Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39695591›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2024

The effect of novel mosquito bite prevention tools on Anopheles minimus landing and key secondary endpoints: semi-field evaluations in Thailand.

Élodie A Vajda, Amanda Ross, Manop Saeung, Arissara Pongsiri, David J McIver, Allison Tatarsky, Nakul Chitnis, Jeffrey Hii, Jason H Richardson, Michael Macdonald and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Élodie A VajdaUniversity of California, San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. elodie.vajda@ucsf.edu.
Amanda RossSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse, 2CH-4123, Allschwil, Switzerland.
Manop SaeungKasetsart University, 50 Thanon Ngamwongwan, Lat Yao, Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900, Thailand.
Arissara PongsiriArmed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences, 315/6 Ratchawithi Road, Thung Phaya Thai, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.
David J McIverUniversity of California, San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Allison TatarskyUniversity of California, San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Nakul ChitnisSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse, 2CH-4123, Allschwil, Switzerland.
Jeffrey HiiUniversity of California, San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Jason H RichardsonLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Innovative Vector Control Consortium, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Michael MacdonaldLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Innovative Vector Control Consortium, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Sarah J MooreSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse, 2CH-4123, Allschwil, Switzerland.
Neil F LoboUniversity of California, San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Theeraphap ChareonviriyaphapKasetsart University, 50 Thanon Ngamwongwan, Lat Yao, Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900, Thailand.
Alongkot PonlawatArmed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences, 315/6 Ratchawithi Road, Thung Phaya Thai, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) aims to eliminate all human malaria by 2030 and is making substantial progress toward this goal, with malaria increasingly confined to forest foci. These transmission foci are predominantly inhabited by ethnic minorities, local populations, and rural mobile and migrant populations working in mining and agriculture. The recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) on malaria elimination states that small population groups which constitute a large proportion of the malaria transmission reservoir should benefit from targeted strategies to reduce transmission overall. These population groups are exposed to malaria vector bites during the day due to Anopheles daytime biting, and during the night, due to low bed net use and open sleeping structures. Such characteristics limit the effectiveness of the WHO core vector control strategies [indoor residual spraying (IRS), insecticide-treated nets (ITNs)], which target indoor resting and indoor feeding mosquitoes. Interventions that target daytime and outdoor resting or biting mosquitoes, and which complement IRS and ITNs and drug strategies, may hasten a decline in the malaria burden.

methodsThis study evaluated two transfluthrin- and one metofluthrin-based volatile pyrethroid spatial repellents (VPSRs), and etofenprox insecticide-treated clothing (ITC) with and without a topical repellent in a semi-field system (SFS) at two research sites in Thailand, across two trial rounds. The study estimated the protective efficacies of the vector control tools against two pyrethroid-susceptible Anopheles minimus strains in the form of 15 interventions, including a combined VPSR and ITC intervention. The interventions' modes of action were studied by measuring their impact on mosquito landing, and on key life history traits known to affect vectoral capacity (knockdown, post-exposure blood feeding, and 24-h mortality) using a block-randomized crossover design. The odds ratio (OR) for each intervention compared to the control on each outcome was estimated.

resultsAll interventions substantially reduced An. minimus landings and prevented more than 50% mosquito landings when new (VPSRs) or unwashed (treated clothing). In addition to landing reduction, all interventions decreased post-exposure blood feeding, induced knockdown and increased mortality at 24 h. The VPSR interventions were generally more protective against landing than the treated clothing intervention. The combined intervention (VPSR + ITC) provided the greatest protection overall.

conclusionThis SFS evaluation indicates an effect of these VPSR and ITC interventions in reducing An. minimus landing for the user, and indicates their potential for community protection by secondary modes of action. This study demonstrates the utility of SFS trials in the evaluation of bite prevention tools and emphasizes the need for multiple evaluations at different sites. It also highlights possible sources of biases observed, including the measuring of mosquito landing rather than biting, weather parameters, and low mosquito recapture.

Indexed as

AnophelesInsect Bites and StingsInsecticidesMosquito ControlAnimalsCyclopropanesFeeding BehaviorFemaleFluorobenzenesHumansMalariaMosquito VectorsThailand(2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-4-methoxymethylphenyl)methyl-2,2-dimethyl-3-(1-propenyl)cyclopropanecarboxylateCyclopropanesFluorobenzenesInsecticidestransfluthrin

Identifiers

PMID39695591
PMCPMC11656824

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.