| Literature DB >> 33115495 |
Charles Kakilla1, Alphaxard Manjurano2, Karen Nelwin3, Jackline Martin3, Fabian Mashauri3, Safari M Kinung'hi3, Eric Lyimo3, Doris Mangalu3, Lucy Bernard3, Nduka Iwuchukwu4, Dismasi Mwalimu5, Naomi Serbantez6, George Greer6, Kristen George7, Richard M Oxborough8, Stephen M Magesa4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vector control through long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and focal indoor residual spraying (IRS) is a major component of the Tanzania national malaria control strategy. In mainland Tanzania, IRS has been conducted annually around Lake Victoria basin since 2007. Due to pyrethroid resistance in malaria vectors, use of pyrethroids for IRS was phased out and from 2014 to 2017 pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic® 300CS) was sprayed in regions of Kagera, Geita, Mwanza, and Mara. Entomological surveillance was conducted in 10 sprayed and 4 unsprayed sites to determine the impact of IRS on entomological indices related to malaria transmission risk.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles arabiensis; Anopheles funestus; Anopheles gambiae; Indoor residual spraying; Malaria vectors; Pirimiphos-methyl; Seasonality; Species composition; Tanzania
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33115495 PMCID: PMC7594290 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-020-03452-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Annual spray status of districts around the Lake Victoria basin from 2015 to 2017, showing number of structures sprayed and percentage of total structures sprayed
| Region | District | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kagera | Ngara | Sprayed 37,240 (98.7%) | Sprayed 52,885 (97.6%) | Sprayed 61,422 (97.3%) |
| Biharamuloa | Sprayed 42,767 (93.3%) | Not sprayed | Not sprayed | |
| Muleba | Sprayed 81,294 (98.6%) | Not sprayed | Not sprayed | |
| Chato | Sprayed 53,899 (92.5%) | Sprayed 73,249 (95.8%) | Sprayed 83,163 (90.7%) | |
| Missenyi | Not sprayed | Sprayed 44,111 (97.3% | Sprayed 49,494 (97.3%) | |
| Bukoba Rural | Not sprayed | Sprayed 63,346 (99.4%) | Sprayed 69,083 (98.5%) | |
| Mwanza | Magu | Sprayed 58,234 (91.8%) | Not sprayed | Not sprayed |
| Misungwi | Sprayed 47,638 (92.4%) | Not sprayed | Not sprayed | |
| Sengerema | Not sprayed | Sprayed 97,012 (92.3%) | Sprayed 122,476 (94.6%) | |
| Kwimba | Not sprayed | Sprayed 71,733 (90.3% | Sprayed 90,634 (95.9%) | |
| Simiyu | Busegab | Not sprayed | Not sprayed | Not sprayed |
| Mara | Rorya | Sprayed 77,228 (91.6%) | Not sprayed | Not sprayed |
| Musoma Rural | Not sprayed | Sprayed 35,151 (95.8%) | Sprayed 40,981 (93.4%) | |
| Butiama | Not sprayed | Sprayed 50,066 (94.9%) | Sprayed 58,386 (94.3%) | |
| Tarimea | Not sprayed | Not sprayed | Not sprayed | |
| Geita | Geita Town Council | Sprayed 21,363 (96.6%) | Sprayed (approx. 20,000 by Geita Gold Mine) | Sprayed (approx. 20,000 by Geita Gold Mine) |
| Nyang'hwale | Not sprayed | Not sprayed | Sprayed 50,099 (95.5%) | |
| Bukombeb | Not sprayed | Not sprayed | Not sprayed | |
| Mainland Total | 419,753(94.2%) | 487,553(94.9%) | 625,738(95.1%) | |
aControl for 2017 entomological survey
bControl for 2016, 2017 entomological survey
Fig. 1Study sites. Map of entomological surveillance sites in districts surrounding Lake Victoria, NW Tanzania. Showing all sites from entomological monitoring surveys conducted between 2015 and 2017
Overview of monthly cone bioassay in sprayed houses to determine residual efficacy
| Year | No. of districts | No. of wall types tested (a) | No. of houses tested p/month (b) | Cone replicates p/month (c) | No. of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 7 | 5 | 70 | 210 | 2100 |
| 2016 | 8 | 5 | 80 | 160 | 1600 |
| 2017 | 10 | 5 | 100 | 200 | 2000 |
(a) Five surface types of wall tested were mud, cement, painted, white wash and burnt brick. (b) There were at least 2 houses per surface type. (c) In 2015, 3 cones were placed on treated wall surfaces (1.5 m 1 m, 0.5 m); while in 2016 and 2017 only 2 cones were placed at 2 m and 1 m height from the floor, respectively
Mosquito sampling methods, number of sites sampled, frequency of trapping and outcomes
| Method | Sites | Number of houses/ traps | Frequency | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDC light trap | 10 IRS sites + 4 control sites | 2 houses per site per night; 1 light trap per house per night | 28 nights per month 2016–17 | Species composition and indoor vector abundance |
| CDC Light trap fitted with bottle rotator (CBR) | 4 IRS sites + 4 control sites | 10 houses per site per month; 2 CBRs per house per night (one indoors and one outdoors) | 10 nights per month 2017 | Species composition Biting pattern / activity Blood meal analysis |
| Prokopack aspirator | 4 IRS sites + 4 controls | 10 houses per site per month | 20 days per month 2017 | Species composition Indoor resting density |
Fig. 2Mean monthly percentage mortality (24 h) of Anopheles gambiae (Kisumu). Mean represents 24 h mortality after 30 min cone bioassay on mud, cement, painted, white wash, and burnt brick walls that were sprayed with Actellic® 300CS in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The red dotted line shows the WHO standard cut-off (80% mortality)
Fig. 3Mean nightly indoor catch of Anopheles gambiae s.l. and Anopheles funestus s.l. Indoor density of An. gambiae s.l. and An. funestus s.l. collected from CDC light traps for sampling period 2016–2017 (except for Nyang’hwale (sprayed, 2017) and Tarime (unsprayed, 2017) where data were collected in 2017 only). a Kagera region with Biharamulo as control site. b Mwanza region with Busega (a close by site, in Simiyu region, as a control site. c Mara region with Tarime as control site. d Geita region with Bukombe as control sites. Arrows indicate time when IRS was conducted
Fig. 4Biting rate for Anopheles gambiae s.l. Mean biting time of An. gambiae s.l. from CBR conducted indoors and outdoors. Mean hourly biting rate is indicated from 18:00 to 06:00 in sprayed and unsprayed areas
Fig. 5Mosquito species composition. Species composition expressed as a proportion of Anopheles species tested by PCR in respective years a 2016 b 2017. In 2016, 8 of 10 sites were sprayed with Actellic® 300CS; in 2017, 9 of 13 sites were sprayed with Actellic® 300CS
Fig. 6Indoor resting density for Anopheles gambiae s.l. a Kagera region with Biharamulo as control. b Geita, and Mwanza region with Bukombe and Busega as controls, respectively. c Mara region with Tarime as control. Arrows indicate time when IRS was conducted. Analysis of variance indicate significantly higher (p < 0.05) indoor resting densities across regions (i.e., Kagera, Geita, Mwanza, Mara)
Sporozoite rates disaggregated by vector species and spray status from 2017 sampling
| Mosquito species | Spray status | No. of samples analyzed | Number sporozoite positive | Sporozoite rate % (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sprayed | 118 | 3 | 2.5 (0.5–7.2) | 0.876 | |
| Unsprayed | 177 | 5 | 2.8 (0.9–6.5) | ||
| Sprayed | 1924 | 16 | 0.8 (0.5–1.3) | 0.003 | |
| Unsprayed | 1442 | 29 | 2.0 (1.3–2.9) | ||
| Sprayed | 108 | 3 | 2.8 (0.6–7.9) | 0.480 | |
| Unsprayed | 630 | 27 | 4.3 (2.8–6.2) | ||
| Sprayed | 362 | 4 | 1.1 (0.3–2.8) | 0.840 | |
| Unsprayed | 73 | 1 | 1.4 (0.03–7.4) |