![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exploring the contributions of bed nets, cattle, insecticides and excitorepellency to malaria control: a deterministic model of mosquito host-seeking behaviour and mortality a Ifakara Health Research and Development Centre, Box 53, Ifakara, Kilombero, Morogoro, United Republic of Tanzania b Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, Swiss Tropical Institute, Socinstrasse 57, Basel, CH 4002, Switzerland c School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK *Corresponding author. Tel.: +255 784 477 118; fax: +255 22 277 1714. E-mail addresses: gkilleen/at/ihrdc.or.tz, Email: g.f.killeen/at/durham.ac.uk (G.F. Killeen). Authors' contributions: GFK conceived the model and then developed and applied it with assistance from TAS. GFK drafted the manuscript in consultation with TAS and both authors read and approved the final version. GFK and TAS are guarantors of the paper. The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.Summary Domestic and personal protection measures against malaria exposure either divert host-seeking vectors to other hosts or kill those attempting to feed. Here, we explicitly model mosquito host-seeking processes in the context of local host availability and elucidate the impacts and mechanisms of pyrethroid-treated bed nets in Africa. It has been suggested that excitorepellent insecticides could increase exposure of unprotected humans by concentrating mosquito biting activity on this vulnerable group. This worst-case scenario is confirmed as a possibility where vector populations lack alternative hosts, but an approximate ‘break-even’ scenario, with users experiencing little overall change in exposure, is more likely because of increased mosquito mortality while foraging for resources. Insecticidal nets are predicted to have epidemiologically significant impacts on transmission experienced by users and non-users at levels of coverage that can be achieved by sustainable net distribution systems, regardless of excitorepellency or the ecological setting. The results are consistent with the outcome of several randomised controlled trials, predicting enormous reductions in transmission at individual and community levels. As financial support, technology and distribution systems for insecticide-treated nets improve, massive reductions in malaria transmission could be realised. Keywords: Malaria, Mosquitoes, Anopheles, Transmission, Ecology, Prevention, Host–parasite relationship 1. Introduction Insecticidal measures for protection against adult mosquitoes, including treated nets and indoor residual spraying, are amongst the best established and most effective methods for the prevention of malaria (Rozendaal, 1997). The impacts of pyrethroid-treated nets (Lengeler, 2004a, 2004b) and indoor residual spraying (Kouznetsov, 1977; Mabaso et al., 2004) are clearly proven and they remain the most commonly advocated means for individuals and communities to tackle their local malaria problems (Rozendaal, 1997). The recent successes of insecticide-treated nets (ITN) have revitalised interest in vector control as a viable means to reduce malaria burden, even in parts of sub-Saharan Africa where high transmission levels result in extremely stable prevalence, incidence and clinical burden (Smith et al., 2001; Snow et al., 2005). ITNs protect individuals either by diverting host-seeking vectors to search for a blood meal elsewhere or by killing those that attempt to feed on that person (Fanello et al., 2003; Lindsay et al., 1989, 1991, 1992; Miller et al., 1991; Pleass et al., 1993). This means that treated nets not only prevent malaria in a protected individual but can also reduce malaria risk in unprotected individuals by suppressing the density (Carnevale et al., 1988; Magesa et al., 1991; Robert and Carnevale, 1991), survival (Carnevale et al., 1988; Magesa et al., 1991; Robert and Carnevale, 1991), human blood indices (Bøgh et al., 1998; Charlwood et al., 2001) and feeding frequency (Charlwood et al., 2001) of vector populations. Conversely, it has been suggested that the excitorepellency of nets could increase the exposure of unprotected humans by concentrating the attentions of host-seeking mosquitoes upon this vulnerable portion of the population (Genton et al., 1994; Lindsay et al., 1992; Lines et al., 1987). Field studies suggest that any such inequitable effects are outweighed by beneficial impacts in whole communities (Binka et al., 1998; Gimnig et al., 2003a, 2003b; Hawley et al., 2003; Hewitt et al., 1997; Hii et al., 2001; Howard et al., 2000; Maxwell et al., 2002). Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible that interventions that divert rather than kill mosquitoes could even increase the stability of malaria transmission by increasing vectorial capacity in the most intense foci of transmission (Dye and Hasibeder, 1986; Hasibeder and Dye, 1988; Woolhouse et al., 1997). Here we extend previously reported kinetic models of mosquito foraging for resources (Killeen et al., 2001, 2004) by explicitly modelling the processes of host seeking, encounter and attack so that the effects of bed nets and other forms of domestic protection can be explored in detail. Specifically, we investigate the likely impacts of pyrethroid-treated bed nets under conditions where holoendemic malaria is maintained by either Anopheles gambiae Giles or A. arabiensis Patton in the presence and absence of cattle as alternative hosts. 2. Methods 2.1. Model framework and design strategy Although these principles can be extended to allow modelling of transmission by vectors with broader host ranges, here we model the feeding behaviour of the two most common malaria vectors from sub-Saharan Africa. This allows convenient simplification because these species generally feed upon only two host species: A. gambiae Giles and A. arabiensis Patton feed overwhelmingly upon either humans or cattle (Gillies and Coetzee, 1987; Gillies and DeMeillon, 1968; White, 1974). The latter feed readily upon both humans and cattle, whereas the former greatly prefer humans, particularly in East Africa (Killeen et al., 2001). Here we extend and apply recently developed deterministic models of mosquito host-choice and malaria transmission processes (Killeen et al., 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2004) to examine the influence of vector behavioural traits and the availability of hosts upon malaria transmission intensity and the success of control measures that target adult mosquitoes. In common with almost all previous models, we assume single populations of humans, cattle and each mosquito species that interact randomly and homogeneously with no gonotrophic discordance (more than one blood meal per gonotrophic cycle (Beier, 1996)). We also assume, as demonstrated for these anthropophagic nocturnal African vector species, that host feeding success is density independent (Charlwood et al., 1995a). The conceptual basis of the model for mosquito behaviour and the effects of bed nets are outlined in Figure 1
2.2. Model description As defined previously (Killeen et al., 2001), the availability (a) of any host (j) of any species (s) is the product of the rate at which individual vectors encounter it (εs,j) and the probability that, once encountered, they will feed upon it ( s,j):
We now consider successful feeding as just one of three possible outcomes of a host encounter by a female vector, the other two being death while attempting to feed and diversion to seek another host (Figure 1
We then consider that in the second stage of the blood acquisition process, namely feeding, the vector will either feed successfully or die in the attempt, the probabilities of which are denoted by s and μs, respectively. Note that μs therefore denotes the probability of death per attack rather than per encounter and this should be carefully considered when parameterising this model with field data from experimental hut trials (see Section 2.4). Thus, the probability of a successful feed per encounter is the product of two probabilities defined by losses to diversion and death: the successful feeding probability for a vector on any encounter with a host of species s is the product of the probability that it will attack that host and the probability that it will survive that attack:
Personal protection measures such as bed nets, repellents or domestic insecticide use will modify these probabilities. We model these effects as a function of the probability that the vector would otherwise successfully feed upon a host of species s (Figure 1 h,u, the presence of a net or other intervention is expected to change this probability to h,p as a function of the additional probability of diverting (Δp) and killing (μp) that vector (Figure 1
Note that the terms Δu and μu are included because detailed examination of experimental hut trial results (Lines et al., 1987) indicates that a certain low but clear level of diversion does occur even in the absence of nets. This may be particularly important for future applications focusing on environmental management interventions that limit the availability of resources and are enhanced by increasingly lengthy foraging intervals of mosquitoes (Gu et al., 2006; Killeen et al., 2004). For any given number of cattle (Nc), unprotected humans (Nh,u) and protected humans (Nh,p), the mean seeking interval for vertebrate hosts (ηv) can be calculated as the reciprocal of total host availability (A) (Killeen et al., 2001), using estimates of these feeding probabilities, their corresponding encounter rates and the corresponding number of hosts of that species (s) or category (As = Ns as) by adapting Eq. (4) of our original formulation (Killeen et al., 2001, 2004):
We adapt Eq. (3) from our previous formulation (Killeen et al., 2004) to estimate the survival rate per feeding cycle (Pf) as the product of the probabilities of surviving the gestation (g), oviposition site-seeking (ηo) and vertebrate host-seeking (ηv) intervals, assuming a constant survival rate of P for these intervals, as well as the probability of surviving the eventual attack on a host that may be protected (Pγ):
Similarly, the human blood index is calculated as the proportion of total host availability accounted for by humans (Killeen et al., 2001), similarly to Eq. (6):
Otherwise, malaria transmission is modelled exactly as described previously (Killeen et al., 2004). This model was adapted from its original formulation (Killeen et al., 2000b) to account for superinfection of mosquitoes (Smith and McKenzie, 2004) and to smooth the effects of changing host availability patterns on feeding cycle length (Killeen et al., 2004). Specifically, the model is adapted to a daily cycle and cumulative survival up to each age (x) is estimated as follows and used to calculate the EIR and associated parameters as previously described (Killeen et al., 2000b, 2004):
2.3. Baseline mosquito behaviour, host availability and survival parameters As an example, we take Namawala in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania, as a primary centre for parameterising our model because of the exceptionally detailed quantitative characterisation of malaria transmission and vector biodemography in this village and the surrounding area. This is a holoendemic village with intense seasonal transmission, stable high parasite prevalence in humans and a heavy burden of clinical malaria (Charlwood et al., 1995a, 1995b, 1997, 1998; Kitua et al., 1996; Smith et al., 1993, 1995, 1998). This is a site where the bulk of transmission is mediated by A. gambiae s.l. (of which the main species involved in transmission is A. arabiensis) and where transmission intensity has been modelled with available field data (Killeen et al., 2000a, 2000b). As previously (Killeen et al., 2000a, 2000b), we base our estimate of human population size (Charlwood et al., 1995a) approximately upon those reported for this particular village during the early 1990s. Nevertheless, we use a human population size of 1000 and, where relevant, a bovine population of the same size (Killeen et al., 2001) so that the EIR experienced by users and non-users can be easily calculated at net coverage levels approaching 0% and 100%. By setting coverage to 0.001 or 0.999, this simulates a single user or non-user in the population, respectively. Infectiousness of humans (κ) is set to 0.030, reflecting a more precise recent estimate (Killeen et al., 2006a) than was available previously (Charlwood et al., 1995b, 1997). The emergence rate remains set at 9×106 emerging vectors per year, as previously described (Killeen et al., 2004). We set mean daily survival of hazards other than feeding (P) at 0.90, reflecting a median value of daily survival at four well characterised holoendemic sites (Killeen et al., 2000b) and estimated daily indoor survival for A. gambiae s.l. in Tanzania (Gillies, 1954). The results of experimental hut studies (Lines et al., 1987) are combined with host-choice evaluations (White et al., 1972) and appropriate analytical models (Killeen et al., 2001, 2004) to define the attack and mortality probabilities of A. arabiensis encountering cattle or humans: we set the probability that A. arabiensis will attack unprotected cattle or humans (γu), conditional upon encountering them, to be 0.90 and the chance that they will die in the attempt (μu) at 0.10. Using these parameters and Eq. (3), we calculate that for A. arabiensis the overall feeding probability upon either cattle ( c) or unprotected humans ( h) would be 0.81, a value similar to previous estimates of approximately 0.80–0.85 for the feeding success of A. gambiae s.l. upon sleeping humans in Tanzania (Charlwood et al., 1995a; Lines et al., 1987). We also apply these same probabilities of attacking (γu), feeding ( h,u) and dying (μu) to A. gambiae s.s. encountering unprotected humans. The availabilities of unprotected humans and cattle are calculated for A. arabiensis using field measurements of the duration of the feeding cycle and extended to A. gambiae, accounting for the lower estimated relative availability of cattle (λc) to this mosquito species as previously described (Killeen et al., 2001; Table 1). Note that λc is assumed to modify ac by affecting the encounter rate only, indicating that these mosquitoes can differentiate between preferred and non-preferred hosts at long range (Gillies and Wilkes, 1969, 1970, 1972). In the case of A. arabiensis, this assumption is consistent with the longer range of attraction of cows relative to humans for zoophilic members of the A. gambiae complex (Gillies and Wilkes, 1969, 1970, 1972).2.4. Parameters reflecting the effects of insecticide-treated bed nets The effects of ITNs upon feeding probability and mortality risk of either A. gambiae s.l. sibling species encountering a protected human are assumed to be identical and are derived from the results of detailed experimental hut trials from northern Tanzania (Lines et al., 1987). Trials with A. arabiensis were carried out in Magugu, west of Arusha, under experimental conditions that excluded cattle from the immediate surroundings, and with A. gambiae in Muheza, near Tanga. In this study, nylon nets were impregnated with 0.2 g/m2 permethrin and their effects on house entry, feeding success and survival were quantified. Combining results from nets with and without holes, these authors reported that, of vectors that would otherwise feed successfully, the proportion that successfully fed and survived the hazards of the treated net ( p) was approximately 0.11–0.17. This reduced feeding and survival success was attributed to an increased mortality (μp) of approximately 0.50–0.55, implying that the proportion of vectors being diverted by the nets (Δp) was approximately 0.27–0.38. Based on these estimates, we set μp and Δp at 0.50 and 0.35, respectively (Table 1). Although the ability of permethrin to divert or kill vectors varies considerably with formulation (Lindsay et al., 1991; Pleass et al., 1993), the values we have chosen compare well with those from other studies applying similar permethrin doses in East and West Africa (Mathenge et al., 2001; Pleass et al., 1993). The proportion of normal biting exposure that occurs while nets are actually in use (πi) has been estimated as 90% for A. gambiae in southern Tanzania (Killeen et al., 2006b), so we set πi to a value of 0.90. Note that unlike previously published applications of this model (Killeen et al., 2006b), here we use πi rather than πs, the proportion of bites that occur during peak sleeping hours, because the former more comprehensively captures the level of protection afforded by a net.2.5. Testing the sensitivity of the conclusions to increased mosquito mortality while foraging for resources Foraging for resources is an intrinsically dangerous undertaking for mosquitoes and it is almost certain that survival during these phases is lower than while resting in houses (Kelly and Thompson, 2000; Saul, 2003). Assuming this is the case, the simulations we have outlined thus far will underestimate the impact of diversionary measures for non-users because these interventions are expected to have a larger impact on mosquito survival, sporozoite prevalence and EIR if foraging is more hazardous than resting. We therefore tested the sensitivity of our conclusions to deviations from the assumption that mortality is constant across all phases of the life cycle. This was accomplished by separately considering survival of the resting (P), foraging (Pov) and attacking (Pγ) phases and adapting Eq. (9) accordingly:
3. Results First we compare the predicted effects of increasing coverage of effectively-treated nets with both diversionary and insecticidal properties in four different scenarios: pure populations of either A. arabiensis or A. gambiae s.s. in the presence or absence of cattle (Figure 2
The individual protection afforded to users is constant for all scenarios and coverage levels because this component of protection only occurs in and around the domestic environment where the parameter values, as well as the entities and processes they describe, are assumed identical. Nets are predicted to prevent 57% of exposure amongst users. This is somewhat lower than previous field estimates of 69% at a northern Tanzanian site very close to some of those used to parameterise this model (Soremekun et al., 2004). Although this difference might be partially explained by the modest excitorepellent and insecticidal properties we have assumed for treated nets, complementary behavioural studies indicate approximately 10% of normal exposure occurs outdoors (Killeen et al., 2006b). The inability of nets to prevent this directly is unlikely to be captured by the estimates of Soremekun et al. (2004) because only mosquitoes that entered houses were sampled. Thus, our simulation of protection against all exposure appears quite compatible with the estimate of Soremekun et al. (2004), which probably reflects protection against indoor exposure only. Next, we go beyond the direct protection afforded to individual users to consider community-level protection through impacts on vector–parasite biodemography (Figure 2 In the second set of scenarios, we explore the impacts of nets with varying levels of diversionary and insecticidal properties upon the EIR (Figure 3
We therefore tested the sensitivity of our predictions to increased mosquito mortality during the active foraging phase of the host-seeking interval. Figure 4
Figure 5
4. Discussion Here we have outlined a kinetic mosquito behaviour and mortality model, parameterised it with field measurements of its component processes, and predicted impacts on malaria transmission that are consistent with the results of large-scale randomised controlled trials. Extending these results to consider vector populations that are resistant to the insecticidal properties of net treatments but not their excitorepellent properties (Potikasikorn et al., 2005) supports the view that treated nets can provide personal protection even when they fail to kill target mosquito species (Fanello et al., 2003). Nevertheless, the model suggests that purely diversionary interventions will probably have minimal impacts on community-level transmission and the exposure of non-users. The worst-case scenario in which high coverage with purely excitorepellent interventions increases exposure of non-users is theoretically unlikely but not impossible. In practice, it has been observed that pyrethroid-treated ITNs can even benefit non-users where kdr resistance alleles occur at high frequencies (Henry et al., 2005), although it should be noted that West African A. gambiae may be more zoophilic than the East African populations used to parameterise this model (Killeen et al., 2001). We therefore suggest that operational programmes delivering domestic interventions such as ITNs or indoor residual sprays should prioritise products based on their insecticidal properties but also opt for formulations that maximise excitorepellency and personal protection. This model and argument could just as easily be applied to indoor residual spraying of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), a comparably efficacious intervention (Curtis and Mnzava, 2000) with similar impacts upon the survival of A. gambiae (Magesa et al., 1991). Roberts et al. (2000) consider that DDT functions effectively, even against resistant zoophagic vector populations in Thailand, India and Mexico (Potikasikorn et al., 2005; Roberts and Andre, 1994), because it acts largely through excitorepellent diversion rather than direct killing. Thus, the approach described here may be particularly useful for elucidating the mechanisms and effects of such largely diversionary intervention strategies. Unlike previous models based on experimental hut studies alone (Roberts et al., 2000), the survival cost of extended dispersal periods outside of houses can be simulated and its contribution to the overall impact can be predicted in quantitative terms. This model may also be developed to assess alternative strategies such as insecticide treatment of cattle (Kawaguchi et al., 2004; Rowland et al., 2001; Saul, 2003). Although irrelevant in some situations (Charlwood et al., 1995a), density-dependent feeding success has been documented for these vectors (Lindsay et al., 1995) and this potential complication should be considered before extending to other host–vector systems (Kelly and Thompson, 2000). It should be noted, however, that the kind of excitorepellency we simulate here is a long-lasting property of the net and similar impacts are unlikely to be achieved through the application of volatile substances such as diethyltoluamide (DEET) (Pennetier et al., 2005) because these formulations were found to have only a short persistence when applied to bed nets (Curtis et al., 1987). Unfortunately, most nets in Africa have, until recently, been non-insecticidal in practice (Roll Back Malaria Partnership, 2005a) and typically in poor condition with many holes under normal conditions of use (Erlanger et al., 2004; Maxwell et al., 2006a). Untreated nets under typical field conditions (Erlanger et al., 2004; Maxwell et al., 2006a) confer little, if any, protection (Curtis et al., 1996; Lines et al., 1987), so national programmes throughout Africa should now focus on achieving high coverage of target groups with nets that remain repellent and insecticidal throughout their lifetime (Roll Back Malaria Partnership, 2005b). This can be achieved by distributing long-lasting insecticidal nets or by applying long-lasting insecticide formulations to existing nets that would otherwise remain ineffective (Asidi et al., 2004, 2005; Curtis et al., 1996; Graham et al., 2005; Maxwell et al., 2006b; Tami et al., 2004; Yates et al., 2005). Many of the simulations described here have been based on conservative estimates of the insecticidal and diversionary properties of nets, consistent with modest levels of treatment under operational conditions and with treatment technologies as they were two decades ago. Today, long-lasting insecticide treatments with much better insecticidal properties (Asidi et al., 2004, 2005; Curtis et al., 1996; Graham et al., 2005; Maxwell et al., 2006b; Yates et al., 2005) that are retained for up to 7 years of normal use (Tami et al., 2004) as well as durable net materials that that can last up to 15 years (Killeen, unpublished data) are becoming a proven reality. Whilst the choice of delivery strategy for ITNs has been contentious in recent years (Curtis et al., 2003; Lines et al., 2003), consensus is emerging that public sector (Anonymous, 2006; Grabowsky et al., 2005) and market-based approaches (Lines et al., 2003; Webster et al., 2005) as well as hybrid systems (Magesa et al., 2005; Mushi et al., 2003) merit investigation, development and long-term evaluation on scales for which no precedent yet exists (Roll Back Malaria Partnership, 2005b). Programmatic-scale evaluations in southern Tanzania suggest hybrid social marketing systems, which combine the strengths of both public sector and market-based systems (Magesa et al., 2005; Mushi et al., 2003; Schellenberg et al., 2001) to achieve high population-level coverage with nets (Killeen et al., unpublished data), could be greatly enhanced by these exciting new ITN technologies. If these same levels of coverage can be achieved with long-lasting insecticidal nets rather than ordinary, poorly maintained and largely untreated nets (Erlanger et al., 2004; Killeen et al., unpublished data; Maxwell et al., 2006a), it may soon be possible to realise the massive malaria transmission reductions predicted under the ideal conditions presented in the right-hand corner of each panel in Figure 3 Acknowledgement We thank two anonymous referees for their meticulous and constructive comments on this manuscript. Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation (award number 2200C0-105994) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (award number 39777) are thanked for financial support. GFK is supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Research Career Development Fellowship (award number 076806). Appendix A Here, we briefly outline previously described equations using symbols and terminology revised in accordance with those presented in the Methods section of this paper. The feeding cycle length (f) is calculated as the sum of the durations of the gestation period (g), the oviposition site-seeking interval (ηo) and the vertebrate host-seeking interval (ηv):
Adapting Eq. (2) from Killeen et al. (2000b) to the nightly time increment described in Eq. (15), the number of human bites the average mosquito takes in a lifetime (bh) is defined as the sum of the probabilities of surviving and feeding on a human at each age (x):
Similarly, accounting for superinfection as described in Eq. (16), the number of infectious bites on humans per mosquito lifetime (β) is calculated as the product of the human blood index and sum of the products of the probabilities of biting and being infectious at each age (Killeen et al., 2000b):
The overall sporozoite prevalence can then be calculated as the quotient of bh and β (Killeen et al., 2000b; Eq. (14)):
Replacing β with bh in Eq. (12), the biting rate experienced by unprotected (Bh,u) and protected humans (Bh,p) is calculated as previously described (Killeen et al., 2000b):
Footnotes Conflicts of interest: None declared. Ethical approval: Not required. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; (2):CD000363.
[Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004]Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Feb; 82(2):84.
[Bull World Health Organ. 2004]Trop Doct. 1977 Apr; 7(2):81-91.
[Trop Doct. 1977]Trop Med Int Health. 2004 Aug; 9(8):846-56.
[Trop Med Int Health. 2004]Trends Parasitol. 2001 Mar; 17(3):145-9.
[Trends Parasitol. 2001]Med Vet Entomol. 2003 Sep; 17(3):333-8.
[Med Vet Entomol. 2003]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003 Apr; 68(4 Suppl):16-22.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003]Med Vet Entomol. 1991 Oct; 5(4):477-83.
[Med Vet Entomol. 1991]Med Vet Entomol. 1991 Oct; 5(4):465-76.
[Med Vet Entomol. 1991]Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiales. 1988; 81(5):832-46.
[Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiales. 1988]Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001 Sep-Oct; 95(5):469-76.
[Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 Aug; 71(2 Suppl):87-93.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004]Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001 Sep-Oct; 95(5):469-76.
[Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):545-51.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):535-44.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 Aug; 71(2 Suppl):87-93.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004]J Med Entomol. 1996 Jul; 33(4):613-8.
[J Med Entomol. 1996]Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001 Sep-Oct; 95(5):469-76.
[Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001]Bull World Health Organ. 1960; 22():721-34.
[Bull World Health Organ. 1960]J Vector Ecol. 2000 Jun; 25(1):48-61.
[J Vector Ecol. 2000]Med Vet Entomol. 1987 Jan; 1(1):37-51.
[Med Vet Entomol. 1987]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Nov 14; 103(46):17560-3.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 Aug; 71(2 Suppl):87-93.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004]Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001 Sep-Oct; 95(5):469-76.
[Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 Aug; 71(2 Suppl):87-93.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 Aug; 71(2 Suppl):87-93.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004]Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001 Sep-Oct; 95(5):469-76.
[Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):545-51.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):535-44.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 Aug; 71(2 Suppl):87-93.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 Aug; 71(2 Suppl):87-93.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):535-44.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Malar J. 2004 Jun 4; 3():13.
[Malar J. 2004]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):545-51.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998 Aug; 59(2):243-51.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998]Trop Med Int Health. 1996 Aug; 1(4):475-84.
[Trop Med Int Health. 1996]Acta Trop. 1993 Jun; 54(1):55-72.
[Acta Trop. 1993]Acta Trop. 1995 Mar; 59(1):1-18.
[Acta Trop. 1995]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998 Aug; 59(2):252-7.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):545-51.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):535-44.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001 Sep-Oct; 95(5):469-76.
[Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 Aug; 71(2 Suppl):87-93.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004]Med Vet Entomol. 1987 Jan; 1(1):37-51.
[Med Vet Entomol. 1987]Med Vet Entomol. 1987 Jan; 1(1):37-51.
[Med Vet Entomol. 1987]Med Vet Entomol. 1991 Oct; 5(4):477-83.
[Med Vet Entomol. 1991]J Med Entomol. 2001 Jul; 38(4):531-6.
[J Med Entomol. 2001]BMC Infect Dis. 2006 Nov 10; 6():161.
[BMC Infect Dis. 2006]Parasitology. 2000 Mar; 120 ( Pt 3)():319-27.
[Parasitology. 2000]Malar J. 2003 Sep 19; 2():32.
[Malar J. 2003]Trop Med Int Health. 2004 Jun; 9(6):664-72.
[Trop Med Int Health. 2004]BMC Infect Dis. 2006 Nov 10; 6():161.
[BMC Infect Dis. 2006]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003 Apr; 68(4 Suppl):121-7.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003]BMC Infect Dis. 2006 Nov 10; 6():161.
[BMC Infect Dis. 2006]Trop Med Int Health. 2004 Jun; 9(6):664-72.
[Trop Med Int Health. 2004]Malar J. 2005 Jul 22; 4():34.
[Malar J. 2005]Health Policy Plan. 2003 Jun; 18(2):163-71.
[Health Policy Plan. 2003]Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1994 Jun; 88(3):263-70.
[Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1994]Med Vet Entomol. 1987 Jan; 1(1):37-51.
[Med Vet Entomol. 1987]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998 Jul; 59(1):80-5.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003 Apr; 68(4 Suppl):115-20.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003 Apr; 68(4 Suppl):16-22.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003]Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1994 Jun; 88(3):263-70.
[Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1994]Med Vet Entomol. 1987 Jan; 1(1):37-51.
[Med Vet Entomol. 1987]Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1986; 80(1):69-77.
[Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1986]Theor Popul Biol. 1988 Feb; 33(1):31-53.
[Theor Popul Biol. 1988]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jan 7; 94(1):338-42.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005 Aug; 73(2):343-9.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005]Med Vet Entomol. 2003 Sep; 17(3):333-8.
[Med Vet Entomol. 2003]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005 Nov; 73(5):859-64.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005]Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001 Sep-Oct; 95(5):469-76.
[Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001]Bull World Health Organ. 2000; 78(12):1389-400.
[Bull World Health Organ. 2000]Acta Trop. 1991 Jun; 49(2):97-108.
[Acta Trop. 1991]J Vector Ecol. 2000 Jun; 25(1):48-61.
[J Vector Ecol. 2000]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005 Aug; 73(2):343-9.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1994; 50(6 Suppl):21-34.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1994]Med Vet Entomol. 2004 Jun; 18(2):153-60.
[Med Vet Entomol. 2004]Malar J. 2006 May 21; 5():44.
[Malar J. 2006]Med Vet Entomol. 1996 Jan; 10(1):1-11.
[Med Vet Entomol. 1996]Med Vet Entomol. 1987 Jan; 1(1):37-51.
[Med Vet Entomol. 1987]Med Vet Entomol. 2004 Jun; 18(2):134-40.
[Med Vet Entomol. 2004]Lancet Infect Dis. 2003 May; 3(5):304-7.
[Lancet Infect Dis. 2003]Lancet Infect Dis. 2003 Aug; 3(8):465-6; discussion 467-8.
[Lancet Infect Dis. 2003]MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006 Aug 25; 55(33):913-6.
[MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006]Bull World Health Organ. 2005 Mar; 83(3):195-201.
[Bull World Health Organ. 2005]Lancet Infect Dis. 2005 Nov; 5(11):709-17.
[Lancet Infect Dis. 2005]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):535-44.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):535-44.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):535-44.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 May; 62(5):535-44.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000]Med Vet Entomol. 1987 Jan; 1(1):37-51.
[Med Vet Entomol. 1987]