from larvae
Fig. 3Kaplan–Meier survival function curves. Comparison of different blood meal types. Survival proportion significantly increased in DFA compared with MFA (X [N = 2.623] = 0.2, p < 0.05). MFA membrane feeding assay, DFA direct feeding assay
Fig. 4Mortality proportion of mosquitoes fed with blood containing ivermectin at the second day after blood meals. Comparison of MFA and DFA methods (p < 0.001) and between male and female volunteers (p < 0.001). MFA membrane feeding assay, DFA direct feeding assay
Shared frailty Cox model of feeding assay effect on Anopheles aquasalis survivorship
| HR [95 % CI] | p value | |
|---|---|---|
| Feeding type | ||
| MFA | 1 | – |
| DFA | 1.726 [1.573–1.895] | 0.0001 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 1 | – |
| Female | 1.314 [1.199–1.442] | 0.0001 |
MFA membrane feeding assay, DFA direct feeding assay