| Literature DB >> 31906969 |
Nicholas J Martin1, Vu S Nam2, Andrew A Lover3, Tran V Phong2, Tran C Tu2, Ian H Mendenhall4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The complexity of mosquito-borne diseases poses a major challenge to global health efforts to mitigate their impact on people residing in sub-tropical and tropical regions, to travellers and deployed military personnel. To supplement drug- and vaccine-based disease control programmes, other strategies are urgently needed, including the direct control of disease vectors. Modern vector control research generally focuses on identifying novel active ingredients and/or innovative methods to reduce human-mosquito interactions. These efforts include the evaluation of spatial repellents, which are compounds capable of altering mosquito feeding behaviour without direct contact with the chemical source.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles dirus; Anopheles minimus; Malaria elimination; Southeast Asia; Spatial repellent; Transfluthrin; Vietnam
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31906969 PMCID: PMC6945573 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-019-3092-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Relationship between proportion mortality/knock-down and sampling distance. Mean values across all time points, pooled across replicates (a An. dirus and b An. minimus)
Fig. 2Relationship between proportion mortality/knock-down and sampling time at each distance, by vector species, pooled across replicates
Fig. 3Proportion of vectors repelled, attracted or with neutral movement from transfluthrin source at each experimental sampling distance, by species (a An. dirus and b An. minimus)
Multivariable fractional response general linear models for interval-based proportion of vectors with mortality/knock-down (errors adjusted for experimental replicates)
| Factor | Relative proportion ratio | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sampling time (h) | |||
| 0 | 32.69 | 27.11–30.42 | < 0.001 |
| 2 | Ref. | – | – |
| 4 | 0.42 | 0.35–0.50 | < 0.001 |
| 8 | 0.32 | 0.26–0.39 | < 0.001 |
| 24 | 2.9 e−0.8 | 2.49 e−08–3.25 e−08 | < 0.001 |
| Sampling distance (m) | |||
| 2 | 3.41 | 2.91–4.00 | < 0.001 |
| 4 | 3.25 | 2.37–4.46 | < 0.001 |
| 8 | 2.10 | 1.57–2.81 | < 0.001 |
| 12 | 1.26 | 0.91–1.75 | 0.161 |
| 16 | Ref | – | – |
| Sampling height (m) | |||
| 0 | 1.93 | 1.69–2.20 | < 0.001 |
| 1.5 | 1.53 | 1.33–1.76 | < 0.001 |
| 2.0 | Ref | – | – |
| Species | |||
| | Ref | – | – |
| | 1.31 | 1.18–1.45 | < 0.001 |
| Square type | |||
| 1 × 3 | Ref | – | – |
| 2 × 3 | 2.08 | 1.69–2.56 | < 0.001 |
| Percent RH (median daily) | |||
| Numeric | 0.996 | 0.99–1.00 | 0.071 |
| Temperature, F (median daily) | |||
| Numeric | 1.01 | 1.001–1.021 | 0.025 |
Multivariable fractional response general linear models for interval-based proportion of vectors with mortality/knock-down with inclusion of transfluthrin sampling data (errors adjusted for experimental replicates)
| Factor | Relative proportion ratio | 95% CI | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sampling time (h) | |||
| 0 | 48.53 | 32.39–72.73 | < 0.001 |
| 2 | Ref. | – | – |
| 4 | 0.37 | 0.23–0.60 | < 0.001 |
| 8 | 0.36 | 0.22–0.60 | < 0.001 |
| 24 | 1.33 e−0.7 | 9.48 e−08–1.87 e−07 | < 0.001 |
| Sampling distance (m) | |||
| 2 | 5.26 | 3.31–8.35 | < 0.001 |
| 4 | 4.59 | 1.46–14.44 | 0.009 |
| 8 | 2.44 | 0.81–7.35 | 0.114 |
| 12 | 1.78 | 0.63–5.03 | 0.275 |
| 16 | Ref | – | – |
| Sampling height (m) | |||
| 0 | 2.25 | 1.62–3.12 | < 0.001 |
| 1.5 | 1.83 | 1.33–2.51 | < 0.001 |
| 2.0 | Ref | – | – |
| Species | |||
| | Ref | – | – |
| | 1.48 | 1.13–1.92 | 0.003 |
| Transfluthrin detected | |||
| No | Ref | ||
| Yes (≥ 20 ng) | 1.57 | 1.23–2.01 | < 0.001 |
| Percent RH (median daily) | |||
| Numeric | 0.997 | 0.80–1.01 | 0.747 |
| Temperature, F (median daily) | |||
| Numeric | 0.90 | 0.84–0.97 | 0.007 |
Fig. 4Proportion of total vectors showing mortality or knock-down by sampling distance; all time points and heights shown. (N = 25 mosquitoes per replicate) (a An. dirus and b An. minimus)
Fig. 5Comparison of the proportion of total vectors that showed any activation (either repelled or attracted); and proportion of those that were attracted out of the total that were activated (see “Methods”)
Multivariable fractional response general linear models for proportion of total vectors activated (showing either repellency from or attraction to source) (errors adjusted for experimental replicates)
| Factor | Relative proportion ratio | 95% CI | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time (h) | |||
| 0 | Ref. | – | – |
| 2 | 0.065 | 0.040–0.11 | < 0.001 |
| 4 | 0.0067 | 0.037–0.012 | < 0.001 |
| 8 | 0.0056 | 0.0032–0.010 | < 0.001 |
| 24 | 1.6 e−0.9 | 1.19e−09–2.13e−09 | < 0.001 |
| Distance (m) | |||
| 2 | 0.74 | 0.58–0.98 | 0.031 |
| 4 | 0.85 | 0.69–1.05 | 0.131 |
| 8 | 1.01 | 0.89–1.15 | 0.869 |
| 12 | 0.98 | 0.83–1.13 | 0.680 |
| 16 | Ref | – | – |
| Species | |||
| | Ref | – | – |
| | 1.91 | 1.51–2.41 | < 0.001 |
| Trial | |||
| 1 | Ref | – | – |
| 2 | 2.36 | 2.32–2.40 | < 0.001 |
| 3 | 3.50 | 3.43–3.57 | < 0.001 |
| 4 | 2.10 | 2.07–2.12 | < 0.001 |
| 5 | 1.70 | 1.69–1.72 | < 0.001 |
| 6 | 1.38 | 1.37–1.38 | < 0.001 |
Multivariable fractional response general linear models for proportion of vectors showing repellency from the total of all vectors exhibiting taxis (errors adjusted for replicates and trial)
| Factor | Relative proportion ratio | 95% CI | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distance (m) | |||
| 2 | 1.02 | 0.85–1.21 | 0.846 |
| 4 | 1.08 | 0.95–1.21 | 0.217 |
| 8 | 1.13 | 1.03–1.25 | 0.011 |
| 12 | 1.07 | 0.94–1.23 | 0.299 |
| 16 | Ref | – | – |
| Species | |||
| | Ref | – | – |
| | 1.21 | 1.13–1.30 | < 0.001 |