在泰国进行的半野外评估，比较了使用人体着陆捕捉器（HLC）与有人诱捕双网陷阱（HDN）来评估挥发性拟除虫菊酯空间驱避剂和经拟除虫菊酯处理的衣物对微小按蚊着陆的影响。

A semi-field evaluation in Thailand of the use of human landing catches (HLC) versus human-baited double net trap (HDN) for assessing the impact of a volatile pyrethroid spatial repellent and pyrethroid-treated clothing on Anopheles minimus landing.

机构信息

Malaria Elimination Initiative, University of California, 550 16th street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.

Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH), Kreuzstrasse 2, 4123, Allschwil, Switzerland.

出版信息

Malar J. 2023 Jul 3;22(1):202. doi: 10.1186/s12936-023-04619-x.

DOI:10.1186/s12936-023-04619-x

PMID:37400831

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10318828/

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The mosquito landing rate measured by human landing catches (HLC) is the conventional endpoint used to evaluate the impact of vector control interventions on human-vector exposure. Non-exposure based alternatives to the HLC are desirable to minimize the risk of accidental mosquito bites. One such alternative is the human-baited double net trap (HDN), but the estimated personal protection of interventions using the HDN has not been compared to the efficacy estimated using HLC. This semi-field study in Sai Yok District, Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand, evaluates the performance of the HLC and the HDN for estimating the effect on Anopheles minimus landing rates of two intervention types characterized by contrasting modes of action, a volatile pyrethroid spatial repellent (VSPR) and insecticide-treated clothing (ITC).

METHODS

Two experiments to evaluate the protective efficacy of (1) a VPSR and (2) ITC, were performed. A block randomized cross-over design over 32 nights was carried out with both the HLC or HDN. Eight replicates per combination of collection method and intervention or control arm were conducted. For each replicate, 100 An. minimus were released and were collected for 6 h. The odds ratio (OR) of the released An. minimus mosquitoes landing in the intervention compared to the control arm was estimated using logistic regression, including collection method, treatment, and experimental day as fixed effects.

RESULTS

For the VPSR, the protective efficacy was similar for the two methods: 99.3%, 95% CI (99.5-99.0) when measured by HLC, and 100% (100, Inf) when measured by HDN where no mosquitoes were caught (interaction test p = 0.99). For the ITC, the protective efficacy was 70% (60-77%) measured by HLC but there was no evidence of protection when measured by HDN [4% increase (15-27%)] (interaction test p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Interactions between mosquitoes, bite prevention tools and the sampling method may impact the estimated intervention protective efficacy. Consequently, the sampling method must be considered when evaluating these interventions. The HDN is a valid alternative trapping method (relative to the HLC) for evaluating the impact of bite prevention methods that affect mosquito behaviour at a distance (e.g. VPSR), but not for interventions that operate through tarsal contact (e.g., ITC).

摘要

背景

通过人体诱蚊灯（human landing catches，HLC）测量的蚊虫降落率是评估蚊虫控制干预措施对人类与蚊虫接触影响的常规终点。为了尽量降低意外蚊虫叮咬的风险，需要替代基于非暴露的 HLC。人诱双层蚊帐捕蚊器（human-baited double net trap，HDN）就是一种替代方法，但使用 HDN 估计干预措施的个人防护效果尚未与使用 HLC 估计的效果进行比较。本研究在泰国北碧府赛育区进行了一项半现场研究，评估了 HLC 和 HDN 对两种作用模式截然不同的干预措施（挥发性拟除虫菊酯空间驱避剂（volatile pyrethroid spatial repellent，VSPR）和经杀虫剂处理的衣物（insecticide-treated clothing，ITC））对微小按蚊降落率影响的估计效果。

方法

进行了两项评估（1）VSPR 和（2）ITC 防护效果的实验。使用 HLC 或 HDN 进行了 32 个夜晚的块随机交叉设计实验。在每个实验中，每 100 只微小按蚊释放一组，收集 6 小时。采用逻辑回归，将收集方法、处理方法和实验日作为固定效应，估计释放的微小按蚊在干预组与对照组的降落比的比值比（odds ratio，OR）。

结果

对于 VSPR，两种方法的保护效果相似：通过 HLC 测量为 99.3%（95%CI 99.5-99.0），通过 HDN 测量为 100%（100，Inf），因为在 HDN 中没有捕获到蚊虫（交互检验，p=0.99）。对于 ITC，通过 HLC 测量的保护效果为 70%（60-77%），但通过 HDN 测量时没有证据表明有保护作用[增加 4%（15-27%）]（交互检验，p<0.001）。