Supplementary effect and durability of prototype insecticide-treated eave curtains on indoor resting mosquitoes in Kadibo division, Western Kenya.

BACKGROUND

Use of insecticide treated bednets (ITNs) was a breakthrough in the fight against malaria. However, ITNs are only effective when properly used. Recent reports indicate low compliance in ITN usage and changes in biting times of malaria vectors with early and late biting cases recorded when people are not sleeping under their nets. Hence, there is a need to develop methods to supplement or replace the use of ITNs for malaria vector control. A field trial was conducted to investigate the effect and longevity of prototypes of long lasting impregnated UV protected eave nets, curtains and door hangers (fully screened houses), compared to houses with bednets only, in traditional East African houses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomised controlled trial was carried out in the Ahero rice irrigation scheme in Nyando district, Western Kenya. Eighty houses with open eaves were randomly selected. Forty of these houses were fully screened (FSH+LLINs) with long lasting insecticide-treated nets/curtains used to screen the eaves, windows and doors. The FSH materials were produced with anti-UV additives. The other 40 houses served as controls. Long lasting insecticide-treated bednets (LLINs) were suspended over all sleeping areas in the control and intervention houses. Indoor resting mosquitoes were collected using pyrethrum spray catches (PSC) during both dry and wet seasons. Indoor population densities of anophelines were compared between intervention (FSH+LLINs) and control (LLINs) houses. Loss of insecticide (deltamethrin) was compared after 12 and 24 months for both the FSH materials and LLINs through bioassays and chemical analyses.

RESULTS

In the FSH+LLINs houses densities of indoor resting and were reduced by 82% (RR=0.18, 95% CI 0.09-0.36, P<0.0001) and 70% (RR=0.30, 95% CI 0.15-0.58, P<0.0001), respectively. No significant difference was recorded for indoor resting spp. (RR=0.95, 95% CI 0.48-1.86, P=0.8). The population of indoor resting bloodfed and was reduced by 72% (RR=0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.51, P<0.0001) and 84% (RR=0.16, 95% CI 0.07-0.33, P<0.0001) in the FSH+LLINs houses and LLIN houses, respectively. Insecticide loss in eave nets did not depend on the side of the house where the nets were placed. The eave nets showed little loss of bio efficacy over the 12-24 months period.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that the use of insecticide-treated nets on the eaves and windows combined with door hangers largely impeded entrance of anopheline mosquitoes into houses and can be used to compliment LLINs for household protection. The eave nets were suspended from wood structures near the eave and remained in place when walls were re-plastered. The nets are therefore not depending on daily compliance behaviour and provide protection for the entire household.