Skip to content

Advertisement

Volume 11 Supplement 1

Challenges in malaria research

  • Oral presentation
  • Open Access

Does mosquito mortality in WHO insecticide susceptibility tests relate to mosquito mortality in LLIN experimental hut studies?

  • 1, 2,
  • 1, 2 and
  • 1, 2
Malaria Journal201211 (Suppl 1) :O43

https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-11-S1-O43

  • Published:

Keywords

  • Susceptibility Test
  • Mosquito Population
  • Personal Protection
  • Mosquito Mortality
  • Insecticide Concentration

Background

With the rise of insecticide resistance, there are concerns that insecticide treated nets (LLINs) will become less effective against malaria transmission. The WHO insecticide susceptibility (tube/ cylinder) test is a standard for estimating mosquito susceptibility to insecticide. The test measures the proportion of mosquitoes that die when exposed to an insecticide with a certain concentration. Whereas, with fully susceptible mosquito populations, mortality is 100% with 0.05% deltamethrin, but with resistant populations, mortality can be below 15%. However, little is known how susceptibility results in these tests relate to effectiveness of LLINs in the field. Experimental huts provide semi-field conditions and provide a more direct way of estimating the effect of susceptibility of mosquitoes to interventions than WHO susceptibility tests. This work assesses the degree to which mortality in WHO susceptibility tests correlates to mortality in experimental hut studies with LLINs.

Materials and methods

For seven wild mosquito populations, published experimental hut results [15] were available for untreated, twenty times washed, and unwashed nets, for which the insecticide content was also measured. Nets were either artificially holed (hut assays for six populations), or intact (hut essays for one population). For six of these populations, mortality in WHO susceptibility tests were also published. These data were used to estimate deterrence (reduction in hut entry), the proportion of mosquitoes attacking of those entered, and pre- and post prandial mortality, as a function of LLIN insecticide concentration and as a function of holed area. These variables were also used to define personal protection (reduction in bites received), and corrected mortality (mosquito mortality), as a function of insecticide concentration and holed area. Using these parameterizations, the corrected mortality in experimental huts for all populations was calculated for a standard net with a fixed deltamethrin concentration of 17.44 mg.m–2 and 96 cm2 holed area.

Results

The Pearson correlation coefficient for the correlation between corrected mortality values and mortality in WHO susceptibility tests was strong and positive at r=0.92. However, for personal protection, the correlation was much weaker (r=0.54).

Conclusions

Our analysis concludes that the WHO susceptibility tests give a good indication of the killing efficacy of LLINs in semi-field conditions. However, the efficacy of LLINs in the field is not only determined by direct mortality, but also by personal protection and deterrence, for which correlations are much weaker.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland
(2)
University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

References

  1. Tungu P, Magesa S, Maxwell C, Malima R, Masue D, Sudi W, Myamba J, Pigeon O, Rowland M: Evaluation of PermaNet 3.0 a deltamethrin-PBO combination net against Anopheles gambiae and pyrethroid resistant Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes: an experimental hut trial in Tanzania. Malar J. 2010, 9: 21-10.1186/1475-2875-9-21. 21PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Corbel V, Chabi J, Dabire RK, Etang J, Nwane R, Pigeon O, Akogbeto M, Hougard JM: Field efficacy of a new mosaic long-lasting mosquito net (PermaNet 3.0) against pyrethroid-resistant malaria vectors: a multi centre study in Western and Central Africa. Malar J. 2010, 9: 113-10.1186/1475-2875-9-113. 113PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Koudou BG, Koffi AA, Malone D, Hemingway J: Efficacy of PermaNet(R) 2.0 and PermaNet(R) 3.0 against insecticide- resistant Anopheles gambiae in experimental huts in Cote d’lvoire. Malar J. 2011, 10: 172-10.1186/1475-2875-10-172. 172PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. N’Guessan R, Asidi A, Boko P, Odjo A, Akogbeto M, Pigeon O, Rowland M: An experimental hut evaluation of PermaNet((R)) 3.0, a deltamethrin-piperonyl butoxide combination net, against pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae and Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes in southern Benin. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2010, 104 (12): 758-765. 10.1016/j.trstmh.2010.08.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Van Bortel W, Chinh VD, Berkvens D, Speybroeck N, Trung HD, Coosemans M: Impact of insecticide-treated nets on wild pyrethroid resistant Anopheles epiroticus population from southern Vietnam tested in experimental huts. Malar J. 2009, 8: 248-10.1186/1475-2875-8-248. 248PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement