Next Article in Journal
Leveraging RNA Interference to Impact Insecticide Resistance in the Colorado Potato Beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata
Previous Article in Journal
Rescuing the Inhibitory Effect of the Salivary Gland Hypertrophy Virus of Musca domestica on Mating Behavior
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evidence of Transmission of Plasmodium vivax 210 and Plasmodium vivax 247 by Anopheles gambiae and An. coluzzii, Major Malaria Vectors in Benin/West Africa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/insects14050417
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Efficacy of Pyrethroid–Pyriproxyfen and Pyrethroid–Chlorfenapyr Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets (LLINs) for the Control of Non-Anopheles Mosquitoes: Secondary Analysis from a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (cRCT)

by
Constantin J. Adoha
1,2,*,†,
Arthur Sovi
2,3,4,*,†,
Boulais Yovogan
1,2,
Bruno Akinro
2,
Manfred Accrombessi
3,
Edouard Dangbénon
2,
Esdras M. Odjo
1,2,
Hermann Watson Sagbohan
1,2,
Casimir Dossou Kpanou
2,
Gil G. Padonou
1,2,
Louisa A. Messenger
3,5,
Clément Agbangla
1,
Corine Ngufor
2,3,
Jackie Cook
6,
Natacha Protopopoff
3 and
Martin C. Akogbéto
2
1
Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Université d’Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi 01 BP 526, Benin
2
Centre de Recherche Entomologique de Cotonou, Cotonou 06 BP 2604, Benin
3
Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
4
Faculté d’Agronomie, Université de Parakou, Parakou BP 123, Benin
5
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA
6
Medical Research Council (MRC) International Statistics and Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Insects 2023, 14(5), 417; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14050417
Submission received: 24 March 2023 / Revised: 21 April 2023 / Accepted: 26 April 2023 / Published: 27 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Controlling Mosquitoes to Reduce the Spread of Mosquito-Borne Diseases)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Failure to control nuisance mosquitoes may potentially affect adherence to vector control tools. In the present study, we examined the impact of two dual-active ingredient (a.i.) long lasting insecticidal nets (LLIN), namely Interceptor G2® LLIN (alpha-cypermethrin-chlorfenapyr LLIN) and Royal Guard® LLIN (alpha-cypermethrin-pyriproxyfen LLIN), on the density of Culex and Mansonia mosquito species as compared to Interceptor® LLIN (alpha-cypermethrin-only LLIN). The study took place over two years in 60 clusters in the Zou region, Benin, with 20 clusters assigned to each of three study arms. Entomological data were collected over nine rounds up to 24 months post-net distribution. Overall, there was no evidence of a significant reduction in the density of Culex spp. And Mansonia spp. in the two dual-a.i. LLIN arms compared to the pyrethroid-only net. Both mosquito genera were found to bite more outdoors, with similar magnitudes of reduction observed in all three study arms in year 2 compared to year 1. Our findings suggest that the three types of LLINs had similar effects on the density of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. Going forward, the development of interventions which provide control of outdoor biting mosquitoes also needs to be prioritized.

Abstract

The efficacy of a vector control tool in reducing mosquito biting is crucial for its acceptability. The present study compared the vector density of Culex spp. And Mansonia spp. across clusters, which received two dual-active ingredient (a.i.) long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and a standard pyrethroid-only LLIN, and assessed the seasonality of these mosquito genera. A total of 85,723 Culex spp. and 144,025 Mansonia spp. were caught over the study period. The density of Culex and Mansonia was reduced in all three arms over the study period. There was no evidence of a significant reduction in the indoor or outdoor density of Culex spp. in either dual-a.i. LLIN arm as compared to the standard pyrethroid-only net arm. A similar trend was observed with Mansonia spp. A high density of Culex spp. was found both in rainy and dry seasons, while for Mansonia spp., this was mainly observed during the rainy season. These results suggest that the novel insecticides in the dual-a.i. LLINs did not have an additional impact on these species and that pyrethroids might still be effective on them. Further work is required to determine whether these species of mosquitoes have resistance to the insecticides tested in this trial.

1. Background

Until recently, pyrethroids were the only insecticides approved by the World Health Organization for use on bed nets for controlling disease-transmitting insects. The large-scale deployment of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) has been shown to reduce malaria transmission globally [1] due to the impact they have on Anopheles mosquito populations which spread the disease. Between 2000 and 2014, insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) contributed to an estimated 42% and 66% reduction in malaria incidence and mortality, respectively [1]. However, these gains have stalled, with no reduction recorded in global malaria cases since 2015 [2]. This may be partially due to the reduced efficacy of the nets, which may be caused by the emergence and spread of pyrethroid resistance in malaria vectors [3,4,5]. A new generation of LLINs treated with active ingredients other than pyrethroids have been developed to control pyrethroid-resistant vectors. These nets incorporate a single active ingredient (a pyrethroid insecticide) and either a synergist (piperonyl butoxide) or a second insecticide (pyriproxyfen, or chlorfenapyr), with a differing mode of action. Some of these dual-active ingredient (a.i.) LLINs have been tested in Benin, with results showing reductions of 42% and 56% in the density of Anopheles mosquitoes in the Royal Guard® LLIN (an alpha-cypermethrin-pyriproxyfen LLIN) and Interceptor G2® LLIN (an alpha-cypermethrin-chlorfenapyr LLIN) arms, respectively, compared to Interceptor® LLIN (alpha-cypermethrin-only LLIN) [6].
Some community trials have assessed the impact of vector control tools incorporating traditional neurotoxic insecticides (pyrethroids, carbamates, and organophosphates) on populations of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp., with no great effect. For instance, no significant decline in the density of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. was observed after the community deployment of deltamethrin-incorporated ITNs in Assam, Northeast India [7]. Moreover, a six-fold increase in the density of Culex spp. was observed between 2014 and 2017 in Bioko Island after both PermaNet 2.0 and Actellic 300 CS-based IRS were deployed [8]. However, to our knowledge, no Phase 3 trial has assessed the community efficacy of dual-a.i. LLINs on the density of mosquitoes other than Anopheles, such as Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. Indeed, these two mosquito genera are known to cause a strong biting nuisance with serious discomfort to both animals and humans [9]. They are also transmitters of several diseases [10,11,12,13], of which lymphatic filariasis is the most common in Benin, with approximately 6.6 million at-risk people [14]. This secondary analysis from a large cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) in Benin examined the impact of Interceptor G2® LLINs and Royal Guard® LLINs, compared to pyrethroid-only LLINs (Interceptor®) on the density of Culex and Mansonia mosquito species. While some authors showed that the peak in density of these mosquito genera was observed in the rainy season [15], others found it to occur in the dry season [16]. Given these conflicting results, we aimed at assessing the seasonality of the density of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. in the present study.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Area

The trial was conducted in three communes in Benin: Covè (07°13′08.0400″ N, 02°20′21.8400″ E), Zagnanado (07°16′00″ N, 02°21′00″ E), and Ouinhi (07°05′00″ N, 02°29′00″ E), located in the Zou region. There are two rainy seasons, lasting from May to July and from September to November. The annual rainfall varies between 900 mm and 1250 mm. A baseline survey in 2019 showed a high density of mosquitoes with an average of 97.1 mean bites per person per night. Culex and Mansonia mosquitoes accounted for 72.2% of total bites [17]. Malaria prevalence was 42.1%, 69.1%, and 67.9% in people aged <5 years, 5–10 years, and 10–15 years, respectively [18].
The protocol of the original trial has been described in detail elsewhere [19]. Briefly, a total of 123 villages with a population of approximately 220,000 inhabitants were divided into 60 clusters (Figure 1), each with approximately 200 households and 1200 residents. Twenty clusters were randomly allocated to each of three study arms: intervention arm 1: alpha-cypermethrin-chlorfenapyr LLIN (Interceptor G2® LLIN); intervention arm 2: alpha-cypermethrin-pyriproxyfen LLIN (Royal Guard® LLIN); and control arm: alpha-cypermethrin-only LLIN (Interceptor® LLIN).
The total population and coverage rates of nets in the Interceptor G2® LLIN arm, Royal Guard® LLIN arm, and Interceptor® LLIN arm were 70,989, 74,822, and 69,239 inhabitants and 97.1%, 96.4%, and 95.1%, respectively. Overall, 115,323 LLINs were distributed among the 215,050 inhabitants of the whole study area, equating to 1 LLIN for every 1.9 people.

2.2. Mosquito Sampling and Processing

One round of collection was performed in September–October 2019 prior to net distribution, with 8 post-intervention collections taking place between June 2020 and April 2022. In each cluster, one house was selected at random from a census list and three others at 15–20 m from the first home. In each house, two trained volunteers (one seated inside and the other outside) collected all mosquitoes landing on their legs from 19:00 to 01:00, and a second team of volunteers collected mosquitoes from 01:00 to 07:00.
Mosquitoes were separated by genus, then morphologically identified to species level using a binocular microscope and the Gillies and Meillon [20] taxonomic key. The impact of dual-a.i. LLINs on Anopheles mosquitoes has been reported previously [6]; this study focused on Culex and Mansonia mosquito species.

2.3. Ethical Considerations

Ethical approvals were granted by the Comité National d’Ethique pour la Recherche en Santé du Bénin (N°30/MS/DC/SGM/DRFMT/CNERS/SA, Approval n°6 of 04 March 2019) and the ethics committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (16237-1). Informed written consent was sought from the heads of households as well as adult mosquito collection volunteers. Volunteers were trained to collect mosquitoes before they bite. Malaria symptoms were closely monitored, and volunteers were referred to the nearest health facility and given antimalarial drugs in case of an episode. All collectors and field supervisors were also vaccinated against yellow fever.

2.4. Data Management and Analysis

Entomological surveillance data were double entered into CS Pro 7.2 software and cleaned with Stata 15.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA).
The mean number of mosquito bites per person per night was calculated for Mansonia spp. and Culex spp. at the household level. The mean density was compared between study arms using a mixed effect generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution. Collection rounds and clusters were included in the model as random effects. The study arm was included as a fixed effect. An adjusted model, including baseline mean cluster-level mosquito density (either Mansonia or Culex) was also examined. Stata 15.0 software (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA) was used for the analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Mosquito Species Composition

In total, 331,852 mosquitoes (all species) were collected over the whole study period, with 46,613 at baseline and 285,239 over the eight collection rounds post-intervention (Figure 2). At baseline, Mansonia spp. and Culex spp. were the most abundant mosquito genera collected, with respective frequencies of 37% and 35.3%, with a greater ratio collected outdoors compared to indoors. An. Gambiae s.l. was the third most abundant mosquito genera collected. Other non-Anopheles mosquitoes collected at very low frequencies (<1%), both indoors and outdoors, included Aedes spp., Coquillettidia spp., and Eretmapodites spp. A similar trend was observed post-intervention (Figure 2).

3.2. Density of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. at Baseline in the Three Study Arms

Table 1 shows the densities of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. collected per arm prior to the distribution of LLINs (baseline densities).
Overall, the indoor density of Culex spp. was lowest in the standard LLIN arm and highest in the pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLIN arm, while the outdoor density was lowest in the pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLIN arm and highest in the pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLIN arm (Table 1).
For Mansonia spp. at baseline, the lowest indoor density was observed in the standard LLIN arm and highest in the pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLIN arm. Outdoors, the density was slightly higher compared to indoors (Table 1).

3.3. Efficacy of Pyrethroid–Pyriproxyfen LLINs and Pyrethroid–Chlorfenapyr LLINs on Culex spp. Density Compared to Pyrethroid-Only LLINs

Over the whole study period, the total number of Culex spp. collected was 25,819 indoors and 43,450 outdoors, with the highest density caught in year 1 (Table 2).
Overall (year 1 and 2 combined) the indoor density of Culex spp. in the pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLIN arm (15 b/p/n) was similar to the density in the standard LLIN arm (13.3 b/p/n) for both the unadjusted (DR = 0.9 (95% CI: 0.4–2.4), p = 0.8817) and adjusted (DR= 0.9 (95% CI: 0.4–2.0), p = 0.7929) models. Although the density was slightly lower in the pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLIN arm (11.9 bi/p/n), the reduction was not significant (DR = 0.6 (95% CI: 0.2–1.5), p = 0.2793 for the unadjusted model and DR = 0.4 (95% CI: 0.2–1.0), p = 0.0523 for the adjusted one). The same trend was observed in years 1 and 2 post-intervention. Similar observations were found outdoors (Table 2).

3.4. Efficacy of Pyrethroid–Pyriproxyfen LLINs, and Pyrethroid–Chlorfenapyr LLINs on the Mansonia spp. Density

The total number of Mansonia spp. collected over the collection period was higher outdoors (n = 77,036) than indoors (n = 49,759). There were more Mansonia mosquitoes collected in year 1 than in year 2 post-intervention, both indoors (33,102 vs. 16,657) and outdoors (50,139 vs. 26,897) (Table 3).
Overall, no significant reduction in the mean indoor density of Mansonia spp. was seen either in the pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLIN arm (28.4 b/p/n, DR= 0.5 (95% CI: 0.1–2.3), p = 0.3920 for the unadjusted model and DR= 0.4 (95% CI: 0.1–1.2), p = 0.0982 for the adjusted one) or in the pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLIN arm (24.4 b/p/n, DR= 0.5 (95% CI: 0.1–2.4), p = 0.4160 for the unadjusted model or DR= 0.5 (95% CI: 0.1–1.5), p = 0.2061 for the adjusted one), compared to the standard LLIN arm (25.0 b/p/n (95%: 15.4–34.5)). For each of the two post-intervention monitoring years, a similar trend was observed (Table 3).
Outdoors, no reduction in the density of Mansonia spp. was observed in the pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLIN arm (44.1 b/p/n, DR= 0.6 (95% CI: 0.1–2.6), p = 0.4540 for the unadjusted model and DR= 0.4 (95% CI: 0.1–1.5), p = 0.1825 for the adjusted one) compared to the standard LLIN arm (40.4 b/p/n (95% CI: 25.3–55.4)). In the pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLIN arm, there was a slight but non-significant reduction in the density of Mansonia spp. (35.9 b/p/n, DR= 0.6 (95% CI: 0.1–2.9), p = 0.5494 for the unadjusted model and DR= 0.6 (95% CI: 0.2–2.2), p = 0.4674 for the adjusted one) (Table 3).
For Culex spp., the nightly indoor density ranged between 2.8–8.3 bites/person (collection round range) in the standard LLIN arm, 1.6–11.7 b/p in the pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLIN arm, and 1.0–13.1 b/p in the pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLIN arm (Figure 3a). Outdoors, the nightly density varied between 3.1–12.2 b/p (collection round range) in the standard LLIN arm, 2.8–19.2 b/p in the pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLIN arm, and 2.7–15.9 in the pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLIN arm (Figure 3b). Overall, the indoor and outdoor density of Culex spp. declined over time in the three study arms, with two peaks recorded in the rainy season (September–October 2020 and 2021) and one in the dry season (March–April 2021) (Figure 3a,b).
For Mansonia spp., the nightly indoor density was 3.0–17.1 b/p (collection round range) in the standard LLIN arm, 1.2–30.0 b/p in the pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLIN arm, and 1.0–18.7 b/p in the pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLIN arm (Figure 3c). Outdoors, the nightly density was 5.2–29.7 b/p, 2.0–42.8 b/p, and 1.6–23.8 b/p in the standard LLIN, pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLIN and pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLIN arms, respectively (Figure 3d). Overall, a decline in the density of Mansonia spp. was observed over collection rounds, with the two highest peaks occurring in the rainy season (June–July 2020 and 2021) and the lowest occurring in the dry season (December 2021–January 2022) for both indoor and outdoor collections that took place in the three study arms (Figure 3c,d).

4. Discussion

This study evaluated the efficacy of a pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLIN and a pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLIN in reducing the biting frequency of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp., compared to a standard pyrethroid-only net. Overall, there was no evidence of a reduction in the density of Culex spp. or Mansonia spp. in the two dual-a.i. LLIN arms compared to the standard pyrethroid-only LLIN arm, either indoors or outdoors. The seasonal dynamics of the density of Culex spp. was similar in the three study arms, with a global decline observed over collection rounds and peaks in density seen in both rainy and dry seasons. The same trend was observed for Mansonia spp., which had a higher density.
As previously observed at baseline by Yovogan et al. [17], Mansonia spp. and Culex spp. remained the two most abundant mosquito genera in the study area, especially outdoors. Along with Anopheles mosquitoes, both Culex and Mansonia are able to transmit lymphatic filariasis. A previous trial that assessed lymphatic filariasis infection in the Zou region school children aged six to seven years old, using an Alere™ Filariasis Test Strip, revealed a disease prevalence of 1.2% [19]. The high density of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. and the endemicity of the Zou region for lymphatic filariasis [14] emphasizes the need to conduct PCR testing to assess whether the two mosquito genera play a major role in the transmission of the disease in the area, as previously shown by Lupenza et al. [21] in Tanzania and Ughasi et al. [11] in Ghana.
Peaks in density for Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. were observed during both the rainy and dry seasons. A similar trend was previously observed by Uttah et al. [22] in Nigeria, Salako et al. [16] in Benin, and Galardo et al. [23] in Brazil. The presence of these mosquitoes all year round increases the risks of lymphatic filariasis transmission.
In previous trials conducted in the Zambia and Papua New Guinea, ITNs showed potential for reducing lymphatic filariasis prevalence [24,25]. In the present study, while significant reductions of 42% and 56% in the density of Anopheles were observed through pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLINs and pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLINs, respectively, compared to standard pyrethroid-only LLINs [6], no reduction in the density of Mansonia spp. and Culex spp. was observed in either intervention arm compared to the control. Indeed, there was a decrease of similar magnitude in the density of Mansonia spp. in all three study arms in the second year of the trial compared to the first one. A similar trend was observed with Culex spp., suggesting that the three types of study mosquito net had a similar effect on each of the two mosquito genera. One possible reason for this could be that the concentration of the novel insecticides (chlorfenapyr and pyriproxyfen) incorporated into the dual-a.i. LLINs may not have been sufficient to provide an additional effect to the pyrethroid component on the density of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. compared to the standard pyrethroid-only LLINs. Indeed, according to the WHO guidelines [26], the diagnostic concentration for an insecticide can vary from genera to genera. Ideally the dual-a.i. LLINs would be effective against Anopheles and other biting mosquitoes, so establishing the optimum concentration of novel insecticides (chlorfenapyr and pyriproxyfen) to apply to nets is key.
In addition, at baseline, the two mosquito genera were found to be more exophagic than endophagic [17], which might have considerably reduced the net–vector contact, thus limiting net efficacy. A different biting behavior of Culex mosquitoes with similar densities both indoors and outdoors, was previously observed in the Atacora-Donga region in Benin [16]. Additionally, in Kerala State, India, Mansonia annulifera and Mansonia indiana were found to be endophagic [27]. All these results suggest that biting behavior of the Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. can vary from place to place. However, in places where these mosquitoes are exophagic or bite similarly both indoors and outdoors, outdoor control interventions, such as mosquito landing boxes [28] or attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) [29], could be considered.
The decrease in density of both Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. in all three arms post-net distribution suggests also that both mosquito species might be susceptible to alpha-cypermethrin, although some studies conducted at different sites in Benin have revealed that Culex quinquefasciatus was resistant to pyrethroid insecticides [30,31]. This shows that the lack of insecticide resistance data in both Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. is also a limitation for the present study.

5. Conclusions

The concentrations of novel insecticides (chlorfenapyr and pyriproxyfen) incorporated in mosquito nets to control Anopheles mosquitoes might not be appropriate for Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. Additional laboratory trials are needed to determine the concentration of these insecticides applied to mosquito nets for the effective control of populations of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. However, the reduction in density across all three arms after net distribution could mean that pyrethroids (alpha-cypermethrin) are still effective toward these species. Outdoor control interventions could also be considered for the control of these mosquito species in the areas where they are exophagic or bite similarly both indoors and outdoors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.J.A., A.S., J.C., N.P. and M.C.A.; methodology, C.J.A., A.S., J.C., N.P. and M.C.A.; software, E.D.; validation, L.A.M., J.C., N.P. and M.C.A.; formal analysis, B.A., J.C. and N.P.; investigation, C.J.A., A.S. and B.Y.; resources, C.N., J.C. and N.P.; data curation, C.J.A., B.Y. and E.D.; writing—original draft preparation, C.J.A. and A.S.; writing—review and editing, B.A., M.A., E.D., E.M.O., H.W.S., C.D.K., G.G.P., C.A., L.A.M., C.N., J.C., N.P. and M.C.A.; visualization, C.A., B.A., L.A.M., J.C. and N.P.; supervision, A.S., C.A., G.G.P. and M.C.A.; project administration, G.G.P., C.N., N.P. and M.C.A.; funding acquisition, C.N., J.C. and N.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding for this research is provided by a grant (Number 2018-25-Catalytic LLIN) to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine from both UNITAID and Global Fund via the Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC). This cluster-randomized controlled trial is part of a larger project, “The New Nets Project”. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, interpretation and analysis, decision to publish, or manuscript preparation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Comité National d’Ethique pour la Recherche en Santé du Bénin (N°30/MS/DC/SGM/DRFMT/CNERS/SA, Approval n°6 of 04/03/2019) and the ethics committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Approval 16237-1 of 02/04/2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed written consent was sought from the heads of households as well as adult mosquito collection volunteers.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analyzed during the present study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to people of the Cove, Ouinhi, and Zangnanado districts as well as their community leaders as for their commitment to the implementation of the trial. We also thank the technicians who performed the mosquito processing and the LSHTM ODK support team who provided electronic data solutions through LSHTM Open Research Kits (http://odk.lshtm.ac.uk/, accessed on 31 December 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interest.

References

  1. Bhatt, S.; Weiss, D.J.; Cameron, E.; Bisanzio, D.; Mappin, B.; Dalrymple, U.; Battle, K.E.; Moyes, C.L.; Henry, A.; Eckhoff, P.A.; et al. The effect of malaria control on Plasmodium falciparum in Africa between 2000 and 2015. Nature 2015, 526, 207–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. WHO. World Malaria Report 2022; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. N’Guessan, R.; Corbel, V.; Akogbéto, M.; Rowland, M. Reduced efficacy of insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying for malaria control in pyrethroid resistance area, Benin. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2007, 13, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Asidi, A.; N’Guessan, R.; Akogbeto, M.; Curtis, C.; Rowland, M. Loss of Household Protection from Use of Insecticide-Treated Nets against Pyrethroid-Resistant Mosquitoes, Benin. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2012, 18, 1101–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ranson, H.; Lissenden, N. Insecticide Resistance in African Anopheles Mosquitoes: A Worsening Situation that Needs Urgent Action to Maintain Malaria Control. Trends Parasitol. 2016, 32, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Accrombessi, M.; Cook, J.; Dangbenon, E.; Yovogan, B.; Akpovi, H.; Sovi, A.; Adoha, C.; Assongba, L.; Sidick, A.; Akinro, B.; et al. Efficacy of pyriproxyfen-pyrethroid long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and chlorfenapyr-pyrethroid LLINs compared with pyrethroid-only LLINs for malaria control in Benin: A cluster-randomised, superiority trial. Lancet 2023, 401, 435–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dutta, P.; Khan, S.A.; Khan, A.M.; Borah, J.; Sarmah, C.K.; Mahanta, J. The Effect of Insecticide-Treated Mosquito Nets (ITMNs) on Japanese Encephalitis Virus Seroconversion in Pigs and Humans. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2011, 84, 466–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Fuseini, G.; Nguema, R.N.; Phiri, W.P.; Donfack, O.T.; Cortes, C.; Von Fricken, M.E.; Meyers, J.I.; Kleinschmidt, I.; Garcia, G.A.; Maas, C.; et al. Increased Biting Rate of Insecticide-Resistant Culex Mosquitoes and Community Adherence to IRS for Malaria Control in Urban Malabo, Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea. J. Med. Entomol. 2019, 56, 1071–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Harbach, R.E. The mosquitoes of the subgenus Culex in southwestern Asia and Egypt (Diptera: Culicidae). Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. 1988, 24, 240. [Google Scholar]
  10. Labarthe, N.; Guerrero, J. Epidemiology of heartworm: What is happening in South America and Mexico? Vet. Parasitol. 2005, 133, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ughasi, J.; Bekard, H.E.; Coulibaly, M.; Adabie-Gomez, D.; Gyapong, J.; Appawu, M.; Wilson, M.D.; Boakye, D.A. Mansonia africana and Mansonia uniformis are vectors in the transmission of Wuchereria bancrofti lymphatic filariasis in Ghana. Parasites Vectors 2012, 5, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Samy, A.M.; Elaagip, A.H.; Kenawy, M.A.; Ayres, C.F.J.; Peterson, A.T.; Soliman, D.E. Climate Change Influences on the Global Potential Distribution of the Mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus, Vector of West Nile Virus and Lymphatic Filariasis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0163863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ortega-Morales, A.; Zavortink, T.; Huerta-Jiménez, H.; Ibáñez-Bernal, S.; Siller-Rodríguez, Q. The mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of Hidalgo state, Mexico. Acta Trop. 2019, 189, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Boko-Collins, P.M.; Ogouyemi-Hounto, A.; Adjinacou-Badou, E.G.; Gbaguidi-Saizonou, L.; Dossa, N.I.; Dare, A.; Ibikounle, M.; Zoerhoff, K.L.; Cohn, D.A.; Batcho, W.; et al. Assessment of treatment impact on lymphatic filariasis in 13 districts of Benin: Progress toward elimination in nine districts despite persistence of transmission in some areas. Parasites Vectors 2019, 12, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Adeleke, M.A.; Mafiana, C.F.; Idowu, A.B.; Sam-Wobo, S.O.; Idowu, O.A. Population dynamics of indoor sampled mosquitoes and their implication in disease transmission in Abeokuta, south-western Nigeria. J. Vector Borne Dis. 2010, 47, 33–38. [Google Scholar]
  16. Salako, A.S.; Ossè, R.; Padonou, G.G.; Dagnon, F.; Aïkpon, R.; Kpanou, C.; Sagbohan, H.; Sovi, A.; Sèzonlin, M.; Akogbeto, M.C. Population Dynamics of Anopheles gambiae s.l. and Culex quinquefasciatus in Rural and Urban Settings Before an Indoor Residual Spraying Campaign in Northern Benin. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2019, 19, 674–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yovogan, B.; Sovi, A.; Padonou, G.G.; Adoha, C.J.; Akinro, B.; Chitou, S.; Dangbénon, E.; Akpovi, H.; Messenger, L.A.; Ossè, R.; et al. Pre-intervention characteristics of the mosquito species in Benin in preparation for a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of dual active-ingredient long-lasting insecticidal nets for controlling insecticide-resistant malaria vectors. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0251742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Accrombessi, M.; Akogbeto, M.C.; Dangbenon, E.; Akpovi, H.; Sovi, A.; Yovogan, B.; Adoha, C.; Assongba, L.; Ogouyemi-Hounto, A.; Padonou, G.G.; et al. Malaria Burden and Associated Risk Factors in an Area of Pyrethroid-Resistant Vectors in Southern Benin. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2022, 107, 681–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Accrombessi, M.; Cook, J.; Ngufor, C.; Sovi, A.; Dangbenon, E.; Yovogan, B.; Akpovi, H.; Hounto, A.; Thickstun, C.; Padonou, G.G.; et al. Assessing the efficacy of two dual-active ingredients long-lasting insecticidal nets for the control of malaria transmitted by pyrethroid-resistant vectors in Benin: Study protocol for a three-arm, single-blinded, parallel, cluster-randomized controlled trial. BMC. Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 194. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gillies, M.T.; De Meillon, B. The Anophelinae of Africa South of the Sahara. Ethiopian Zoogeographical Region; South African Institute for Medical Research: Johannesburg, South African, 1968; p. 343. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lupenza, E.; Gasarasi, D.B.; Minzi, O.M. Lymphatic filariasis, infection status in Culex quinquefasciatus and Anopheles species after six rounds of mass drug administration in Masasi District, Tanzania. Infect. Dis. Poverty 2021, 10, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Uttah, E.C.; Wokem, G.N.; Okonofua, C. The Abundance and Biting Patterns of Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Culicidae) in the Coastal Region of Nigeria. Int. Sch. Res. Not. 2013, 8, e640691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Galardo, A.K.R.; Hijjar, A.V.; Falcão, L.L.O.; Carvalho, D.P.; Ribeiro, K.A.N.; Silveira, G.A.; Neto, N.F.S.; Saraiva, J.F. Seasonality and Biting Behavior of Mansonia (Diptera, Culicidae) in Rural Settlements Near Porto Velho, State of Rondônia, Brazil. J. Med. Entomol. 2022, 59, 883–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Reimer, L.J.; Thomsen, E.K.; Tisch, D.J.; Henry-Halldin, C.N.; Zimmerman, P.A.; Baea, M.E.; Dagoro, H.; Susapu, M.; Hetzel, M.W.; Bockarie, M.J.; et al. Insecticidal Bed Nets and Filariasis Transmission in Papua New Guinea. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nsakashalo-Senkwe, M.; Mwase, E.; Chizema-Kawesha, E.; Mukonka, V.; Songolo, P.; Masaninga, F.; Rebollo, M.P.; Thomas, B.; Bockarie, M.J.; Betts, H.; et al. Significant decline in lymphatic filariasis associated with nationwide scale-up of insecticide-treated nets in Zambia. Parasite Epidemiol. Control. 2017, 2, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. WHO. Standard Operating Procedure for Testing Insecticide Susceptibility of Adult Mosquitoes in WHO Bottle Bioassays; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sabesan, S.; Kumar, N.P.; Krishnamoorthy, K.; Panicker, K.N. Seasonal abundance & biting behaviour of Mansonia annulifera, M. uniformis & M. indiana & their relative role in the transmission of malayan filariasis in Shertallai (Kerala state). Indian J. Med. Res. 1991, 6, 253–258. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mmbando, A.S.; Okumu, F.O.; Mgando, J.P.; Sumaye, R.D.; Matowo, N.S.; Madumla, E.; Kaindoa, E.; Kiware, S.S.; Lwetoijera, D.W. Effects of a new outdoor mosquito control device, the mosquito landing box, on densities and survival of the malaria vector, Anopheles arabiensis, inside controlled semi-field settings. Malar. J. 2015, 14, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Traore, M.M.; Junnila, A.; Traore, S.F.; Doumbia, S.; Revay, E.E.; Kravchenko, V.D.; Schlein, Y.; Arheart, K.L.; Gergely, P.; Xue, R.; et al. Large-scale field trial of attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) for the control of malaria vector mosquitoes in Mali, West Africa. Malar. J. 2020, 19, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Corbel, V.; N’Guessan, R.; Brengues, C.; Chandre, F.; Djogbenou, L.; Martin, T.; Akogbéto, M.; Hougard, J.M.; Rowland, M. Multiple insecticide resistance mechanisms in Anopheles gambiae and Culex quinquefasciatus from Benin, West Africa. Acta Trop. 2007, 101, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yadouléton, A.; Badirou, K.; Agbanrin, R.; Jöst, H.; Attolou, R.; Srinivasan, R.; Padonou, G.; Akogbéto, M. Insecticide resistance status in Culex quinquefasciatus in Benin. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 14 00417 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of the study area.
Figure 1. Map of the study area.
Insects 14 00417 g001
Insects 14 00417 g002 550
Figure 2. Mosquito species composition in the study area during baseline and the eight post-intervention collection rounds between September 2019 and April 2022.
Figure 2. Mosquito species composition in the study area during baseline and the eight post-intervention collection rounds between September 2019 and April 2022.
Insects 14 00417 g002
Insects 14 00417 g003 550
Figure 3. Seasonal variation of the density of Culex spp. (indoors (a) and outdoors (b)) and Mansonia spp. (indoors (c) and outdoors (d)). R: round; Std: standard; Pyr-PPF: pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen; Pyr-CFP: pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr.
Figure 3. Seasonal variation of the density of Culex spp. (indoors (a) and outdoors (b)) and Mansonia spp. (indoors (c) and outdoors (d)). R: round; Std: standard; Pyr-PPF: pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen; Pyr-CFP: pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr.
Insects 14 00417 g003
Table
Table 1. Baseline density of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. in the three study arms.
Table 1. Baseline density of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. in the three study arms.
Culex spp.Mansonia spp.
ArmsNPerson-NightsMean Density (95% CI)NPerson-NightsMean Density (95% CI)
Indoor
Std LLIN 19888024.9 (10.4–39.3)23468029.3 (13.2–45.4)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 21058026.3 (19.6–33.0)29618037.0 (21.2–52.8)
Pyr-CFP LLIN 31488039.4 (15.9–62.8)25428031.8 (15.5–48.0)
Outdoor
Std LLIN 27498034.4 (21.5–47.2)29508036.9 (17.5–56.3)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 26538033.2 (24.3–42.0)34788043.5 (25.1–61.9)
Pyr-CFP LLIN 38118047.6 (20.7–74.6)29538036.9 (16.9–56.9)
Std: standard; Pyr-PPF: pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen; Pyr-CFP: pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr; N: number of mosquito individuals. The mean density is expressed in the number of bites/person/night (b/p/n).
Table
Table 2. Impact of pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLINs and pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLINs on Culex spp. density.
Table 2. Impact of pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLINs and pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLINs on Culex spp. density.
Locations/PeriodArmsNPerson NightMean Density (95% CI)DRp-Value* DR* p-Value
Indoor
OverallStd LLIN854164013.3 (7.5–19.2)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 963164015 (9.5–20.6)0.9 (0.4–2.4)0.88171 (0.4–2.0)0.7929
Pyr-CFP LLIN764764011.9 (6.4–17.5)0.6 (0.2–1.5)0.27930.4 (0.2–1.0)0.0523
Year 1Std LLIN536032016.8 (8.4–25.1)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 684032021.4 (12.9–29.9)1.0 (0.4–3.0)0.97311.0 (0.4–2.5)0.9631
Pyr-CFP LLIN529132016.5 (8.0–25.1)0.6 (0.2–1.7)0.30990.4 (0.2–1.1)0.0704
Year 2Std LLIN31813209.9 (5.3–14.6)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 27913208.7 (5.3–12.2)0.9 (0.4–2.1)0.7660.8 (0.4–1.8)0.6691
Pyr-CFP LLIN23563207.4 (4.3–10.4)0.6 (0.3–1.5)0.29940.5 (0.2–1.0)0.0613
Outdoor
OverallStd LLIN13,62764021.3 (12.6–30.0)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 16,83764026.3 (17.1–35.5)1.0 (0.4–2.5)0.97451.0 (0.5–2.3)0.9579
Pyr-CFP LLIN12,98664020.3 (11.3–29.3)0.6 (0.3–1.6)0.34610.5 (0.2–1.1)0.0826
Year 1Std LLIN872632027.3 (15.3–39.3)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 11,80332036.9 (22.7–51.1)1.0 (0.4–2.8)0.96461.1 (0.4–2.6)0.8947
Pyr-CFP LLIN862132026.9 (15.1–38.8)0.6 (0.2–1.8)0.40930.5 (0.2–1.2)0.1341
Year 2Std LLIN490132015.3 (8.6–22.0)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 503432015.7 (9.2–22.3)1.0 (0.4–2.4)0.92791.0 (0.5–2.1)0.9833
Pyr-CFP LLIN436532013.6 (6.7–20.6)0.6 (0.3–1.6)0.33110.5 (0.2–1.1)0.0692
*: Adjusted model; Std: standard; Pyr-PPF: pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen; Pyr-CFP: pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr; N: number of Culex spp. individuals; the mean density is expressed in the number of bites/person/night (b/p/n); significant threshold: p ≤ 0.025.
Table
Table 3. Impact of pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLINs, and pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLINs on the Mansonia spp. density.
Table 3. Impact of pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen LLINs, and pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr LLINs on the Mansonia spp. density.
Locations/
Periods		ArmsNPerson-NightsMeanDRp Value* DR* p Value
Indoor
OverallStd LLIN15,97964025.0 (15.4–34.5)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 18,16664028.4 (16.6–40.1)0.5 (0.1–2.3)0.3920.4 (0.1–1.2)0.0982
Pyr-CFP LLIN15,61464024.4 (15.1–33.7)0.5 (0.1–2.4)0.4160.5 (0.1–1.5)0.2061
Year 1Std LLIN10,22632032.0 (19.6–44.4)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 12,61032039.4 (23.0–55.8)0.6 (0.1–2.7)0.51130.4 (0.1–1.4)0.1628
Pyr-CFP LLIN10,26632032.1 (20.1–44.0)0.6 (0.1–2.9)0.56230.5 (0.2–1.8)0.3207
Year 2Std LLIN575332018.0 (10.4–25.6)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 555632017.4 (9.1–25.6)0.5 (0.1–2.7)0.40070.3 (0.1–1.3)0.1108
Pyr-CFP LLIN534832016.7 (6.9–26.5)0.4 (0.1–2.4)0.32610.4 (0.1–1.5)0.1524
Outdoor
OverallStd LLIN25,83264040.4 (25.3–55.4)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 28,23364044.1 (26.5–61.8)0.6 (0.1–2.6)0.4540.4 (0.1–1.5)0.1825
Pyr-CFP LLIN22,97164035.9 (22.7–49.1)0.6 (0.1–2.9)0.54940.6 (0.2–2.2)0.4674
Year 1Std LLIN16,24732050.8 (31.1–70.5)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 19,19832060.0 (35.5–84.5)0.7 (0.1–3.0)0.60360.5 (0.2–1.7)0.2878
Pyr-CFP LLIN14,69432045.9 (29.4–62.5)0.8 (0.2–3.4)0.72840.8 (0.2–2.5)0.6568
Year 2Std LLIN958532030.0 (17.9–42.0)1 (Ref) 1 (Ref)
Pyr-PPF LLIN 903532028.2 (14.4–42.0)0.5 (0.1–2.9)0.40990.3 (0.1–1.6)0.1674
Pyr-CFP LLIN827732025.9 (11.3–40.5)0.4 (0.1–2.7)0.37520.4 (0.1–2.0)0.2919
*: Adjusted model; Std: standard; Pyr-PPF: pyrethroid–pyriproxyfen; Pyr-CFP: pyrethroid–chlorfenapyr; N: number of Mansonia spp. individuals; the mean density is expressed in the number of bites/person/night (b/p/n), Significant threshold: p ≤ 0.025; seasonal dynamics of the density of Culex spp. and Mansonia spp. in the three study arms.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Adoha, C.J.; Sovi, A.; Yovogan, B.; Akinro, B.; Accrombessi, M.; Dangbénon, E.; Odjo, E.M.; Sagbohan, H.W.; Kpanou, C.D.; Padonou, G.G.; et al. Efficacy of Pyrethroid–Pyriproxyfen and Pyrethroid–Chlorfenapyr Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets (LLINs) for the Control of Non-Anopheles Mosquitoes: Secondary Analysis from a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (cRCT). Insects 2023, 14, 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14050417

AMA Style

Adoha CJ, Sovi A, Yovogan B, Akinro B, Accrombessi M, Dangbénon E, Odjo EM, Sagbohan HW, Kpanou CD, Padonou GG, et al. Efficacy of Pyrethroid–Pyriproxyfen and Pyrethroid–Chlorfenapyr Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets (LLINs) for the Control of Non-Anopheles Mosquitoes: Secondary Analysis from a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (cRCT). Insects. 2023; 14(5):417. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14050417

Chicago/Turabian Style

Adoha, Constantin J., Arthur Sovi, Boulais Yovogan, Bruno Akinro, Manfred Accrombessi, Edouard Dangbénon, Esdras M. Odjo, Hermann Watson Sagbohan, Casimir Dossou Kpanou, Gil G. Padonou, and et al. 2023. "Efficacy of Pyrethroid–Pyriproxyfen and Pyrethroid–Chlorfenapyr Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets (LLINs) for the Control of Non-Anopheles Mosquitoes: Secondary Analysis from a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (cRCT)" Insects 14, no. 5: 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14050417

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop