Malaria Journal (Jun 2022)

The Centres for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) and the human decoy trap (HDT) compared to the human landing catch (HLC) for measuring Anopheles biting in rural Tanzania

  • Isaac Haggai Namango,
  • Carly Marshall,
  • Adam Saddler,
  • Amanda Ross,
  • David Kaftan,
  • Frank Tenywa,
  • Noely Makungwa,
  • Olukayode G. Odufuwa,
  • Godfrey Ligema,
  • Hassan Ngonyani,
  • Isaya Matanila,
  • Jameel Bharmal,
  • Jason Moore,
  • Sarah J. Moore,
  • Manuel W. Hetzel

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04192-9
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21, no. 1
pp. 1 – 16

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Vector mosquito biting intensity is an important measure to understand malaria transmission. Human landing catch (HLC) is an effective but labour-intensive, expensive, and potentially hazardous entomological surveillance tool. The Centres for Disease Control light trap (CDC-LT) and the human decoy trap (HDT) are exposure-free alternatives. This study compared the CDC-LT and HDT against HLC for measuring Anop heles biting in rural Tanzania and assessed their suitability as HLC proxies. Methods Indoor mosquito surveys using HLC and CDC-LT and outdoor surveys using HLC and HDT were conducted in 2017 and in 2019 in Ulanga, Tanzania in 19 villages, with one trap/house/night. Species composition, sporozoite rates and density/trap/night were compared. Aggregating the data by village and month, the Bland–Altman approach was used to assess agreement between trap types. Results Overall, 66,807 Anopheles funestus and 14,606 Anopheles arabiensis adult females were caught with 6,013 CDC-LT, 339 indoor-HLC, 136 HDT and 195 outdoor-HLC collections. Indoors, CDC-LT caught fewer An. arabiensis (Adjusted rate ratio [Adj.RR] = 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27–0.46, p < 0.001) and An. funestus (Adj.RR = 0.63, 95%CI: 0.51–0.79, p < 0.001) than HLC per trap/night. Outdoors, HDT caught fewer An. arabiensis (Adj.RR = 0.04, 95%CI: 0.01–0.14, p < 0.001) and An. funestus (Adj.RR = 0.10, 95%CI: 0.07–0.15, p < 0.001) than HLC. The bias and variability in number of mosquitoes caught by the different traps were dependent on mosquito densities. The relative efficacies of both CDC-LT and HDT in comparison to HLC declined with increased mosquito abundance. The variability in the ratios was substantial for low HLC counts and decreased as mosquito abundance increased. The numbers of sporozoite positive mosquitoes were low for all traps. Conclusions CDC-LT can be suitable for comparing mosquito populations between study arms or over time if accuracy in the absolute biting rate, compared to HLC, is not required. CDC-LT is useful for estimating sporozoite rates because large numbers of traps can be deployed to collect adequate mosquito samples. The present design of the HDT is not amenable for use in large-scale entomological surveys. Use of HLC remains important for estimating human exposure to mosquitoes as part of estimating the entomological inoculation rate (EIR).

Keywords