Search

Objective: Failure to control domestic Triatoma infestans in the Chaco is attributed to vulnerable adobe construction, which provides vector refuges and diminishes insecticide contact. We conducted a pilot to test the impact of housing improvement plus indoor residual spraying (IRS) on house infestation and vector abundance in a rural community in the Bolivian Chaco. Methods: The intervention included three arms: housing improvement + IRS [HI], assisted IRS [AS] in which the team helped to clear the house pre‐IRS and routine IRS [RS]. HI used locally available materials, traditional construction techniques and community participation. Vector parameters were assessed by Timed Manual Capture for 2 person‐hours per house at baseline and medians of 114, 173, 314, 389 and 445 days post‐IRS‐1. A second IRS round was applied at a median of 314 days post‐IRS‐1. Results: Post‐intervention infestation indices and abundance fell in all three arms. The mean odds of infestation was 0.29 (95% CL 0.124, 0.684) in the HI relative to the RS arm. No difference was observed between AS and RS. Vector abundance was reduced by a mean 44% (24.8, 58.0) in HI compared to RS, with no difference between AS and RS. Median delivered insecticide concentrations per house were lower than the target of 50 mg/m2 in >90% of houses in all arms. Conclusion: Housing improvement using local materials and community participation is a promising strategy to improve IRS effectiveness in the Bolivian Chaco. A larger trial is needed to quantify the impact on reinfestation over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: A glutathione S-transferase (GST) from the mosquito Aedes aegypti (aagste2), selected in the field as a major metabolic resistance enzyme for this parasite vector, was employed to produce a highly specific assay for the determination of DDT [1,1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene]. Detection is based on the pH change occurring in an appropriate buffer system by the concomitant release of H+ during the aagste2-catalyzed dehydrochlorination reaction and is monitored potentiometrically or colorimetrically in the presence of a pH marker. The theoretical limit of detection (LOD) of the assay is 3.8μg/ml, and the linear range of quantification is 12 to 250μg/ml. The method does not recognize biologically inactive DDT analogues or major DDT photodegradants and breakdown molecules, and it is highly specific for the insecticidal p.p’DDT [1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethane]. The biosensor was validated with a number of insecticide swabs from DDT-sprayed surfaces and found to be reproducible and reliable as compared with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (correlation coefficient R 2 =0.98). Given the current expansion of DDT residual sprayings in many regions of Africa as a key strategic intervention for malaria vector control, this simple assay to monitor DDT levels for vector control spraying programs could have an important impact on malaria control. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Simple Summary: A group of insecticides, called pyrethroids, are the main strategy for controlling the mosquito vectors of malaria. Pyrethroids are used in all insecticide-treated bednets, and many indoor residual spray programmes (in which insecticides are sprayed on the interior walls of houses). There are different types of pyrethroids within the class (e.g., deltamethrin and permethrin). Across the world, mosquitoes are showing signs of resistance to the pyrethroids, such as reduced mortality following contact. However, it is unclear if this resistance is uniform across the pyrethroid class (i.e., if a mosquito is resistant to deltamethrin, whether it is resistant to permethrin at the same level). In addition, it is not known if switching between different pyrethroids can be used to effectively maintain mosquito control when resistance to a single pyrethroid has been detected. This review examined the evidence from molecular studies, resistance testing from laboratory and field data, and mosquito behavioural assays to answer these questions. The evidence suggested that in areas where pyrethroid resistance exists, different mortality seen between the pyrethroids is not necessarily indicative of an operationally relevant difference in control performance, and there is no reason to rotate between common pyrethroids (i.e., deltamethrin, permethrin, and alpha-cypermethrin) as an insecticide resistance management strategy. Pyrethroid resistance is widespread in malaria vectors. However, differential mortality in discriminating dose assays to different pyrethroids is often observed in wild populations. When this occurs, it is unclear if this differential mortality should be interpreted as an indication of differential levels of susceptibility within the pyrethroid class, and if so, if countries should consider selecting one specific pyrethroid for programmatic use over another. A review of evidence from molecular studies, resistance testing with laboratory colonies and wild populations, and mosquito behavioural assays were conducted to answer these questions. Evidence suggested that in areas where pyrethroid resistance exists, different results in insecticide susceptibility assays with specific pyrethroids currently in common use (deltamethrin, permethrin, α-cypermethrin, and λ-cyhalothrin) are not necessarily indicative of an operationally relevant difference in potential performance. Consequently, it is not advisable to use rotation between these pyrethroids as an insecticide-resistance management strategy. Less commonly used pyrethroids (bifenthrin and etofenprox) may have sufficiently different modes of action, though further work is needed to examine how this may apply to insecticide resistance management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]