Peter Onyango Sangoro

The spread of Anopheles stephensi into the Horn of Africa represents one of the main challenges for malaria control, given the species’ ecological plasticity and resistance to multiple insecticides. In response to the World Health Organization’s 2022 vector alert, an adaptive, model-based spatial surveillance framework was developed and evaluated to improve detection, mapping accuracy, and operational responsiveness during invasion. Adaptive surveillance utilises initial observations to guide subsequent surveillance, linking the surveillance design to the underlying geographical characteristics of Anopheles stephensi distribution through observed data. This dynamic approach targets areas of high uncertainty and/or abundance, making the design responsive rather than predetermined. Focusing on Djibouti and selected regions of Ethiopia and Kenya, the adaptive surveillance was designed on previous in-country Anopheles stephensi surveillance data integrated with assembled open-source environmental, epidemiological, and demographic covariates. Key driver factors of the average monthly Anopheles stephensi catches varied geographically, although seasonality was universally important. Adaptive site allocation was optimised using a multicriteria target function which combines the trapping probability and uncertainty from previous surveys, with a simulation based on peaks-over-threshold (generalized Pareto) modelling of exceedances and Bayes factor–guided prioritisation. The selected adaptive surveillance design is the one that minimise the uncertainty in Anopheles stephensi trapping probability in hotspot areas. Optimal adaptive designs required between 50 to 59 sites per country, with uncertainty reductions in the probability of trapping projected up to 36% in Djibouti and more than 60% in Ethiopia and Kenya, with more than 60% site implementation halving uncertainty in Djibouti and Kenya and reducing it by up to 75% in Ethiopia. The proposed adaptive surveillance framework operationalises WHO guidance, accelerates hotspot identification, and inform targeted ecological studies and control interventions. It is extensible to other urban vectors (e.g., Aedes aegypti ), enabling integrated, cross-border surveillance essential to contain Anopheles stephensi during ongoing invasion.

This study evaluated the impact of combining house screens with long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) on mosquito host-seeking, resting, and biting behavior. Intervention houses received house screens and LLINs, while control houses received only LLINs. Centre for Disease Control light traps, pyrethrum spray collections and human landing catches were used to assess the densities of indoor and outdoor host-seeking, indoor resting, and biting behavior of malaria vectors in 15 sentinel houses per study arm per sampling method. The protective efficacy of screens and LLINs was estimated through entomological inoculation rates (EIRs). There were 68% fewer indoor host-seeking Anopheles funestus (RR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.20–0.51, p < 0.05) and 63% fewer An. arabiensis (RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.22–0.61, p < 0.05) in screened houses than unscreened houses. There was a significantly higher indoor biting rate for unscreened houses (6.75 bites/person/h [b/p/h]) than for screened houses (0 b/p/h) (χ² = 6.67, df = 1, p < 0.05). The estimated indoor EIR in unscreened houses was 2.91 infectious bites/person/six months, higher than that in screened houses (1.88 infectious bites/person/six months). Closing eaves and screening doors and windows has the potential to reduce indoor densities of malaria vectors and malaria transmission.

Background: Countries in the southern Africa region have set targets for malaria elimination between 2020 and 2030. Malaria vector control is among the key strategies being implemented to achieve this goal. This paper critically reviews published entomological research over the past six decades in three frontline malaria elimination countries namely, Botswana Eswatini and Namibia, and three second-line malaria elimination countries including Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The objective of the review is to assess the current knowledge and highlight gaps that need further research attention to strengthen evidence-based decision-making toward malaria elimination.Methods: Publications were searched on the PubMed engine using search terms: “(malaria vector control OR vector control OR malaria vector*) AND (Botswana OR Swaziland OR Eswatini OR Zambia OR Zimbabwe OR Mozambique)”. Opinions, perspectives, reports, commentaries, retrospective analysis on secondary data protocols, policy briefs, and reviews were excluded.Results: The search resulted in 718 publications with 145 eligible and included in this review for the six countries generated over six decades. The majority (139) were from three countries, namely Zambia (59) and Mozambique (48), and Zimbabwe (32) whilst scientific publications were relatively scanty from front-line malaria elimination countries, such as Namibia (2), Botswana (10) and Eswatini (4). Most of the research reported in the publications focused on vector bionomics generated mostly from Mozambique and Zambia, while information on insecticide resistance was mostly available from Mozambique. Extreme gaps were identified in reporting the impact of vector control interventions, both on vectors and disease outcomes. The literature is particularly scanty on important issues such as change of vector ecology over time and space, intervention costs, and uptake of control interventions as well as insecticide resistance.Conclusions: The review reveals a dearth of information about malaria vectors and their control, most noticeable among the frontline elimination countries: Namibia, Eswatini and Botswana. It is of paramount importance that malaria vector research capacity and routine entomological monitoring and evaluation are strengthened to enhance decision-making, considering changing vector bionomics and insecticide resistance, among other determinants of malaria vector control.

Background: The combined application of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are commonly used malaria interventions that target indoor Anopheles vectors. Recent studies on the effects of house screening (HS) and LLINs have demonstrated a reduction in indoor vector densities and malaria when the interventions are combined. In addition, complementary interventions are needed to curb co-occurring pest populations which pose menace to agricultural crop productivity and food security. However, interventions that impact malaria mainly centre on public health strategies, overlooking subtle but important component of agricultural measures. Addressing the coexisting risks of malaria and crop pests could contribute to improved livelihood of communities. Methods: A four-armed household, cluster-randomized, controlled study will be conducted to assess the combined impact of HS, LLINs and push-pull agricultural technology (PPT) against clinical malaria in children in Ethiopia. The unit of randomization will be the household, which includes a house and its occupants. A total of 838 households will be enrolled in this study. In this trial 246 households will receive LLINs and HS, 250 will receive LLINs, HS and PPT, 175 households will receive LLINs and PPT. The remaining 167 houses which receive LLINs only will be used as control. One child aged ≤14 years will be enrolled per household in each treatment and followed for clinical malaria using active case detection to estimate malaria incidence for two malaria transmission seasons. Discussion: Episodes of clinical malaria, density of indoor biting malaria vectors, sporozoite infection rate, improved crop infestation rate, crop yield gain, livestock productivity and cost effectiveness analysis will be the end points of this study. Socio-economic, social demographic, cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted using qualitative and participatory methods to explore the acceptability of HS and PPT. Documenting the combined impact of LLINs, HS and PPT on the prevalence of clinical malaria and crop pest damage will be the first of its kind. Trial registration: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR202006878245287. 24/06/2020. https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=11101.

Background: Concerted effort to control malaria has had a substantial impact on the transmission of the disease in the past two decades. In areas where reduced malaria transmission is being sustained through insecticide-based vector control interventions, primarily long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), non-insecticidal complementary tools will likely be needed to push towards malaria elimination. Once interruption in local disease transmission is achieved, insecticide-based measures can be scaled down gradually and eventually phased out, saving on costs of sustaining control programs and mitigating any unintended negative health and environmental impacts posed by insecticides. These non-insecticidal methods could eventually replace insecticidal methods of vector control. House screening, a non-insecticidal method, has a long history in malaria control, but is still not widely adopted in sub-Saharan Africa. This study aims to add to the evidence base for this intervention in low transmission settings by assessing the efficacy, impact, and feasibility of house screening in areas where LLINs are conventionally used for malaria control. Methods: A two-armed, household randomized clinical trial will be conducted in Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe to evaluate whether combined the use of house screens and LLINs affords better protection against clinical malaria in children between 6 months and 13 years compared to the sole use of LLINs. Eight hundred households will be enrolled in each study area, where 400 households will be randomly assigned the intervention, house screening, and LLINs while the control households will be provided with LLINs only. Clinical malaria incidence will be estimated by actively following up one child from each household for 6 months over the malaria transmission season. Cross-sectional parasite prevalence will be estimated by testing all participating children for malaria parasites at the beginning and end of each transmission season using rapid diagnostic tests. CDC light traps and pyrethrum spray catches (PSC) will be used to sample adult mosquitoes and evaluate the impact of house screening on indoor mosquito density, species distribution, and sporozoite rates. Discussion: This study will contribute epidemiological data on the impact of house screening on malaria transmission and assess the feasibility of its implementation on a programmatic scale. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov PACTR202008524310568. Registered on August 11, 2020.

Background: Concerted effort to control malaria has had a substantial impact on transmission of the disease in the past two decades. In areas where reduced malaria transmission is being sustained through insecticide-based vector control interventions, primarily long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), non-insecticidal complementary tools will likely be needed to push towards malaria elimination. Once interruption in local disease transmission is achieved, insecticide-based measures can be scaled down gradually and eventually phased out, saving on costs of sustaining control programmes and mitigating any unintended negative health and environmental impacts posed by insecticides. These non-insecticidal methods could eventually replace insecticidal methods of vector control. House screening, a non-insecticidal method, has a long history in malaria control, but is still not widely adopted in sub-Saharan Africa. This study aims to add to the evidence-base for this intervention in low transmission settings by assessing the efficacy, impact and feasibility of house screening in areas where LLINs are conventionally used for malaria control. Methods: A two-armed, household randomized clinical trial will be conducted in Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe to evaluate whether combined use of house screens and LLINs affords better protection against clinical malaria in children between 6 months and 13 years compared to the sole use of LLINs. Eight hundred households will be enrolled in each study area, where 400 households will be randomly assigned the intervention, house screening and LLINs while the control households will be provided with LLINs only. Clinical malaria incidence will be estimated by actively following up one child from each household for 6 months over the malaria transmission season. Cross-sectional parasite prevalence will be estimated by testing all participating children for malaria parasites at the beginning and end of each transmission season using rapid diagnostic tests.CDC light traps and pyrethrum spray catches (PSC) will be used to sample adult mosquitoes and evaluate the impact of house screening on indoor mosquito density, species distribution and sporozoite rates.Discussion: This study will contribute epidemiological data on the impact of house screening on malaria transmission and assess the feasibility of its implementation on a programmatic scale. Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered on 11^th August 2020. Registration number PACTR202008524310568.

Background: Outdoor and early evening mosquito biting needs to be addressed if malaria elimination is to be achieved. While indoor-targeted interventions, such as insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying, remain essential, complementary approaches that tackle persisting outdoor transmission are urgently required to maximize the impact. Major malaria vectors principally bite human hosts around the feet and ankles. Consequently, this study investigated whether sandals treated with efficacious spatial repellents can protect against outdoor biting mosquitoes. Methodology: Sandals affixed with hessian bands measuring 48 cm² treated with 0.06 g, 0.10 g and 0.15 g of transfluthrin were tested in large cage semi-field and full field experiments. Sandals affixed with hessian bands measuring 240 cm² and treated with 0.10 g and 0.15 g of transfluthrin were also tested semi field experiments. Human landing catches (HLC) were used to assess reduction in biting exposure by comparing proportions of mosquitoes landing on volunteers wearing treated and untreated sandals. Sandals were tested against insectary reared Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in semi-field experiments and against wild mosquito species in rural Tanzania. Results: In semi-field tests, sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 48 cm² and treated with 0.15 g, 0.10 g and 0.06 g transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 45.9%, (95% confidence interval (C.I.) 28–59%), 61.1% (48–71%), and 25.9% (9–40%), respectively compared to untreated sandals. Sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 240 cm² and treated with 0.15 g and 0.10 g transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 59% (43–71%) and 64% (48–74%), respectively. In field experiments, sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 48 cm² and treated with 0.15 g transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 70% (60–76%) against Anopheles gambiae sensu lato, and 66.0% (59–71%) against all mosquito species combined. Conclusion: Transfluthrin-treated sandals conferred significant protection against mosquito bites in semi-field and field settings. Further evaluation is recommended for this tool as a potential complementary intervention against malaria. This intervention could be particularly useful for protecting against outdoor exposure to mosquito bites. Additional studies are necessary to optimize treatment techniques and substrates, establish safety profiles and determine epidemiological impact in different settings.

Background Outdoor and early evening mosquito biting needs to be addressed if malaria elimination is to be achieved. While indoor-targeted interventions such as insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying remain essential, complementary approaches that tackle persisting outdoor transmission are urgently required to maximize the impact. Major malaria vectors principally bite human hosts around the feet and ankles. Consequently, this study investigated whether sandals treated with efficacious spatial repellents can protect against outdoor biting mosquitoes. Methodology Sandals affixed with hessian bands measuring 48cm 2 treated with 6 ml, 10 ml and 12 ml of transfluthrin were tested in large cage semi-field and full field experiments. Sandals affixed with hessian bands measuring 240cm 2 and treated with 10 ml and 12ml of transfluthrin were also tested semi field experiments. Human landing catches (HLC) were used to assess reduction in biting exposure by comparing proportions of mosquitoes landing on volunteers wearing treated and untreated sandals. Sandals were tested against insectary reared Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in semi-field experiments and against wild mosquito species in rural Tanzania. Results In semi-field tests, sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 48cm 2 and treated with 12 ml, 10ml and 6ml transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 45.9%, (95% confidence interval (C.I.) = 28–59%), 61.1% (48%–71%), and 25.9% (9% - 40%) respectively compared to untreated sandals. Sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 240cm 2 and treated with 12 ml and 10ml transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 59% (43 - 71%) and 64% (48 - 74%) respectively. In field experiments, sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 48cm 2 and treated with 12 ml transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 70% (60% - 76%) against Anopheles gambiae s.l and 66.0% (59% - 71%) against all mosquito species combined. Conclusion Transfluthrin-treated sandals conferred significant protection against mosquito bites in semi-field and field settings. Further evaluation is recommended for this tool as a potential complimentary intervention against malaria. This intervention could be particularly useful for protecting against outdoor exposure to mosquito bites. Additional studies are necessary to optimize treatment techniques and substrates, establish safety profiles and determine epidemiological impact in different settings.

Background Outdoor and early evening mosquito biting needs to be addressed if malaria elimination is to be achieved. While indoor-targeted interventions such as insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying remain essential, complementary approaches that tackle persisting outdoor transmission are urgently required to maximize the impact. Major malaria vectors principally bite human hosts around the feet and ankles. Consequently, this study investigated whether sandals treated with efficacious spatial repellents can protect against outdoor biting mosquitoes. Methodology Sandals affixed with hessian bands measuring 48cm 2 treated with 6 ml, 10 ml and 12 ml of transfluthrin were tested in large cage semi-field and full field experiments. Sandals affixed with hessian bands measuring 240cm 2 and treated with 10 ml and 12ml of transfluthrin were also tested semi field experiments. Human landing catches (HLC) were used to assess reduction in biting exposure by comparing proportions of mosquitoes landing on volunteers wearing treated and untreated sandals. Sandals were tested against insectary reared Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in semi-field experiments and against wild mosquito species in rural Tanzania. Results In semi-field tests, sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 48cm 2 and treated with 12 ml, 10ml and 6ml transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 45.9%, (95% confidence interval (C.I.) = 28–59%), 61.1% (48%–71%), and 25.9% (9% - 40%) respectively compared to untreated sandals. Sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 240cm 2 and treated with 12 ml and 10ml transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 59% (43 - 71%) and 64% (48 - 74%) respectively. In field experiments, sandals fitted with hessian bands measuring 48cm 2 and treated with 12 ml transfluthrin reduced mosquito landings by 70% (60% - 76%) against Anopheles gambiae s.l and 66.0% (59% - 71%) against all mosquito species combined. Conclusion Transfluthrin-treated sandals conferred significant protection against mosquito bites in semi-field and field settings. Further evaluation is recommended for this tool as a potential complimentary intervention against malaria. This intervention could be particularly useful for protecting against outdoor exposure to mosquito bites. Additional studies are necessary to optimize treatment techniques and substrates, establish safety profiles and determine epidemiological impact in different settings.