Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

Is outdoor vector control needed for malaria elimination? An individual-based modelling study

  • Author(s): Zhu, L
  • Müller, GC
  • Marshall, JM
  • Arheart, KL
  • Qualls, WA
  • Hlaing, WM
  • Schlein, Y
  • Traore, SF
  • Doumbia, S
  • Beier, JC
  • et al.

Published Web Location

https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-017-1920-y
No data is associated with this publication.
Abstract

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Residual malaria transmission has been reported in many areas even with adequate indoor vector control coverage, such as long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs). The increased insecticide resistance in Anopheles mosquitoes has resulted in reduced efficacy of the widely used indoor tools and has been linked with an increase in outdoor malaria transmission. There are considerations of incorporating outdoor interventions into integrated vector management (IVM) to achieve malaria elimination; however, more information on the combination of tools for effective control is needed to determine their utilization. Methods: A spatial individual-based model was modified to simulate the environment and malaria transmission activities in a hypothetical, isolated African village setting. LLINs and outdoor attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) stations were used as examples of indoor and outdoor interventions, respectively. Different interventions and lengths of efficacy periods were tested. Simulations continued for 420 days, and each simulation scenario was repeated 50 times. Mosquito populations, entomologic inoculation rates (EIRs), probabilities of local mosquito extinction, and proportion of time when the annual EIR was reduced below one were compared between different intervention types and efficacy periods. Results: In the village setting with clustered houses, the combinational intervention of 50% LLINs plus outdoor ATSBs significantly reduced mosquito population and EIR in short term, increased the probability of local mosquito extinction, and increased the time when annual EIR is less than one per person compared to 50% LLINs alone; outdoor ATSBs alone significantly reduced mosquito population in short term, increased the probability of mosquito extinction, and increased the time when annual EIR is less than one compared to 50% LLINs alone, but there was no significant difference in EIR in short term between 50% LLINs and outdoor ATSBs. In the village setting with dispersed houses, the combinational intervention of 50% LLINs plus outdoor ATSBs significantly reduced mosquito population in short term, increased the probability of mosquito extinction, and increased the time when annual EIR is less than one per person compared to 50% LLINs alone; outdoor ATSBs alone significantly reduced mosquito population in short term, but there were no significant difference in the probability of mosquito extinction and the time when annual EIR is less than one between 50% LLIN and outdoor ATSBs; and there was no significant difference in EIR between all three interventions. A minimum of 2 months of efficacy period is needed to bring out the best possible effect of the vector control tools, and to achieve long-Term mosquito reduction, a minimum of 3 months of efficacy period is needed. Conclusions: The results highlight the value of incorporating outdoor vector control into IVM as a supplement to traditional indoor practices for malaria elimination in Africa, especially in village settings of clustered houses where LLINs alone is far from sufficient.

Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC Academic Senate's Open Access Policy. Let us know how this access is important for you.

Item not freely available? Link broken?
Report a problem accessing this item