Differential impact of dual-active ingredient long-lasting insecticidal nets on primary malaria vectors: a secondary analysis of a 3-year, single-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial in rural Tanzania
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Gains in malaria control are threatened by widespread pyrethroid resistance in malaria vectors across sub-Saharan Africa. New long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) containing two active ingredients (dual active-ingredient LLINs) have been developed to interrupt transmission in areas of pyrethroid resistance. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of three dual active-ingredient LLINs compared with standard pyrethroid LLINs against pyrethroid-resistant malaria vectors in rural Tanzania. METHODS: In this study, we did a secondary analysis of entomological data from a four-group, 3 year, single-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial carried out between Feb 18, 2019, and Dec 6, 2021. We conducted quarterly indoor mosquito collections using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention light trap, in eight houses in each of the 84 study clusters in the Misungwi district, northwestern Tanzania. Anopheles vectors were then tested for malaria parasites and identified at species level, to distinguish between sibling species of the Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus groups, using molecular laboratory techniques. The primary outcomes were density of different malaria vector species measured as the number of female Anopheles collected per household per night, the entomological inoculation rate (EIR), an indicator of malaria transmission, and sporozoite rate. Entomological outcomes were assessed on the basis of intention to treat, and the effect of the three dual active-ingredient LLINs was compared with the standard pyrethroid LLINs at household level. FINDINGS: Dual active-ingredient LLINs had the greatest effect on Anopheles funestus sl, the most efficient vector in the study area, with comparatively weak effect on An arabiensis. An funestus density was 3∙1 per house per night in the pyrethroid LLIN group, 1∙2 in the chlorfenapyr pyrethroid LLIN group (adjusted density ratio [aDR]=0∙26, 95% CI 0∙17-0∙14, p<0∙0001), 1∙4 in the piperonyl-butoxide pyrethroid LLIN group (aDR=0∙49, 0∙32-0∙76, p=0∙0012), and 3∙0 in the pyriproxyfen pyrethroid LLIN group (aDR=0∙72, 0∙47-1∙11, p=0∙15). Malaria transmission intensity was also significantly lower in the chlorfenapyr pyrethroid group, with 0∙01 versus 0∙06 infective bites per household per night in the pyrethroid LLIN group (aDR=0∙21, 0∙14-0∙33, p<0∙0001). Ecological niche models indicated that vector-species distribution was stable following LLIN intervention despite the reductions observed in An funestus sl density. INTERPRETATION: Chlorfenapyr pyrethroid LLINs were the most effective intervention against the main malaria vector An funestus sl over 3 years of community use, whereas the effect of piperonyl-butoxide pyrethroid LLIN was sustained for 2 years. The other vector, An arabiensis, was not controlled by any of the dual active-ingredient LLINs. Additional vector control tools and strategies targeted to locally prevalent vector species evading dual active-ingredient LLINs should be deployed to further reduce malaria transmission and achieve elimination. FUNDING: The Department for International Development, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, the Department of Health and Social Care, and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation via the Innovative Vector Control Consortium.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».