The effect of novel mosquito bite prevention tools on Anopheles minimus landing and key secondary endpoints: semi-field evaluations in Thailand
Authors: Vajda Élodie A. , Ross Amanda , Saeung Manop , Pongsiri Arissara , McIver David J. , Tatarsky Allison , Chitnis Nakul , Hii Jeffrey , Richardson Jason H. , Macdonald Michael , Moore Sarah J. , Lobo Neil F. , Chareonviriyaphap Theeraphap , Ponlawat Alongkot 
Published: December 2024

Background

The 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.

Methods

This 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.

Results

All 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.

Conclusion

This 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.