Sikaala Chadwick H, Chinula Dingani, Chanda Javan, Hamainza Busiku, Mwenda Mulenga, Mukali Isabel, Kamuliwo Mulakwa, Lobo Neil F, Seyoum Aklilu, Killeen Gerry F
National Malaria Control Centre, Chainama Hospital College Grounds, Off Great East road, P,O, Box 32509 Lusaka, Zambia.
Malar J. 2014 Jun 7;13:225. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-225.
Monitoring mosquito population dynamics is essential to guide selection and evaluation of malaria vector control interventions but is typically implemented by mobile, centrally-managed teams who can only visit a limited number of locations frequently enough to capture longitudinal trends. Community-based (CB) mosquito trapping schemes for parallel, continuous monitoring of multiple locations are therefore required that are practical, affordable, effective, and reliable.
A CB surveillance scheme, with a monthly sampling and reporting cycle for capturing malaria vectors, using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention light traps (LT) and Ifakara Tent Traps (ITT), were conducted by trained community health workers (CHW) in 14 clusters of households immediately surrounding health facilities in rural south-east Zambia. At the end of the study, a controlled quality assurance (QA) survey was conducted by a centrally supervised expert team using human landing catch (HLC), LT and ITT to evaluate accuracy of the CB trapping data. Active surveillance of malaria parasite infection rates amongst humans was conducted by CHWs in the same clusters to determine the epidemiological relevance of these CB entomological surveys.
CB-LT and CB-ITT exhibited relative sampling efficiencies of 50 and 7%, respectively, compared with QA surveys using the same traps. However, cost per sampling night was lowest for CB-LT ($13.6), followed closely by CB-ITT ($18.0), both of which were far less expensive than any QA survey (HLC: $138, LT: $289, ITT: $269). Cost per specimen of Anopheles funestus captured was lowest for CB-LT ($5.3), followed by potentially hazardous QA-HLC ($10.5) and then CB-ITT ($28.0), all of which were far more cost-effective than QA-LT ($141) and QA-ITT ($168). Time-trends of malaria diagnostic positivity (DP) followed those of An. funestus density with a one-month lag and the wide range of mean DP across clusters was closely associated with mean densities of An. funestus caught by CB-LT (P < 0.001).
CB trapping schemes appear to be far more affordable, epidemiologically relevant and cost-effective than centrally supervised trapping schemes and may well be applicable to enhance intervention trials and even enable routine programmatic monitoring of vector population dynamics on unprecedented national scales.
监测蚊虫种群动态对于指导疟疾媒介控制干预措施的选择和评估至关重要，但通常由流动的、集中管理的团队实施，这些团队只能频繁访问有限数量的地点以捕捉纵向趋势。因此，需要基于社区的（CB）蚊虫诱捕方案，用于对多个地点进行并行、连续监测，且该方案要切实可行、价格合理、有效且可靠。
在赞比亚东南部农村地区卫生设施周围紧邻的14个住户集群中，由经过培训的社区卫生工作者（CHW）实施一项CB监测方案，该方案采用疾病控制与预防中心的诱蚊灯（LT）和伊法卡拉帐篷诱捕器（ITT），每月进行采样和报告以捕获疟蚊。在研究结束时，由一个集中监督的专家团队使用人饵诱捕法（HLC）、LT和ITT进行对照质量保证（QA）调查，以评估CB诱捕数据的准确性。CHW在相同集群中对人类疟疾寄生虫感染率进行主动监测，以确定这些CB昆虫学调查的流行病学相关性。
与使用相同诱捕器的QA调查相比，CB-LT和CB-ITT的相对采样效率分别为50%和7%。然而，CB-LT每个采样夜的成本最低（13.6美元），CB-ITT紧随其后（18.0美元），两者都比任何QA调查便宜得多（HLC：138美元，LT：289美元，ITT：269美元）。捕获的嗜人按蚊每个样本的成本，CB-LT最低（5.3美元），其次是有潜在危险的QA-HLC（10.5美元），然后是CB-ITT（28.0美元），所有这些都比QA-LT（141美元）和QA-ITT（168美元）更具成本效益。疟疾诊断阳性率（DP）的时间趋势与嗜人按蚊密度的时间趋势滞后一个月，各集群中广泛的平均DP与CB-LT捕获的嗜人按蚊平均密度密切相关（P < 0.001）。
CB诱捕方案似乎比集中监督的诱捕方案更经济实惠、在流行病学上更具相关性且更具成本效益，很可能适用于加强干预试验，甚至能够在前所未有的国家规模上对媒介种群动态进行常规规划监测。
