An important question for mosquito population dynamics, mosquito-borne pathogen transmission and vector control is how mosquito populations are regulated. Here we develop simple models with heterogeneity in egg laying patterns and in the responses of larval populations to crowding in aquatic habitats. We use the models to evaluate how such heterogeneity affects mosquito population regulation and the effects of larval source management (LSM). We revisit the notion of a carrying capacity and show how heterogeneity changes our understanding of density dependence and the outcome of LSM. Crowding in and productivity of aquatic habitats is highly uneven unless egg-laying distributions are fine-tuned to match the distribution of habitats' carrying capacities. LSM reduces mosquito population density linearly with coverage if adult mosquitoes avoid laying eggs in treated habitats, but quadratically if eggs are laid in treated habitats and the effort is therefore wasted (i.e., treating 50% of habitat reduces mosquito density by approximately 75%). Unsurprisingly, targeting (i.e. treating a subset of the most productive pools) gives much larger reductions for similar coverage, but with poor targeting, increasing coverage could increase adult mosquito population densities if eggs are laid in higher capacity habitats. Our analysis suggests that, in some contexts, LSM models that accounts for heterogeneity in production of adult mosquitoes provide theoretical support for pursuing mosquito-borne disease prevention through strategic and repeated application of modern larvicides.

Residual malaria transmission can persist despite high coverage with effective long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and/or indoor residual spraying (IRS), because many vector mosquitoes evade them by feeding on animals, feeding outdoors, resting outdoors or rapidly exiting from houses after entering them. However, many of these behaviours that render vectors resilient to control with IRS and LLINs also make them vulnerable to some emerging new alternative interventions. Furthermore, vector control measures targeting preferred behaviours of mosquitoes often force them to express previously rare alternative behaviours, which can then be targeted with these complementary new interventions. For example, deployment of LLINs against vectors that historically fed predominantly indoors on humans typically results in persisting transmission by residual populations that survive by feeding outdoors on humans and animals, where they may then be targeted with vapour-phase insecticides and veterinary insecticides, respectively. So while the ability of mosquitoes to express alternative behaviours limits the impact of LLINs and IRS, it also creates measurable and unprecedented opportunities for deploying complementary additional approaches that would otherwise be ineffective. Now that more diverse vector control methods are finally becoming available, well-established entomological field techniques for surveying adult mosquito behaviours should be fully exploited by national malaria control programmes, to rationally and adaptively map out new opportunities for their effective deployment.

Background

Standard advice regarding vector control is to prefer interventions that reduce the lifespan of adult mosquitoes. The basis for this advice is a decades-old sensitivity analysis of 'vectorial capacity', a concept relevant for most malaria transmission models and based solely on adult mosquito population dynamics. Recent advances in micro-simulation models offer an opportunity to expand the theory of vectorial capacity to include both adult and juvenile mosquito stages in the model.

Methods

In this study we revisit arguments about transmission and its sensitivity to mosquito bionomic parameters using an elasticity analysis of developed formulations of vectorial capacity.

Results

We show that reducing adult survival has effects on both adult and juvenile population size, which are significant for transmission and not accounted for in traditional formulations of vectorial capacity. The elasticity of these effects is dependent on various mosquito population parameters, which we explore. Overall, control is most sensitive to methods that affect adult mosquito mortality rates, followed by blood feeding frequency, human blood feeding habit, and lastly, to adult mosquito population density.

Conclusions

These results emphasise more strongly than ever the sensitivity of transmission to adult mosquito mortality, but also suggest the high potential of combinations of interventions including larval source management. This must be done with caution, however, as policy requires a more careful consideration of costs, operational difficulties and policy goals in relation to baseline transmission.

Vector control using long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) accounts for most of the malaria burden reductions achieved recently in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). LLINs and IRS are highly effective, but are insufficient to eliminate malaria transmission in many settings because of operational constraints, growing resistance to available insecticides and mosquitoes that behaviourally avoid contact with these interventions. However, a number of substantive opportunities now exist for rapidly developing and implementing more diverse, effective and sustainable malaria vector control strategies for LMICs. For example, mosquito control in high-income countries is predominantly achieved with a combination of mosquito-proofed housing and environmental management, supplemented with large-scale insecticide applications to larval habitats and outdoor spaces that kill off vector populations en masse, but all these interventions remain underused in LMICs. Programmatic development and evaluation of decentralised, locally managed systems for delivering these proactive mosquito population abatement practices in LMICs could therefore enable broader scale-up. Furthermore, a diverse range of emerging or repurposed technologies are becoming available for targeting mosquitoes when they enter houses, feed outdoors, attack livestock, feed on sugar or aggregate into mating swarms. Global policy must now be realigned to mobilise the political and financial support necessary to exploit these opportunities over the decade ahead, so that national malaria control and elimination programmes can access a much broader, more effective set of vector control interventions.

Protecting individuals and households against mosquito bites with long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) or indoor residual spraying (IRS) can suppress entire populations of unusually efficient malaria vector species that predominantly feed indoors on humans. Mosquitoes which usually feed on animals are less reliant on human blood, so they are far less vulnerable to population suppression effects of such human-targeted insecticidal measures. Fortunately, the dozens of mosquito species which primarily feed on animals are also relatively inefficient vectors of malaria, so personal protection against mosquito bites may be sufficient to eliminate transmission. However, a handful of mosquito species are particularly problematic vectors of residual malaria transmission, because they feed readily on both humans and animals. These unusual vectors feed often enough on humans to be potent malaria vectors, but also often enough on animals to evade population control with LLINs, IRS or any other insecticidal personal protection measure targeted only to humans. Anopheles arabiensis and A. coluzzii in Africa, A. darlingi in South America and A. farauti in Oceania, as well as A. culicifacies species E, A. fluviatilis species S, A. lesteri and A. minimus in Asia, all feed readily on either humans or animals and collectively mediate residual malaria transmission across most of the tropics. Eliminating malaria transmission by vectors exhibiting such dual host preferences will require aggressive mosquito population abatement, rather than just personal protection of humans. Population suppression of even these particularly troublesome vectors is achievable with a variety of existing vector control technologies that remain underdeveloped or underexploited.

House construction is rapidly modernizing across Africa but the potential benefits for human health are poorly understood. We hypothesised that improvements to housing would be associated with reductions in malaria, acute respiratory infection (ARI) and gastrointestinal illness in an area of low malaria endemicity in Uganda. Data were analysed from a cohort study of male and female child and adult residents (n = 531) of 80 randomly-selected households in Nagongera sub-county, followed for 24 months (October 4, 2017 to October 31, 2019). Houses were classified as modern (brick walls, metal roof and closed eaves) or traditional (all other homes). Light trap collections of mosquitoes were done every two weeks in all sleeping rooms. Every four weeks, we measured malaria infection (using microscopy and qPCR to detect malaria parasites), incidence of malaria, ARI and gastrointestinal illness. We collected 15,780 adult female Anopheles over 7,631 nights. We collected 13,277 blood samples of which 10.2% (1,347) were positive for malaria parasites. Over 958 person years we diagnosed 38 episodes of uncomplicated malaria (incidence 0.04 episodes per person-year at risk), 2,553 episodes of ARI (incidence 2.7 episodes per person-year) and 387 episodes of gastrointestinal illness (incidence 0.4 episodes per person-year). Modern houses were associated with a 53% lower human biting rate compared to traditional houses (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.67, p<0.001) and a 24% lower incidence of gastrointestinal illness (aIRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.98, p = 0.04) but no changes in malaria prevalence, malaria incidence nor ARI incidence. House improvements may reduce mosquito-biting rates and gastrointestinal illness among children and adults. For the health sector to leverage Africa's housing modernization, research is urgently needed to identify the healthiest house designs and to assess their effectiveness across a range of epidemiological settings in sub-Saharan Africa.

Background

Major gains have been made in reducing malaria transmission in many parts of the world, principally by scaling-up coverage with long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying. Historically, choice of vector control intervention has been largely guided by a parameter sensitivity analysis of George Macdonald's theory of vectorial capacity that suggested prioritizing methods that kill adult mosquitoes. While this advice has been highly successful for transmission suppression, there is a need to revisit these arguments as policymakers in certain areas consider which combinations of interventions are required to eliminate malaria.

Methods and results

Using analytical solutions to updated equations for vectorial capacity we build on previous work to show that, while adult killing methods can be highly effective under many circumstances, other vector control methods are frequently required to fill effective coverage gaps. These can arise due to pre-existing or developing mosquito physiological and behavioral refractoriness but also due to additive changes in the relative importance of different vector species for transmission. Furthermore, the optimal combination of interventions will depend on the operational constraints and costs associated with reaching high coverage levels with each intervention.

Conclusions

Reaching specific policy goals, such as elimination, in defined contexts requires increasingly non-generic advice from modelling. Our results emphasize the importance of measuring baseline epidemiology, intervention coverage, vector ecology and program operational constraints in predicting expected outcomes with different combinations of interventions.