Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int Health. 2015 Mar;7(2):121-9. doi: 10.1093/inthealth/ihv010.

Adult vector control, mosquito ecology and malaria transmission.

Author information

1
Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK oliver.brady@zoo.ox.ac.uk.
2
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, UK.
3
Department of Geography and Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK Fogarty International Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA Flowminder Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden.
4
Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
5
Clinton Health Access Initiative, Boston, MA, USA.
6
Fogarty International Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
7
Fogarty International Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA Department of Biological Sciences and Eck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
8
Fogarty International Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
9
Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
10
Fogarty International Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
11
School of Biological Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK.
12
Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK Fogarty International Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
13
Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK Fogarty International Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA Sanaria Institute for Global Health and Tropical Medicine, Rockville, MD, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Standard advice regarding vector control is to prefer interventions that reduce the lifespan of adult mosquitoes. The basis for this advice is a decades-old sensitivity analysis of 'vectorial capacity', a concept relevant for most malaria transmission models and based solely on adult mosquito population dynamics. Recent advances in micro-simulation models offer an opportunity to expand the theory of vectorial capacity to include both adult and juvenile mosquito stages in the model.

METHODS:

In this study we revisit arguments about transmission and its sensitivity to mosquito bionomic parameters using an elasticity analysis of developed formulations of vectorial capacity.

RESULTS:

We show that reducing adult survival has effects on both adult and juvenile population size, which are significant for transmission and not accounted for in traditional formulations of vectorial capacity. The elasticity of these effects is dependent on various mosquito population parameters, which we explore. Overall, control is most sensitive to methods that affect adult mosquito mortality rates, followed by blood feeding frequency, human blood feeding habit, and lastly, to adult mosquito population density.

CONCLUSIONS:

These results emphasise more strongly than ever the sensitivity of transmission to adult mosquito mortality, but also suggest the high potential of combinations of interventions including larval source management. This must be done with caution, however, as policy requires a more careful consideration of costs, operational difficulties and policy goals in relation to baseline transmission.

KEYWORDS:

Larval control; Malaria control policy; Micro-simulation models; Plasmodium falciparum; Plasmodium vivax; Vectorial capacity

PMID:
25733562
PMCID:
PMC4357799
DOI:
10.1093/inthealth/ihv010
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center