Table 2 Potential sustainability of transmission blocking strategies in malaria control, elimination and eradication programmes
From: Sustainable malaria control: transdisciplinary approaches for translational applications
| Subgroup | Advantages | Disadvantages | Sustainability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prevention of mosquito bites | ITNs/LLINs[1, 10, 11] | Cheap and easy to implement | Only offers protection during sleeping time | Mosquitoes can still transmit malaria before sleeping time |
| Repellents[27] | Effective in preventing bites | Short residual efficacy, strong smell, irritating to the skin | Does not reduce vector populations; mosquitoes will simply migrate to areas where repellents are not in use | |
| Attractants[28] | Safe for humans and environment, cheap | Chemicals that attract have not been fully isolated | Very promising technique | |
| House design[29] | Very effective and cheap | Closing up eaves increases indoor temperatures | Does not reduce vector populations, but worked well for Europe and North America | |
| Killing of mosquitoes after they have bitten | IRS[1, 12] | Breaks transmission cycle | Too much reliance on DDT; dusting of sprayed insecticides a problem, labour-intensive | Residual efficacy limited to at most one season |
| ITWL[30, 31] | Similar to IRS but eliminates dusting and short residual efficacy of insecticides | User acceptability may be a challenge | Emerging polymer technology will eliminate the need to spray chemicals | |
| IRS/ITWL with natural insecticides[32, 33] | Low mammalian toxicity | Short residual efficacy | Pyrethrin is the most effective insecticide |