Rune Bosselmann

Background: Despite extensive use of available vector control tools, the burden of malaria and dengue continues to increase throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Gaps in house structures, most especially in eaves and windows, allow vector entry and facilitate indoor vector biting and disease burden. Simple house modification tools that target these structures therefore have the potential to reduce human exposure to bites in the home. This study assessed the performance of Insecticide Treated Screening (ITS) comprising Eave Nets and Window Screens (ITENs & ITWS), incorporated with deltamethrin and piperonyl-butoxide (PBO) in Tanzania. Method: A randomised Latin square (4 X 4) was conducted in four experimental huts built in a semi-field system (SFS). Each hut within each of the chambers of the SFS was covered with a large netting cage to allow recapture of mosquitoes inside and outside of the huts. Four treatment arms were evaluated: 1) new ITS; 2) 12-months naturally-aged ITS; 3) estimated 12 months field-used Olyset® Plus ITNs (Standard-of-Care in Tanzania), and; 4) no treatment. The study was performed for 32 nights using a minimum of 30 mosquitoes per strain per night, that is, a total of 120 (4 x 30) mosquitoes per hut per night. Four laboratory-reared strains were used: transmitters of malaria ( Anopheles arabiensis and An. funestus ) and dengue infection ( Aedes aegypti ) and those known for nuisance biting ( Culex quinquefasciatus ). Recaptured mosquitoes were assessed for mortality at 72 hours (M72), blood feeding and hut entry endpoints. A simulation exercise with a modified mechanistic model tracking Plasmodium falciparum malaria was used to illustrate the potential epidemiological impact from these products. Results: New ITS induced higher M72 than field-used ITNs against all mosquito species tested [OR: 2.25 (95%CI: 1.65-3.06), p<0.0001], while M72 was similar between aged ITS and field-used ITNs [OR: 0.80 (95%CI: 0.59-1.08), p=0.141]. Both new, and aged ITS reduced more mosquito blood feeding and hut entry than field-used ITNs for all mosquito species tested (p<0.0001). Transmission model estimates indicate epidemiological impacts of ITS may supersede those of ITNs at the population level. The model results indicate that the potency of these impacts depends on assumed intervention percentage cover, durability and mosquito bionomics. Conclusions: ITS is an efficacious tool for controlling vectors transmitting malaria, and dengue, and those known for nuisance biting in a semi-field setting. Given the intervention’s simplicity, it should be considered as an additional (or stand-alone) tool alongside behavioural change educational efforts to encourage the repurposing of old ITNs for house screening.