Impact and cost-effectiveness of a lethal house lure against malaria transmission in central Côte d'Ivoire: a two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial

Eleanore D Sternberg, Jackie Cook, Ludovic P Ahoua Alou, Serge Brice Assi, Alphonsine A Koffi, Dimi T Doudou, Carine J Aoura, Rosine Z Wolie, Welbeck A Oumbouke, Eve Worrall, Immo Kleinschmidt, Raphael N'Guessan, Matthew B Thomas, Eleanore D Sternberg, Jackie Cook, Ludovic P Ahoua Alou, Serge Brice Assi, Alphonsine A Koffi, Dimi T Doudou, Carine J Aoura, Rosine Z Wolie, Welbeck A Oumbouke, Eve Worrall, Immo Kleinschmidt, Raphael N'Guessan, Matthew B Thomas

Abstract

Background: New vector control tools are required to sustain the fight against malaria. Lethal house lures, which target mosquitoes as they attempt to enter houses to blood feed, are one approach. Here we evaluated lethal house lures consisting of In2Care (Wageningen, Netherlands) Eave Tubes, which provide point-source insecticide treatments against host-seeking mosquitoes, in combination with house screening, which aims to reduce mosquito entry.

Methods: We did a two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial with 40 village-level clusters in central Côte d'Ivoire between Sept 26, 2016, and April 10, 2019. All households received new insecticide-treated nets at universal coverage (one bednet per two people). Suitable households within the clusters assigned to the treatment group were offered screening plus Eave Tubes, with Eave Tubes treated using a 10% wettable powder formulation of the pyrethroid β-cyfluthrin. Because of the nature of the intervention, treatment could not be masked for households and field teams, but all analyses were blinded. The primary endpoint was clinical malaria incidence recorded by active case detection over 2 years in cohorts of children aged 6 months to 10 years. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18145556.

Findings: 3022 houses received screening plus Eave Tubes, with an average coverage of 70% across the intervention clusters. 1300 eligible children were recruited for active case detection in the control group and 1260 in the intervention group. During the 2-year follow-up period, malaria case incidence was 2·29 per child-year (95% CI 1·97-2·61) in the control group and 1·43 per child-year (1·21-1·65) in the intervention group (hazard ratio 0·62, 95% CI 0·51-0·76; p<0·0001). Cost-effectiveness simulations suggested that screening plus Eave Tubes has a 74·0% chance of representing a cost-effective intervention, compared with existing healthcare activities in Côte d'Ivoire, and is similarly cost-effective to other core vector control interventions across sub-Saharan Africa. No serious adverse events associated with the intervention were reported during follow-up.

Interpretation: Screening plus Eave Tubes can provide protection against malaria in addition to the effects of insecticide-treated nets, offering potential for a new, cost-effective strategy to supplement existing vector control tools. Additional trials are needed to confirm these initial results and further optimise Eave Tubes and the lethal house lure concept to facilitate adoption.

Funding: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A house in Côte d'Ivoire with screening plus Eave Tubes The inset shows the Eave Tube insert placed within the tube.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Timeline of study activities
Figure 3
Figure 3
Study profile
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cluster-level malaria case incidence by month for the 2-year follow-up Open circles show cluster-level malaria case incidence, and closed diamonds show the mean of the cluster incidences, with bars representing 95% CIs.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Association between SET coverage and malaria case incidence Each circle represents a cluster. SET=screening plus Eave Tubes.

References

    1. Bhatt S, Weiss DJ, Cameron E. The effect of malaria control on Plasmodium falciparum in Africa between 2000 and 2015. Nature. 2015;526:207–211.
    1. WHO . World Health Organization; 2019. World malaria report 2019.
    1. WHO . World Health Organization; Geneva: 2015. Global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030.
    1. Feachem RGA, Chen I, Akbari O. Malaria eradication within a generation: ambitious, achievable, and necessary. Lancet. 2019;394:1056–1112.
    1. WHO . World Health Organization; 2019. Malaria eradication: benefits, future scenarios and feasibility. Executive summary, WHO Strategic Advisory Group on Malaria Eradication.
    1. von Seidlein L, Wood H, Brittain OS. Knowledge gaps in the construction of rural healthy homes: a research agenda for improved low-cost housing in hot-humid Africa. PLoS Med. 2019;16
    1. Furnival–Adams J, Olanga EA, Napier M, Garner P. Housing interventions for preventing malaria. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;8
    1. Ondiba IM, Oyieke FA, Ong'amo GO, Olumula MM, Nyamongo IK, Estambale BBA. Malaria vector abundance is associated with house structures in Baringo County, Kenya. PLoS One. 2018;13
    1. Jatta E, Jawara M, Bradley J. How house design affects malaria mosquito density, temperature, and relative humidity: an experimental study in rural Gambia. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2:e498–e508.
    1. Tusting LS, Ippolito MM, Willey BA. The evidence for improving housing to reduce malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Malar J. 2015;14:209.
    1. Getawen SK, Ashine T, Massebo F, Woldeyes D, Lindtjørn B. Exploring the impact of house screening intervention on entomological indices and incidence of malaria in Arba Minch town, southwest Ethiopia: a randomized control trial. Acta Trop. 2018;181:84–94.
    1. Kirby MJ, Ameh D, Bottomley C. Effect of two different house screening interventions on exposure to malaria vectors and on anaemia in children in The Gambia: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2009;374:998–1009.
    1. Tusting LS, Gething PW, Gibson HS. Housing and child health in sub-Saharan Africa: A cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17
    1. Killeen GF, Masalu JP, Chinula D. Control of malaria vector mosquitoes by insecticide-treated combinations of window screens and eave baffles. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23:782–789.
    1. Mmbando AS, Ngowo H, Limwagu A, Kilalangongono M, Kifungo K, Okumu FO. Eave ribbons treated with the spatial repellent, transfluthrin, can effectively protect against indoor-biting and outdoor-biting malaria mosquitoes. Malar J. 2018;17:368.
    1. Beach RF, Ii TKR, Sexton JD. Effectiveness of permethrin-impregnated bed nets and curtains for malaria control in a holoendemic area of Western Kenya. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993;49:290–300.
    1. Knols BGJ, Farenhorst M, Andriessen R. Eave tubes for malaria control in Africa: an introduction. Malar J. 2016;15:404.
    1. Andriessen R, Snetselaar J, Suer RA. Electrostatic coating enhances bioavailability of insecticides and breaks pyrethroid resistance in mosquitoes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:12081–12086.
    1. Sternberg ED, Ng'habi KR, Lyimo IN. Eave tubes for malaria control in Africa: initial development and semi-field evaluations in Tanzania. Malar J. 2016;15:447.
    1. Snetselaar J, Njiru BN, Gachie B. Eave tubes for malaria control in Africa: prototyping and evaluation against Anopheles gambiae s.s. and Anopheles arabiensis under semi-field conditions in western Kenya. Malar J. 2017;16:276.
    1. Barreaux AMG, Brou N, Koffi AA. Semi-field studies to better understand the impact of eave tubes on mosquito mortality and behaviour. Malar J. 2018;17:306.
    1. Oumbouke WA, Tia IZ, Barreaux AMG. Screening and field performance of powder-formulated insecticides on eave tube inserts against pyrethroid resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l.: an investigation into ‘actives’ prior to a randomized controlled trial in Côte d'Ivoire. Malar J. 2018;17:374.
    1. WHO . World Health Organization; 2020. Overview of intervention classes and prototype/products under Vector Control Advisory Group (VCAG) review for assessment of public health value.
    1. Waite JL, Lynch PA, Thomas MB. Eave tubes for malaria control in Africa: a modelling assessment of potential impact on transmission. Malar J. 2016;15:449.
    1. Koffi AA, Ahoua Alou LP, Adja MA, Chandre F, Pennetier C. Insecticide resistance status of Anopheles gambiae s.s. population from M'Bé: a WHOPES-labelled experimental hut station, 10 years after the political crisis in Côte d'Ivoire. Malar J. 2013;12:151.
    1. Koffi AA, Ahoua Alou LP, Djenontin A. Efficacy of Olyset® Duo, a permethrin and pyriproxyfen mixture net against wild pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae s.s. from Côte d'Ivoire: an experimental hut trial. Parasite. 2015;22:28.
    1. Sternberg ED, Cook J, Ahoua Alou LP. Evaluating the impact of screening plus eave tubes on malaria transmission compared to current best practice in central Côte d'Ivoire: a two armed cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:894.
    1. Rushby JF, Hanson K. Calculating and presenting disability adjusted life years (DALYs) in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2001;16:326–331.
    1. Pinder M, Conteh L, Jeffries D. The RooPfs study to assess whether improved housing provides additional protection against clinical malaria over current best practice in The Gambia: study protocol for a randomized controlled study and ancillary studies. Trials. 2016;17:275.
    1. Dalrymple U, Arambepola R, Gething PW, Cameron E. How long do rapid diagnostic tests remain positive after anti-malarial treatment? Malar J 2; 17: 228.
    1. Shenton FC, Addissie A, Alabaster G. Research agenda for preventing mosquito-transmitted diseases through improving the built environment in sub-Saharan Africa. Cities Health. 2019 doi: 10.1080/23748834.2019.1684771. published online Nov 8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren