Protecting migratory farmers in rural Tanzania using eave ribbons treated with the spatial mosquito repellent, transfluthrin

Table 3 Protection conferred indoors and outdoors against anopheline and culicine species in Kilisa rice farms when 1.5 and 2.5% transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons were fitted along the eaves of rice farm huts

Mosquito species	Treatment	Indoors				Outdoors
Mosquito species	Treatment	Total	Geometric mean (LCI-UCI)	% protection (LCI-UCI)	p values	Total	Geometric mean (LCI-UCI)	% protection (LCI-UCI)	p values
Anopheles arabiensis	Untreated	497	5.00 (4.20–5.94)	_	_	58	1.57 (1.31–1.90)	_	_
	1.5% transfluthrin	148	2.12 (1.70–2.64)	77 (64–85)	< 0.001	16	1.10 (0.95–1.28)	77 (48–90)	< 0.001
	2.5% transfluthrin	163	2.20 (1.74–2.78)	74 (59–84)	< 0.001	17	1.30 (1.00–1.69)	72 (37–88)	0.002
Anopheles funestus	Untreated	2093	20.71 (17.96–23.89)	_	_	479	4.30 (3.44–5.39)	_	_
	1.5% transfluthrin	868	9.84 (8.47–11.44)	60 (49–68)	< 0.001	184	2.18 (1.82–2.60)	56 (39–68)	< 0.001
	2.5% transfluthrin	988	10.85 (9.14–12.89)	60 (49–68)	< 0.001	169	2.25 (1.90–2.66)	59 (44–71)	< 0.001
Culex species	Untreated	282	3.09 (2.54–3.75)	_	_	12	1.22 (0.89–1.67)	_	_
	1.5% transfluthrin	44	1.55 (1.23–1.96)	84 (73–90)	< 0.001	4	1 (1–1)	63 (0 –91)	0.187
	2.5% transfluthrin	32	1.55 (1.20–1.99)	88 (79–93)	< 0.001	5	1.44 (0.30–6.97)	69 (0–94)	0.124
Mansonia species	Untreated	664	7.51 (6.31–8.94)	_	–	25	1.70 (1.26–2.31)	_	_
	1.5% transfluthrin	14	1.36 (0.92–2.00)	98 (96–99)	< 0.001	10	1.51 (0.92–2.50)	76 (0–97)	0.145
	2.5% transfluthrin	29	2.22 (1.29–3.83)	97 (93–98)	< 0.001	6	1.32 (0.55–3.15)	90 (25–99)	0.026

Each treatment arm had 21 nights of sampling. Percentage protective efficacy is estimated for each treatment relative to the respective controls
n number of nights, LCI lower confidence interval, UCI upper confidence interval, p value Wald’s p value

ISSN: 1475-2875