Large-scale field trial of attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) for the control of malaria vector mosquitoes in Mali, West Africa

Mohamad M Traore, Amy Junnila, Sekou F Traore, Seydou Doumbia, Edita E Revay, Vasiliy D Kravchenko, Yosef Schlein, Kristopher L Arheart, Petrányi Gergely, Rui-De Xue, Axel Hausmann, Robert Beck, Alex Prozorov, Rabiatou A Diarra, Aboubakr S Kone, Silas Majambere, John Bradley, John Vontas, John C Beier, Günter C Müller, Mohamad M Traore, Amy Junnila, Sekou F Traore, Seydou Doumbia, Edita E Revay, Vasiliy D Kravchenko, Yosef Schlein, Kristopher L Arheart, Petrányi Gergely, Rui-De Xue, Axel Hausmann, Robert Beck, Alex Prozorov, Rabiatou A Diarra, Aboubakr S Kone, Silas Majambere, John Bradley, John Vontas, John C Beier, Günter C Müller

Abstract

Background: The aim of this field trial was to evaluate the efficacy of attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) in Mali, where sustained malaria transmission occurs despite the use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs). ATSB bait stations were deployed in seven of 14 similar study villages, where LLINs were already in widespread use. The combined use of ATSB and LLINs was tested to see if it would substantially reduce parasite transmission by Anopheles gambiae sensu lato beyond use of LLINs alone.

Methods: A 2-day field experiment was conducted to determine the number of mosquitoes feeding on natural sugar versus those feeding on bait stations containing attractive sugar bait without toxin (ASB)-but with food dye. This was done each month in seven random villages from April to December 2016. In the following year, in seven treatment villages from May to December 2017, two ATSB bait stations containing the insecticide dinotefuran were placed on the outer walls of each building. Vector population density was evaluated monthly by CDC UV light traps, malaise traps, pyrethrum spray (PSCs) and human landing catches (HLCs). Female samples of the catch were tested for age by examination of the ovarioles in dissected ovaries and identification of Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite infection by ELISA. Entomological inoculation rates (EIR) were calculated, and reductions between treated and untreated villages were determined.

Results: In the 2-day experiment with ASB each month, there was a lower number of male and female mosquitoes feeding on the natural sugar sources than on the ASB. ATSB deployment reduced CDC-UV trap female catches in September, when catches were highest, were by 57.4% compared to catches in control sites. Similarly, malaise trap catches showed a 44.3% reduction of females in August and PSC catches of females were reduced by 48.7% in September. Reductions of females in HLCs were lower by 19.8% indoors and 26.3% outdoors in September. The high reduction seen in the rainy season was similar for males and reductions in population density for both males and females were > 70% during the dry season. Reductions of females with ≥ 3 gonotrophic cycles were recorded every month amounting to 97.1% in October and 100.0% in December. Reductions in monthly EIRs ranged from 77.76 to 100.00% indoors and 84.95% to 100.00% outdoors. The number of sporozoite infected females from traps was reduced by 97.83% at treated villages compared to controls.

Conclusions: Attractive toxic sugar baits used against Anopheles mosquitoes in Mali drastically reduced the density of mosquitoes, the number of older females, the number of sporozoite infected females and the EIR demonstrating how ATSB significantly reduces malaria parasite transmission.

Keywords: ATSB; Anopheles gambiae; Mali; Sugar feeding; Vector control.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A Comparison of the mean number of female Anopheles gambiae s.l. (± SE) collected per trap per village from ATSB treated and control villages. The pre-treatment monitoring period was from April until ATSB treatment on May 31st Control and experimental sites were monitored from June to December. a catch of CDC traps; b catch of Malaise traps; c PSCs. B Comparison of the mean number of male Anopheles gambiae s.l. (± SE) collected per trap per village from ATSB treated and from control villages. The pre-treatment monitoring period was from April until ATSB treatment in the 31 of May; All sites were monitored from June to December. a Catch of CDC traps; b Catch of Malaise traps; c PSC catches
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Landing/biting of Anopheles gambiae females in HLC observations after placement of ATSB bait stations. Data collected indoor and outdoor from ATSB treated villages, and from control villages, were grouped and the mean number of landing/biting per volunteer per night was calculated for each month. a Indoor, b outdoor
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The mean number per village of Anopheles gambiae s.l. females that passed ≥ 3 egg laying cycles in control villages and after treatment with ATSB. *Indicates absence of mosquitoes
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Mean number per village and month (± SE) of female Anopheles gambiae s.l., collected from all trapping methods and found infected with sporozoites in control villages compared to treated villages

References

    1. Sinka ME, Bangs MJ, Manguin S, Rubio-Palis Y, Chareonviriyaphap T, Coetzee M, et al. A global map of dominant malaria vectors. Parasit Vectors. 2012;5:69. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-5-69.
    1. WHO . World malaria report 2018. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
    1. malERA Consultative Group on Vector Control A research agenda for malaria eradication: vector control. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1000401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000401.
    1. Hemingway J, Shretta R, Wells TN, Bell D, Djimdé AA, Achee N, et al. Tools and strategies for malaria control and elimination: what do we need to achieve a grand convergence in malaria? PLoS Biol. 2016;14:e1002380. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002380.
    1. Greenwood B. New tools for malaria control—using them wisely. J Infect. 2017;74(Suppl 1):S23–S26. doi: 10.1016/S0163-4453(17)30187-1.
    1. Beier JC, Keating J, Githure JI, Macdonald MB, Impoinvil DE, Novak RJ. Integrated vector management for malaria control. Malar J. 2008;7(Suppl 1):S4. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-7-S1-S4.
    1. Killeen GF. Characterizing, controlling and eliminating residual malaria transmission. Malar J. 2014;13:330. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-330.
    1. Fillinger U, Lindsay SW. Larval source management for malaria control in Africa: myths and reality. Malar J. 2011;10:353. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-353.
    1. Vontas J, Moore S, Kleinschmidt I, Ranson H, Lindsay S, Lengeler C, et al. Framework for rapid assessment and adoption of new vector control tools. Trends Parasitol. 2014;30:191–204. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2014.02.005.
    1. Benelli G, Beier JC. Current vector control challenges in the fight against malaria. Acta Trop. 2017;174:91–96. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.06.028.
    1. Ranson H, Lissenden N. Insecticide resistance in African Anopheles mosquitoes: a worsening situation that needs urgent action to maintain malaria control. Trends Parasitol. 2016;32:187–196. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2015.11.010.
    1. Amek N, Bayoh N, Hamel M, Lindblade KA, Gimnig JE, Odhiambo F, et al. Spatial and temporal dynamics of malaria transmission in rural Western Kenya. Parasit Vectors. 2012;5:86. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-5-86.
    1. Moiroux N, Damien GB, Egrot M, Djenontin A, Chandre F, Corbel V, et al. Human exposure to early morning Anopheles funestus biting behavior and personal protection provided by long-lasting insecticidal nets. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e104967. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104967.
    1. Sougoufara S, Diédhiou SM, Doucouré S, Diagne N, Sembène PM, Harry M, et al. Biting by Anopheles funestus in broad daylight after use of long-lasting insecticidal nets: a new challenge to malaria elimination. Malar J. 2014;13:125. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-125.
    1. Straif SC, Beier JC. Effects of sugar availability on the blood-feeding behavior of Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) J Med Entomol. 1996;33:608–612. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/33.4.608.
    1. Impoinvil DE, Kongere JO, Foster WA, Njiru BN, Killeen GF, Githure JI, et al. Feeding and survival of the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae on plants growing in Kenya. Med Vet Entomol. 2004;18:108–115. doi: 10.1111/j.0269-283X.2004.00484.x.
    1. Gary RE, Foster WA. Anopheles gambiae feeding and survival on honeydew and extra-floral nectar of peridomestic plants. Med Vet Entomol. 2004;18:102–107. doi: 10.1111/j.0269-283X.2004.00483.x.
    1. Manda H, Gouagna LC, Nyandat E, Kabiru EW, Jackson RR, Foster WA, et al. Discriminative feeding behaviour of Anopheles gambiae s.s. on endemic plants in western Kenya. Med Vet Entomol. 2007;21:103–111. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2007.00672.x.
    1. Yuval B. The other habit: sugar feeding by mosquitoes. Bull Soc Vector Ecol. 1992;17:150–156.
    1. Foster WA. Mosquito sugar feeding and reproductive energetics. Annu Rev Entomol. 1995;40:443–474. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.40.010195.002303.
    1. Schlein Y, Müller GC. An approach to mosquito control: using the dominant attraction of flowering Tamarix jordanis trees against Culex pipiens. J Med Entomol. 2008;45:384–390. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[384:AATMCU];2.
    1. Müller GC, Junnila A, Qualls W, Revay EE, Kline DL, Allan S, et al. Control of Culex quinquefasciatus in a storm drain system in Florida using attractive toxic sugar baits. Med Vet Entomol. 2010;24:346–351. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2010.00876.x.
    1. Müller GC, Junnila A, Schlein Y. Effective control of adult Culex pipiens by spraying an attractive toxic sugar bait solution in the vegetation near larval habitats. J Med Entomol. 2010;47:63–66. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/47.1.63.
    1. Schlein Y, Müller GC. Diurnal resting behavior of adult Culex pipiens in an arid habitat in Israel and possible control measurements with toxic sugar baits. Acta Trop. 2012;124:48–53. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2012.06.007.
    1. Junnila A, Revay EE, Müller GC, Kravchenko V, Qualls WA, Allen SA, et al. Efficacy of attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) against Aedes albopictus with garlic oil encapsulated in beta-cyclodextrin as the active ingredient. Acta Trop. 2015;152:195–200. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2015.09.006.
    1. Revay EE, Schlein Y, Tsabari O, Kravchenko V, Qualls W, De-Xue R, et al. Formulation of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) with safe EPA-exempt substance significantly diminishes the Anopheles sergentii population in a desert oasis. Acta Trop. 2015;150:29–34. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2015.06.018.
    1. Müller GC, Beier JC, Traore SF, Toure MB, Traore MM, Bah S, et al. Successful field trial of attractive toxic sugar bait (ASTB) plant-spraying methods against malaria vectors in the Anopheles gambiae complex in Mali, West Africa. Malar J. 2010;9:210. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-210.
    1. Beier JC, Müller GC, Gu W, Arheart KL, Schlein Y. Attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) methods decimate populations of Anopheles malaria vectors in arid environments regardless of the local availability of favoured sugar-source blossoms. Malar J. 2012;11:31. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-31.
    1. Qualls WA, Müller GC, Traore SF, Traore MM, Arheart KL, Doumbia S, et al. Indoor use of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) to effectively control malaria vectors in Mali, West Africa. Malar J. 2015;14:301. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-0819-8.
    1. Qualls WA, Müller GC, Revay EE, Allan SA, Arheart KL, Beier JC, et al. Evaluation of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB)—barrier for control of vector and nuisance mosquitoes and its effect on non-target organisms in sub-tropical environments in Florida. Acta Trop. 2014;131:104–110. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2013.12.004.
    1. Climates to travel: world climate guide. 2018. . Accessed 14 Feb 2018.
    1. Kline DL, Muller GC, Junnila A, Xue RD. Attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB): a novel vector management tool. In: Advances in the biorational control of medical and veterinary pests. American Chemical Society; 2018. pp. 63–73.
    1. Schlein Y, Jacobson RL. Mortality of Leishmania major in Phlebotomus papatasi caused by plant feeding of sand flies. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1994;50:20–27. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1994.50.1.TM0500010020.
    1. Sissoko F, Junnila A, Traore MM, Traore SF, Doumbia S, Dembele SM, et al. Frequent sugar feeding behavior by Aedes aegypti in Bamako, Mali makes them ideal candidates for control with attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0214170. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214170.
    1. Tomizawa M, Yamamoto I. Structure–activity relationships of nicotinoids and imidacloprid analogs. J Pestic Sci. 1993;18:91–98. doi: 10.1584/jpestics.18.91.
    1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Product performance test guidelines OPPTS 810.3700: insect repellents to be applied to human skin. 2010;712-C-10-00.
    1. WHO . Manual on practical entomology. Parts 1 and 2. Methods and techniques No. 13. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1975.
    1. Detinova TS, Bertram DS, WHO . Age-grouping methods in Diptera of medical importance, with special reference to some vectors of malaria. Monograph Series 47. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1962.
    1. Beier MS, Schwartz IK, Beier JC, Perkins PV, Onyango F, Koros JK, et al. Identification of malaria species by ELISA in sporozoite and oocyst infected Anopheles from western Kenya. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1988;39:323–327. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1988.39.323.
    1. Beier JC. Vector incrimination and entomological inoculation rates. In: Malaria methods and protocols. Humana; 2002. p. 3–11.
    1. Müller GC, Schlein Y. Sugar questing mosquitoes in arid areas gather on scarce blossoms that can be used for control. Int J Parasitol. 2006;36:1077–1080. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2006.06.008.
    1. Müller GC, Schlein Y. Efficacy of toxic sugar baits against adult cistern-dwelling Anopheles claviger. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008;102:480–484. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.01.008.
    1. Müller GC, Kravchenko VD, Schlein Y. Decline of Anopheles sergentii and Aedes caspius populations following presentation of attractive, toxic (Spinosad), sugar bait stations in an oasis. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2008;24:147–149. doi: 10.2987/8756-971X(2008)24[147:DOASAA];2.
    1. Gillies MT. The duration of the gonotrophic cycle in Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus, with a note on the efficiency of hand catching. East Afr Med J. 1953;30:129–135.
    1. Gu W, Müller G, Schlein Y, Novak RJ, Beier JC. Natural plant sugar sources of Anopheles mosquitoes strongly impact malaria transmission potential. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e15996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015996.
    1. Shaukat AM, Breman JG, McKenzie FE. Using the entomological inoculation rate to assess the impact of vector control on malaria parasite transmission and elimination. Malar J. 2010;9:122. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-122.
    1. Beier JC, Killeen GF, Githure JI. Entomologic inoculation rates and Plasmodium falciparum malaria prevalence in Africa. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999;61:109–113. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1999.61.109.
    1. Choi L, Wilson A. Larviciding to control malaria. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD012736.
    1. Chaccour C, Killeen GF. Mind the gap: residual malaria transmission, veterinary endectocides and livestock as targets for malaria vector control. Malar J. 2016;15:24. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-1063-y.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren