Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41284618›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Quantification of Anopheles daily sugar feeding rates in Siaya county, western Kenya using Attractive Sugar Baits.

Jackline Jeruto Kosgei, Daniel P McDermott, Seline Omondi, Vincent Moshi, Martin J Donnelly, Collins Ouma, Prashanth Selvaraj, Angela F Harris, Julian Entwistle, Feiko O Ter Kuile and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors.

Jackline Jeruto KosgeiEntomology Section, Centre for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1320-1025
Daniel P McDermottDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Seline OmondiEntomology Section, Centre for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
Vincent MoshiEntomology Section, Centre for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
Martin J DonnellyDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Collins OumaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Technology, School of Public Health and Community Development, Maseno University, Maseno, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8205-8887
Prashanth SelvarajInstitute for Disease Modeling, Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Angela F HarrisInnovative Vector Control Consortium, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Julian EntwistleInnovative Vector Control Consortium, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Feiko O Ter KuileDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Keith FraserImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Lazaro MwandighaImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Bernard Abong'oEntomology Section, Centre for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
John E GimnigDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4218-447X
Eric OchomoEntomology Section, Centre for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4042-4970

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVector control is an essential component of malaria prevention that has contributed to the reduction in malaria burden since 2000. Although steady progress in malaria vector control has been achieved over the years, the malaria burden remains substantial, underscoring the need for complementary mosquito control tools to further reduce transmission. Attractive targeted sugar baits (ATSBs) are a novel vector control tool under evaluation. The ATSB paradigm leverages the sugar feeding and resting behavior of mosquitoes exposing them to the lethal effect of an added insecticide. Prior to epidemiological trials on ATSBs in western Kenya, validation studies were conducted to assess the levels of mosquito feeding on attractive sugar baits (ASBs), containing uranine dye. This study sought to understand the ATSB deployment required in peridomestic spaces and to determine the daily feeding rates that would be potentially sufficient to impact malaria transmission (based on modelling approaches). The study evaluated whether the deployment of two versus three bait stations per structure led to higher daily feeding rates by local malaria vectors that is consistent with the modelled threshold of 2.5% of all mosquitoes in the target area as a proxy for ATSB efficacy resulting in a 30% drop in clinical incidence in children under 5.

methodsThe study followed a cross-over design in ten treatment and two control clusters within Rarieda Sub-County, Siaya County, western Kenya. Within each intervention cluster, either two or three ASBs were deployed to all structures in each cluster. After two months, the treatments were switched so that clusters which initially received two ASBs were given three ASBs and vice versa. ASB monitoring was done for four months during the initial crossover trial and then for an additional four months for extended monitoring. Mosquitoes were collected using ultraviolet CDC light traps and Prokopack aspiration indoors and outdoors then identified based on morphological characteristics and screened for fluorescence due to the uranine dye. Molecular species identification was done using polymerase chain reaction and sporozoite infectivity tests by Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Data analysis was performed using R statistical software.

resultsThe predominant malaria vector was An. funestus sensu lato (s.l.), which had an overall dye feeding rate of 11.2%. This was followed by An. gambiae s.l. at 3.5%. These corresponded to daily feeding rates of 4.8% and 1.2%, respectively. Sporozoite positivity rates were 2.3% (n = 29) in An. funestus s.l and 1.0% (n = 19) in An. gambiae s.l. Higher dye positivity was observed in male An. funestus (OR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.03,1.46; P = 0.029) and male An. gambiae (OR = 2.20; 95% CI = 1.19,4.08; P = 0.015). Comparison of the impact of 2 versus 3 bait stations indicated no difference in feeding rates in either An. funestus (OR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.40; 1.75), P = 0.624) or An. gambiae (OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.71, 1.71; P = 0.661).

conclusionsThe results from this study showed that predominant malaria vectors; Anopheles funestus led to a daily feeding rate that was presumed to be sufficient to cause a reduction in malaria incidence by ATSBs. There was no significant difference detected between deploying two or three bait stations per structure. The study provided important information utilized in the subsequent deployment of ATSBs in epidemiological trials.

Indexed as

AnophelesFeeding BehaviorMalariaMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsSugarsAnimalsFemaleHumansInsecticidesKenyaInsecticidesSugars

Identifiers

PMID41284618
PMCPMC12643295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.