Skip to main content

Impact of vector control interventions on malaria transmission intensity, outdoor vector biting rates and Anopheles mosquito species composition in Tororo, Uganda



Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying of insecticide (IRS) are widely recommended for the prevention of malaria in endemic regions. Data from human landing catches provide information on the impact of vector control on vector populations. Here, malaria transmission indoors and outdoors, before and after mass deployment of LLINs and IRS in Uganda was compared.


The study took place in Tororo district, a historically high transmission area where universal LLIN distribution was conducted in November 2013 and May 2017 and 6 rounds of IRS implemented from December 2014 to July 2018. Human landing catches were performed in 8 houses monthly from October 2011 to September 2012 (pre-intervention period) and every 4 weeks from November 2017 to October 2018 (post-intervention period). Mosquitoes were collected outdoors from 18:00 to 22:00 h and indoors from 18:00 to 06:00 h. Female Anopheles were tested for the presence of Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites and species identification performed using gross dissection and polymerase chain reaction (PCR).


The interventions were associated with a decline in human biting rate from 19.6 to 2.3 female Anopheles mosquitoes per house per night (p < 0.001) and annual entomological inoculation rate from 129 to 0 infective bites per person per year (p < 0.001). The proportion of mosquitoes collected outdoors increased from 11.6 to 49.4% (p < 0.001). Prior to the interventions the predominant species was Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto (s.s.), which comprised an estimated 76.7% of mosquitoes. Following the interventions, the predominant species was Anopheles arabiensis, which comprised 99.5% of mosquitoes, with almost complete elimination of An. gambiae s.s. (0.5%).


Mass distribution of LLINs and 6 rounds of IRS dramatically decreased vector density and sporozoite rate resulting in a marked reduction in malaria transmission intensity in a historically high transmission site in Uganda. These changes were accompanied by a shift in vector species from An. gambiae s.s. to An. arabiensis and a relative increase in outdoor biting.


Remarkable progress in malaria control over the last decade has been attributed to massive deployment of malaria control interventions including long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs), indoor residual spraying (IRS), and case management with artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) [1,2,3]. Studies of multiple malaria indicators in Tororo, Uganda, documented dramatic reductions in the incidence of malaria, prevalence of parasitaemia, test positivity rate (TPR), and annual entomological inoculation rates (aEIR) that began after IRS spraying commenced in December 2014 [4,5,6]. Prior to that, only a change in TPR had been observed in the months after a mass LLIN distribution in November 2013 [6]. The entomological data from Tororo suggests the effectiveness of vector-control interventions may have been modified by insecticide resistance [7]. Here, changes in vector populations and behaviour were investigated using human landing catches before and after initiation of vector control.

Responses to vector control can be affected by coverage of the intervention, by the composition of vector species and by insecticide resistance [8, 9]. Changes in the species composition of vector populations are commonly observed in response to vector-control interventions [10,11,12]. The changes in composition commonly occur when the vector species that are more sensitive to a specific vector-control measure become less common, leaving vector species that are less sensitive. These changes in composition are most obvious when the dominant species is reduced, although minor vectors may also increase, decrease or remain unchanged.

Changes in mosquito physiology and behaviour result to ineffectiveness vector-control interventions [13,14,15]. Physiological resistance involves changes in the sensitivity to the insecticides used in the control of the vectors, while behavioural resistance refers to changes that cause mosquitoes to avoid exposure [9, 16, 17]. Examples of behavioural adaptations include changing from late to early feeding, shifting from indoor to outdoor feeding, avoiding resting on LLINs or the walls sprayed with insecticides, and developing a preference to feed on non-human blood [13, 18,19,20,21].

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends increased surveillance for changes in vector biology, physiology and behaviour following implementation of IRS and LLINs [22]. In response to these recommendations, scientists working in Uganda, where pyrethroid resistance is prevalent and likely to undermine the impact of LLINs, have extensively studied the physiological adaptations of mosquitoes to insecticides [7, 16, 23,24,25]. Findings from these studies have been used to inform the vector control policy in the country, including the rotation of insecticides to avoid prolonged selection for resistance, and the deployment of LLINs that have piperonyl-butoxide (PBO) in addition to pyrethroid insecticides to enhance their activity [26]. However, little has been done regarding surveillance for behavioural adaptations and changes in malaria vector species composition following the roll-out of vector-control interventions in the country. Effects of LLINs and IRS on Anopheles transmission intensity, biting behaviour and species composition in Tororo, a historically high malaria transmission area in Uganda were investigated. Results from this study will further inform roll-out of vector-control interventions in Uganda as the country moves towards achieving malaria control and eventual elimination as stipulated in the global technical strategy [27].


Study setting and population-level, malaria-control interventions

The study was carried out in Nagongera sub-county, Tororo district, eastern Uganda. Tororo is historically a high malaria transmission area with the Plasmodium falciparum annual entomological inoculation rate (PfaEIR) estimated at 562 bites per person in 2001 and 125 in 2011–2012 [28, 29]. The area is characterized by savannah grassland interspersed with bare rocky outcrops and low-lying wetlands. There are typically two rainy seasons in this area with two peaks (May–June and November–December) with annual rainfall of 1000–1500 mm.

Malaria-control interventions in Tororo have included use of ACT for treatment of malaria, LLINs and IRS. Artemether-lumefantrine was adopted as first-line treatment for malaria in 2006 and is provided free of charge at the public health facilities. Tororo has had two rounds of universal free LLIN distribution, in November 2013 and June 2017, with the aim of delivering at least one LLIN for every 2 residents to over 90% of households [30]. Later studies show that 80% of the population used an LLIN among households that achieved universal coverage [31]. In December 2014, IRS with bendiocarb was introduced in Tororo for the first time. Although coverage of 90% was achieved in the district, some sub-counties such as Mulanda had as low as 78% coverage [32]. To date, the district has had 3 rounds of IRS with bendiocarb (December 2014–January 2015, June–July 2015, November–December 2015) and 4 rounds with Actellic (pirimiphos-methyl) (June–July 2016, July–August 2017, June–July 2018, March–April 2019).

Study procedures

Data collection using human landing catches was carried out in two phases. The first phase was conducted from October 2011 to September 2012 before the introduction of the vector-control interventions, and the second phase was carried out between November 2017 and October 2018, 4 years after the roll-out of the combined vector control interventions. The procedures for data collection have been previously described [28]. Briefly, 8 households were randomly selected from a previously generated enumeration list. The selected households were visited prior to onset of the study procedures and consent for the household to participate in the study was sought from the head of the household. Four trained field workers and one field entomology supervisor visited each selected household on a monthly basis during the first phase of the study and every 4 weeks during the second phase of the study. Two of the field workers were stationed outdoors 10 m from the house between 18:00 and 22:00 h and two were stationed indoors between 18:00 and 06:00 h. The times for the indoor and outdoor catches were selected to replicate the normal human behaviour in the study area, with many residents outdoors in the early evening and most retiring to bed by 22.00. For each cycle of collection, 2 households were visited each night on 4 consecutive nights to ensure that all 8 households were sampled in the same week.

During mosquito collection, field workers who acted as human baits wore shorts to expose their legs, and sat on 40-cm high stools. Female mosquitoes that landed on the exposed legs of the field workers were collected using aspirators and flashlights. Specimens collected were placed in paper cups, covered with netting to prevent their escape, and delivered to the laboratory at Nagongera Health Centre the following morning. Individual mosquitoes were put in labelled micro-tubes and stored in zip-lock bags with a desiccant.

Laboratory evaluations

Mosquitoes were sorted in the laboratory under a dissecting microscope to separate female Anopheles from male Anopheles, non-Anopheles, and other insects. Dichotomous keys were used to morphologically identify the different Anopheles species as previously described [33]. PCR was used to determine the species composition of Anopheles gambiae sensu lato (s.l.) complex using the protocol by Scott et al. [34]. Before vector-control interventions, a maximum of 10 mosquitoes per month were randomly selected for species determination. Since mosquito numbers markedly declined after initiation of the vector control interventions, species compositions of all An. gambiae s.l. were determined using PCR.

Infectivity of Anopheles with P. falciparum sporozoites was determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The head and thorax of each stored mosquito was separated from the rest of the body parts and ground in blocking buffer containing IGEPAL CA-630. An aliquot of 50 µl was transferred to plates coated with monoclonal antibodies and positive and negative controls added [35]. After a series of incubation and washing, the plate was read at 405–414 nm using an ELISA plate reader to differentiate between infected and non-infected mosquitoes.

Calculation of annual entomological inoculation rate

The aPfEIR, defined as the number of infective bites per person per year, was calculated as previously described [28]. Briefly, the PfEIR was calculated using the following formula:

$$ {\text{a}}Pf{\text{EIR}} = {\text{HBR}} \times {\text{sporozoite}}\;{\text{rate}} \times 365\;{\text{days/year,}} $$

where HBR (the human biting rate) is the number of female Anopheles mosquitoes collected per house per night, and the sporozoite rate is the proportion of mosquitoes that tested positive for sporozoites.

Data management and analysis

Data were double-entered into a Microsoft Access database and analysed using Stata (version 14.2, Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA). The primary exposure was the combined vector control interventions (pre-intervention versus post-intervention). Outcomes of interest included the HBR, sporozoite rate, aPfEIR, species compositions, and the proportion of mosquitoes collected outdoors. The HBR was further stratified based on whether mosquitoes were collected indoors or outdoors. Simple proportions were compared using a log-binomial regression model with generalized estimating equations to adjust for repeated measures from the same house. Incidence measures were compared using a negative binomial regression model with generalized estimating equations to adjust for repeated measures from the same house and measures of association expressed as the incidence rate ratio (incidence after the interventions/incidence before the interventions).


Malaria transmission intensity

Combination of IRS with LLINs was associated with an 88% reduction in the total HBR (from 19.6 to 2.3 bites per person per night, p < 0.001 Table 1). Stratification by source of the mosquitoes shows a higher decline in HBR in mosquitoes biting from indoors (17.3 to 1.2 bites per person per night) compared to those biting outdoors (2.3 to 1.2 mosquitoes per person per night) (risk difference (RD) = 16.1 for indoors versus RD = 1.1 for outdoors, p < 0.001). Accounting for rainfall, the daily HBR collapsed by month show low HBR following the large-scale deployment of vector control (Fig. 1). Before vector control 33/1878 (1.8%) of Anopheles samples tested positive for P. falciparum sporozoites, whilst after vector control none of the 243 mosquitoes sampled was sporozoite positive. Consequently, the aPfEIR dropped from 129 to 0 infective bites per person per year (p < 0.001) following vector control. The Bayesian confidence interval for the proportion of mosquitoes that were sporozoite positive was 0.2% (0–0.78%); a confidence interval on the post-control aPfEIR was approximately 1.7 (0–6.5 infective bites, per person, per year).

Table 1 Impact of vector interventions on malaria transmission intensity
Fig. 1

Monthly pattern of daily human biting rate by female Anopheles mosquitoes (red) and rainfall (blue) before and after intensive vector control interventions in Nagongera sub-county, Tororo district

Outdoor mosquito biting and time of biting

Increase in the proportion of mosquitoes collected outdoors from 11.6% before initiation of integrated vector control to 49.4% after initiation of integrated vector control was observed (p < 0.001). Overall, the number of Anopheles biting outdoors declined but they made up a larger proportion of the vector population after vector control than they did before initiation of vector control. Likewise, the proportion of mosquitoes collected indoors in the early evening (18.00 and 22.00) was higher after the interventions (198/1660 (11.9%) before interventions versus 41/123 (33.3%) after interventions, p < 0.001, Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Proportions of hourly indoor mosquito catches before (blue) and after (red) intensive vector control interventions in Nagongera sub county, Tororo district

Anopheles mosquito species composition

Before vector-control interventions, 1878 Anopheles were collected and identified morphologically, of these 91.9% (1725) were An. gambiae s.l., 3.7% (70) were Anopheles funestus s.l. and 4.4% (83) were other Anopheles. After vector-control interventions, 243 Anopheles were collected, of these 79.8% (194) were An. gambiae s.l. and 20.2% (49) were other Anopheles species. No An. funestus was collected. To determine how interventions impacted on the relative prevalence of the species comprising the gambiae complex, PCR was used to determine the species of 296 An. gambiae s.l. (103 pre-intervention, 193 post-interventions). PCR amplification failed in 7 specimens (2.3%). Before vector-control interventions, 76.7% of An. gambiae s.l. were An. gambiae s.s. (79/103) and 23.3% were Anopheles arabiensis (24/103). Following vector-control interventions, 99.5% of An. gambiae s.l. species were An. arabiensis (193/194) and only a single An. gambiae s.s. was collected (1/194, 0.5%, Table 2). The biting intensity associated with An. arabiensis pre-intervention was 4.2 bites per night (i.e., 19.6 bites per night × 0.214), whilst after the intervention it was 1.8 bites per night (i.e., 2.3 bites per night × 0.794).

Table 2 Vector species composition before and after vector control


Large-scale deployment of LLINs and IRS in an area with historically high levels of malaria was associated with an eightfold reduction in vector densities as measured by human landing catches, an increased proportion of vector biting outdoors and a shift in vector dominance from An. gambiae s.s. to An. arabiensis. Vector control, including high coverage of LLINs, 3 rounds of IRS using bendiocarb, a carbamate insecticide, and 3 rounds of IRS using Actellic, an organophosphate insecticide, resulted in an 88% reduction in the HBR. There was a substantial reduction in both indoor and outdoor Anopheles HBR after over 5 years of mass distribution of LLINs and repeated rounds of IRS.

The combination of the interventions resulted in a 93% reduction in indoor biting by malaria vectors and a 49% reduction in outdoor biting. The observed reduction is explained by a Bayesian spatio-temporal model supporting the hypothesis that the sharp decline in vector numbers was associated with high LLIN coverage and IRS [36, 37] although it is unclear whether the effect was due to LLINs or IRS or both. In a related study, no changes in malaria were observed in the aftermath of mass distributions of LLINs, but then sharp declines were observed after IRS [6]. Indeed, both bendiocarb and Actellic are persistent and effective insecticides for use against mosquitoes [38, 39]. However, although LLINs alone have been shown to reduce biting rates of Anopheles and consequently transmission intensity in Uganda [40, 41], LLINs alone were not sufficient to suppress malaria in northern Uganda after withholding IRS [42]. It is possible the LLINs enhanced the effect of IRS, but it is impossible to say from these data.

Whilst the actual number of bites outdoors and indoors declined following vector control, the relative abundance of mosquitoes collected biting outdoors increased from 11.6% before vector-control interventions to 49.4% after vector-control interventions. There was a shift in the relative abundance of species, as well; 71.5% of mosquitoes were Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto (s.s.) before vector control, whilst after vector control 79.4% were An. arabiensis. In 2001–2002 and 2011–2012, the major malaria vector species reported in the area, in order of dominance, were An. gambiae s.s., An. funestus and An. arabiensis [16, 28, 29]. However, the massive killing associated with vector control resulted in only one An. gambiae s.s. being collected and no An. funestus. Other studies have also shown that An. funestus, which is highly endophilic, is susceptible to IRS [43,44,45]. This shift in vector composition has been reported previously with the massive deployment of LLINs or IRS [10,11,12, 46] and is associated with the preferential killing of the highly endophilic and anthropophilic An. gambiae s.s., which is replaced by the more exophilic and zoophilic An. arabiensis [47]. In East Africa it has been shown that massive deployment of LLINs has resulted in a change in the species composition of the vectors, with the once dominant indoor vectors An. gambiae s.s. being replaced by An. arabiensis [13, 15, 48]. In these cases, whilst the overall number of vectors declines, there are proportionately more An. arabiensis than An. gambiae s.s. Overall the number of An. arabiensis biting outdoors declines, but they make up a larger proportion of the vector population after vector control than they did before. Anopheles arabiensis is an efficient malaria vector and is capable of maintaining malaria transmission [21, 49, 50], and is likely to do so in the study area even at low levels.

Both LLINs and IRS target mosquitoes that enter houses, and will also kill a proportion of outdoor-biting mosquitoes that enter houses, as indicated by the decline in number of outdoor-biting mosquitoes during the study. Thus, at least a proportion of mosquitoes collected outdoors are likely to enter houses during their lifetime. Although mosquitoes were not collected outdoors throughout the night, there was an indication that indoor-biting vectors were biting earlier in the evening after the intervention than before the intervention. This slight shift to early evening has been associated with the massive deployment of LLINs in sub-Saharan Africa [51], with 21% of biting occurring before the time people are in bed, a percentage higher than previously recorded.

After vector control, none of the 243 potential malaria vectors tested positive for P. falciparum sporozoites, compared to 1.8% sporozoites rate before the interventions were deployed, suggesting that vector control markedly reduced infectivity of mosquitoes with falciparum sporozoites. These results are consistent with other studies that have shown a sharp reduction in sporozoites rates after vector control. For example, after 3 rounds of spraying with insecticides in Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea, the sporozoite rate dropped from 8.3% before spraying to 0% after spraying with pyrethroid and carbamate insecticides [52]. Similarly in western Kenya, the sporozoite rate dropped from 3.4% before intervention to 0.8% after intervention with permethrin-treated bed nets [53]. These results suggest that high coverage and combinations of LLINs and IRS, where the mode of action of the insecticides on the walls and nets differ, are required to reduce the sporozoite rate.

Vector control was highly effective in the study area, but residual transmission begs the question, ‘What more needs to be done to eliminate malaria from the study area’? Addressing the issue of outdoor biting would help to further reduce malaria transmission, so mass drug administration or additional vector-based interventions that target outdoor biting could be considered [14, 54, 55], such as environmental management and larviciding, the use of insecticides on cattle, toxic sugar baits traps, spatial repellents, or transgenic mosquitoes [56, 57].

Limitations of the study

The study was not designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions in comparison with absence of such interventions since no similar entomological data were collected in other areas without such interventions.


This study has shown that high coverage of LLINs and IRS combined over 5 years markedly reduced malaria transmission in an area with historically high burdens of malaria. The combination of tools aimed at endophilic vectors reduced the number of vectors biting indoors and outdoors, but increased the proportion of outdoor biting and shifted the species composition of An. gambiae s.l. from predominantly An. gambiae s.s. to An. arabiensis. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of vector control based on the use of insecticides indoors in areas where vectors are highly endophilic. Despite the considerable reduction in malaria in this area, elimination was not achieved and supplementary measures will be required to achieve that goal.

Availability of data and materials

Data are available upon reasonable request by an email to the corresponding author.



artemisinin-based combination therapy


annual entomological inoculation rates


circumsporozoite protein


enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay


global positioning systems


human biting rate


intermittent preventive therapy in pregnancy


indoor residual spraying


long-lasting insecticidal nets


piperonyl butoxide


polymerase chain reaction


Plasmodium falciparum annual entomological inoculation rate


rapid diagnostic tests


test positivity rate


World Health Organization


  1. 1.

    Bhatt S, Weiss D, Cameron E, Bisanzio D, Mappin B, Dalrymple U, et al. The effect of malaria control on Plasmodium falciparum in Africa between 2000 and 2015. Nature. 2015;526:207.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Tukei BB, Beke A, Lamadrid-Figueroa H. Assessing the effect of indoor residual spraying (IRS) on malaria morbidity in Northern Uganda: a before and after study. Malar J. 2017;16:4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Eastman RT, Fidock DA. Artemisinin-based combination therapies: a vital tool in efforts to eliminate malaria. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009;7:864.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Oguttu DW, Matovu JKB, Okumu DC, Ario AR, Okullo AE, Opigo J, et al. Rapid reduction of malaria following introduction of vector control interventions in Tororo District, Uganda: a descriptive study. Malar J. 2017;16:227.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Nankabirwa JI, Briggs J, Rek J, Arinaitwe E, Nayebare P, Katrak S, et al. Persistent parasitemia despite dramatic reduction in malaria incidence after 3 rounds of indoor residual spraying in Tororo, Uganda. J Infect Dis. 2018;219:1104–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Katureebe A, Zinszer K, Arinaitwe E, Rek J, Kakande E, Charland K, et al. Measures of malaria burden after long-lasting insecticidal net distribution and indoor residual spraying at three sites in Uganda: a prospective observational study. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002167.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Okia M, Hoel DF, Kirunda J, Rwakimari JB, Mpeka B, Ambayo D, et al. Insecticide resistance status of the malaria mosquitoes: Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus in eastern and northern Uganda. Malar J. 2018;17:157.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Oxborough RM. Trends in US President’s Malaria Initiative-funded indoor residual spray coverage and insecticide choice in sub-Saharan Africa (2008–2015): urgent need for affordable, long-lasting insecticides. Malar J. 2016;15:146.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ranson H, Lissenden N. Insecticide resistance in African Anopheles mosquitoes: a worsening situation that needs urgent action to maintain malaria control. Trends Parasitol. 2016;32:187–96.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Derua YA, Alifrangis M, Hosea KM, Meyrowitsch DW, Magesa SM, Pedersen EM, et al. Change in composition of the Anopheles gambiae complex and its possible implications for the transmission of malaria and lymphatic filariasis in north-eastern Tanzania. Malar J. 2012;11:188.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kitau J, Oxborough RM, Tungu PK, Matowo J, Malima RC, Magesa SM, et al. Species shifts in the Anopheles gambiae complex: do LLINs successfully control Anopheles arabiensis? PLoS One. 2012;7:e31481.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Chinula D, Hamainza B, Chizema E, Kavishe DR, Sikaala CH, Killeen GF. Proportional decline of Anopheles quadriannulatus and increased contribution of An. arabiensis to the An. gambiae complex following introduction of indoor residual spraying with pirimiphos-methyl: an observational, retrospective secondary analysis of pre-existing data from south-east Zambia. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11:544.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Russell TL, Govella NJ, Azizi S, Drakeley CJ, Kachur SP, Killeen GF. Increased proportions of outdoor feeding among residual malaria vector populations following increased use of insecticide-treated nets in rural Tanzania. Malar J. 2011;10:80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Govella NJ, Ferguson H. Why use of interventions targeting outdoor biting mosquitoes will be necessary to achieve malaria elimination. Front Physiol. 2012;3:199.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Mwangangi JM, Mbogo CM, Orindi BO, Muturi EJ, Midega JT, Nzovu J, et al. Shifts in malaria vector species composition and transmission dynamics along the Kenyan coast over the past 20 years. Malar J. 2013;12:13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Mawejje HD, Wilding CS, Rippon EJ, Hughes A, Weetman D, Donnelly MJ. Insecticide resistance monitoring of field-collected Anopheles gambiae s.l. populations from Jinja, eastern Uganda, identifies high levels of pyrethroid resistance. Med Vet Entomol. 2013;27:276–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Benelli G, Beier JC. Current vector control challenges in the fight against malaria. Acta Trop. 2017;174:91–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD).

  19. 19.

    Gatton ML, Chitnis N, Churcher T, Donnelly MJ, Ghani AC, Godfray HCJ, et al. The importance of mosquito behavioural adaptations to malaria control in Africa. Evolution. 2013;67:1218–30.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Russell TL, Beebe NW, Cooper RD, Lobo NF, Burkot TR. Successful malaria elimination strategies require interventions that target changing vector behaviours. Malar J. 2013;12:56.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Burke A, Dahan-Moss Y, Duncan F, Qwabe B, Coetzee M, Koekemoer L, et al. Anopheles parensis contributes to residual malaria transmission in South Africa. Malar J. 2019;18:257.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    WHO. World malaria report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. p. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Verhaeghen K, Van Bortel W, Roelants P, Okello PE, Talisuna A, Coosemans M. Spatio-temporal patterns in kdr frequency in permethrin and DDT resistant Anopheles gambiae s.s. from Uganda. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010;82:566–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    John R, Ephraim T, Andrew A. Reduced susceptibility to pyrethroid insecticide treated nets by the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae s.l. in western Uganda. Malar J. 2008;7:92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Okia M, Ndyomugyenyi R, Kirunda J, Byaruhanga A, Adibaku S, Lwamafa DK, et al. Bioefficacy of long-lasting insecticidal nets against pyrethroid-resistant populations of Anopheles gambiae s.s. from different malaria transmission zones in Uganda. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:130.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Staedke SG, Kamya MR, Dorsey G, Maiteki-Sebuguzi C, Gonahasa S, Yeka A, et al. LLIN Evaluation in Uganda Project (LLINEUP)–impact of long-lasting insecticidal nets with, and without, piperonyl butoxide on malaria indicators in Uganda: study protocol for a cluster-randomised trial. Trials. 2019;20:321.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    WHO. Global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kilama M, Smith DL, Hutchinson R, Kigozi R, Yeka A, Lavoy G, et al. Estimating the annual entomological inoculation rate for Plasmodium falciparum transmitted by Anopheles gambiae s.l. using three sampling methods in three sites in Uganda. Malar J. 2014;13:111.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Okello PE, Van Bortel W, Byaruhanga AM, Correwyn A, Roelants P, Talisuna A, et al. Variation in malaria transmission intensity in seven sites throughout Uganda. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006;75:219–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    WHO. Recommendations for achieving universal coverage with long-lasting insecticidal nets in malaria control September 2013 (revised March 2014). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. who_recommendations_universal_coverage_llins.pdf.Online. Accessed 23-May-2016.

  31. 31.

    Wanzira H, Katamba H, Rubahika D. Use of long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets in a population with universal coverage following a mass distribution campaign in Uganda. Malar J. 2016;15:311.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Wadunde I, Mpimbaza A, Musoke D, Ssempebwa JC, Ediau M, Tuhebwe D, et al. Factors associated with willingness to take up indoor residual spraying to prevent malaria in Tororo district, Uganda: a cross-sectional study. Malar J. 2018;17:5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Gillies MT, Coetzee M. A supplement to the Anophelinae of Africa south of the Sahara. Publ S Afr Inst Med Res. 1987;55:1–143.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Scott JA, Brogdon WG, Collins FH. Identification of single specimens of the Anopheles gambiae complex by the polymerase chain reaction. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993;49:520–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Wirtz RA, Duncan JF, Njelesani EK, Schneider I, Brown AE, Oster CN, et al. ELISA method for detecting Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite antibody. Bull World Health Organ. 1989;67:535.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Alegana VA, Kigozi SP, Nankabirwa J, Arinaitwe E, Kigozi R, Mawejje H, et al. Spatio-temporal analysis of malaria vector density from baseline through intervention in a high transmission setting. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9:637.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Kang SY, Battle KE, Gibson HS, Cooper LV, Maxwell K, Kamya M, et al. Heterogeneous exposure and hotspots for malaria vectors at three study sites in Uganda. Gates Open Res. 2018;2:32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Akogbéto MC, Padonou GG, Gbénou D, Irish S, Yadouleton A. Bendiocarb, a potential alternative against pyrethroid resistant Anopheles gambiae in Benin, West Africa. Malar J. 2010;9:204.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Haji KA, Thawer NG, Khatib BO, Mcha JH, Rashid A, Ali AS, et al. Efficacy, persistence and vector susceptibility to pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic® 300CS) insecticide for indoor residual spraying in Zanzibar. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:628.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kabbale FG, Akol AM, Kaddu JB, Onapa AW. Biting patterns and seasonality of Anopheles gambiae sensu lato and Anopheles funestus mosquitoes in Kamuli District, Uganda. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:340.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Helinski M, Nuwa A, Protopopoff N, Feldman M, Ojuka P, Oguttu D, et al. Entomological surveillance following a long-lasting insecticidal net universal coverage campaign in Midwestern Uganda. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:458.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Raouf S, Mpimbaza A, Kigozi R, Sserwanga A, Rubahika D, Katamba H, et al. Resurgence of malaria following discontinuation of indoor residual spraying of insecticide in an area of Uganda with previously high-transmission intensity. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65:453–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Kaindoa EW, Matowo NS, Ngowo HS, Mkandawile G, Mmbando A, Finda M, et al. Interventions that effectively target Anopheles funestus mosquitoes could significantly improve control of persistent malaria transmission in south–eastern Tanzania. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0177807.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Mashauri FM, Manjurano A, Kinung’hi S, Martine J, Lyimo E, Kishamawe C, et al. Indoor residual spraying with micro-encapsulated pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic® 300CS) against malaria vectors in the Lake Victoria basin, Tanzania. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0176982.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Finda MF, Limwagu AJ, Ngowo HS, Matowo NS, Swai JK, Kaindoa E, et al. Dramatic decreases of malaria transmission intensities in Ifakara, south-eastern Tanzania since early 2000s. Malar J. 2018;17:362.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Mwangangi JM, Muturi EJ, Muriu SM, Nzovu J, Midega JT, Mbogo C. The role of Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles coustani in indoor and outdoor malaria transmission in Taveta District, Kenya. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:114.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Tirados I, Costantini C, Gibson G, Torr SJ. Blood-feeding behaviour of the malarial mosquito Anopheles arabiensis: implications for vector control. Med Vet Entomol. 2006;20:425–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Bayoh MN, Mathias DK, Odiere MR, Mutuku FM, Kamau L, Gimnig JE, et al. Anopheles gambiae: historical population decline associated with regional distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets in western Nyanza Province, Kenya. Malar J. 2010;9:62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Mendis C, Jacobsen J, Gamage-Mendis A, Bule E, Dgedge M, Thompson R, et al. Anopheles arabiensis and An. funestus are equally important vectors of malaria in Matola coastal suburb of Maputo, southern Mozambique. Med Vet Entomol. 2000;14:171–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Abduselam N, Zeynudin A, Berens-Riha N, Seyoum D, Pritsch M, Tibebu H, et al. Similar trends of susceptibility in Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles pharoensis to Plasmodium vivax infection in Ethiopia. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9:552.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Sherrard-Smith E, Skarp JE, Beale AD, Fornadel C, Norris LC, Moore SJ, et al. Mosquito feeding behavior and how it influences residual malaria transmission across Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:15086–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Sharp BL, Ridl FC, Govender D, Kuklinski J, Kleinschmidt I. Malaria vector control by indoor residual insecticide spraying on the tropical island of Bioko, Equatorial Guinea. Malar J. 2007;6:52.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Gimnig JE, Kolczak MS, Hightower AW, Vulule JM, Schoute E, Kamau L, et al. Effect of permethrin-treated bed nets on the spatial distribution of malaria vectors in western Kenya. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003;68:115–20.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Finda MF, Moshi IR, Monroe A, Limwagu AJ, Nyoni AP, Swai JK, et al. Linking human behaviours and malaria vector biting risk in south-eastern Tanzania. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0217414.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Beier JC, Wilke AB, Benelli G. Newer approaches for malaria vector control and challenges of outdoor transmission. In: Manguin S, Dec V, editors. Towards malaria elimination—a leap forward. New York: IntechOpen; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Afrane YA, Mweresa NG, Wanjala CL, Gilbreath TM III, Zhou G, Lee M-C, et al. Evaluation of long-lasting microbial larvicide for malaria vector control in Kenya. Malar J. 2016;15:577.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Tizifa TA, Kabaghe AN, McCann RS, van den Berg H, Van Vugt M, Phiri KS. Prevention efforts for malaria. Curr Trop Med Rep. 2018;5:41–50.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Otto Geoffrey, Kyagamba Patrick, Asiimwe R. Jackson who supervised the collection of mosquitoes and the members of the households from where mosquitoes were collected. Special thanks go to the human landing team for participating in mosquito collections by acting as human baits.


This research report is supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) as part of the International Centers of Excellence in Malaria Research (ICEMR) Program (U19AI089674) and the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number D43TW010526. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. SWL is supported by the Global Challenge Research Fund, JIN is supported by the Fogarty International Center (Emerging Global Leader Award Grant Number K43TW010365, and MDC is supported by the Fogarty International Center under Award Number K01TW010868.

Author information




MRK, SGS, GD, and SWL conceived and designed the study. AKM, MK, JR and EA participated in the data collection. JPE, DLS, GD, JIN, AKM, MDC, AMA, SWL, participated in the management and analysis of the data. All authors participated in the writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex K. Musiime.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Informed consent from the head of household or an adult household representative was obtained by the study entomologists. The study was approved by the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (HS-119ES), Makerere University School of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee (2017-099), the University of California, San Francisco Committee on Human Research (17-22544) and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (14266-6).

Consent for publication

All authors have given their consent for this publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Musiime, A.K., Smith, D.L., Kilama, M. et al. Impact of vector control interventions on malaria transmission intensity, outdoor vector biting rates and Anopheles mosquito species composition in Tororo, Uganda. Malar J 18, 445 (2019).

Download citation


  • Indoor residual spraying
  • Long-lasting insecticide nets
  • Malaria vector
  • Transmission
  • Biting rates