Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33497375›Full record

Trial reportPLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

The entomological impact of passive metofluthrin emanators against indoor Aedes aegypti: A randomized field trial.

Gregor J Devine, Gonzalo M Vazquez-Prokopec, Wilbert Bibiano-Marín, Norma Pavia-Ruz, Azael Che-Mendoza, Anuar Medina-Barreiro, Josue Villegas, Gabriela Gonzalez-Olvera, Mike W Dunbar, Oselyne Ong and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Gregor J DevineMosquito Control Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6312-0390
Gonzalo M Vazquez-ProkopecDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0710-270X
Wilbert Bibiano-MarínUnidad Colaborativa de Bioensayos Entomológicos, Campus de Ciencias. Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, México.ORCID 0000-0002-5975-4056
Norma Pavia-RuzCentro de Investigaciones Regionales Hideyo Noguchi, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, México.
Azael Che-MendozaUnidad Colaborativa de Bioensayos Entomológicos, Campus de Ciencias. Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, México.ORCID 0000-0001-9954-3678
Anuar Medina-BarreiroUnidad Colaborativa de Bioensayos Entomológicos, Campus de Ciencias. Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, México.ORCID 0000-0002-9919-126X
Josue VillegasUnidad Colaborativa de Bioensayos Entomológicos, Campus de Ciencias. Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, México.ORCID 0000-0002-1936-3624
Gabriela Gonzalez-OlveraUnidad Colaborativa de Bioensayos Entomológicos, Campus de Ciencias. Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, México.
Mike W DunbarDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Oselyne OngMosquito Control Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4095-950X
Scott A RitchieCollege of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Queensland, Cairns, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2764-911X
Thomas S ChurcherDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8442-0525
Oscar D KirsteinDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4765-7483
Pablo Manrique-SaideUnidad Colaborativa de Bioensayos Entomológicos, Campus de Ciencias. Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, México.
Autonomous University of Yucatán · MXEmory University · USQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AUImperial College London · GBJames Cook University · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the absence of vaccines or drugs, insecticides are the mainstay of Aedes-borne disease control. Their utility is challenged by the slow deployment of resources, poor community compliance and inadequate household coverage. Novel application methods are required. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL

findingsA 10% w/w metofluthrin "emanator" that passively disseminates insecticide from an impregnated net was evaluated in a randomized trial of 200 houses in Mexico. The devices were introduced at a rate of 1 per room and replaced at 3-week intervals. During each of 7 consecutive deployment cycles, indoor resting mosquitoes were sampled using aspirator collections. Assessments of mosquito landing behaviours were made in a subset of houses. Pre-treatment, there were no differences in Aedes aegypti indices between houses recruited to the control and treatment arms. Immediately after metofluthrin deployment, the entomological indices between the trial arms diverged. Averaged across the trial, there were significant reductions in Abundance Rate Ratios for total Ae. aegypti, female abundance and females that contained blood meals (2.5, 2.4 and 2.3-times fewer mosquitoes respectively; P<0.001). Average efficacy was 60.2% for total adults, 58.3% for females, and 57.2% for blood-fed females. The emanators also reduced mosquito landings by 90% from 12.5 to 1.2 per 10-minute sampling period (P<0.05). Homozygous forms of the pyrethroid resistant kdr alleles V410L, V1016L and F1534C were common in the target mosquito population; found in 39%, 24% and 95% of mosquitoes collected during the trial. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first randomized control trial to evaluate the entomological impact of any volatile pyrethroid on urban Ae. aegypti. It demonstrates that volatile pyrethroids can have a sustained impact on Ae. aegypti population densities and human-vector contact indoors. These effects occur despite the presence of pyrethroid-resistant alleles in the target population. Formulations like these may have considerable utility for public health vector control responses.

Indexed as

AedesAnimalsBehavior, AnimalCyclopropanesDengueEntomologyFamily CharacteristicsFemaleFluorobenzenesHumansInsecticide ResistanceInsecticidesMexicoMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsPrevalence(2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-4-methoxymethylphenyl)methyl-2,2-dimethyl-3-(1-propenyl)cyclopropanecarboxylateCyclopropanesFluorobenzenesInsecticidesPyrethrins

Identifiers

PMID33497375
PMCPMC7864418
OpenAlexW3122084850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.