Field performance of three mosquito collection methods for assessing the entomological efficacy of dual-active ingredient long-lasting insecticidal nets

Abstract

Abstract Selection of mosquito collection methods is of crucial importance to evaluate the impact of vector control tools on entomological outcomes. During a cluster randomised control trial evaluating the relative efficacy of two dual-active ingredient (a.i.) long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) compared to pyrethroid-only LLINs, we assessed the performance of different mosquito collection methods: Human landing catches (HLC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) light traps, and pyrethrum spray catches (PSC). Anopheles mosquitoes were collected using three collection methods in 4 houses, in each of the 60 trial clusters at baseline and every quarter for 24 months using PSCs and HLCs, while CDC light traps were performed during two quarters only. Mean density of vectors collected per method per night was the highest with HLCs (15.9), followed by CDC light traps (6.8); with PSCs (1.1) collecting 10 times less mosquitoes than HLCs. All three collection methods collected fewer mosquitoes in the Interceptor G2® dual a.i. arm, compared to the other trial arms, although only HLCs and PSCs demonstrated strong evidence of this due to a greater number of collection rounds undertaken, than CDC light traps. The broadly similar results regarding the differential impact of the two dual a.i. LLINs showed by the three collection methods suggest that the more ethically acceptable, cheaper, and logistically simpler methods such as CDC light traps could be prioritised for use in large community trials for measuring the efficacy of vector control tools.