Insecticide Susceptibility Status of Phlebotomus (Paraphlebotomus) Sergenti and Phlebotomus (Phlebotomus) Papatasi in Endemic Foci of Cutaneous Leishmaniasis in Morocco

In Morocco, cutaneous leishmaniasis is transmitted by Phlebotomus sergenti and Ph. papatasi. Vector control is mainly based on environmental management but indoor residual spraying with synthetic pyrethroids is applied in many foci of Leishmania tropica. However, the levels and distribution of sandfly susceptibility to insecticides currently used has not been studied yet. Hence, this study was undertaken to establish the susceptibility status of Ph. sergenti and Ph. papatasi to lambdacyhalothrin, DDT and malathion.

Methods

The insecticide susceptibility status of Ph. sergenti and Ph. papatasi was assessed during 2011, following the standard WHO technique based on discriminating dosage. A series of twenty-five susceptibility tests were carried out on wild populations of Ph. sergenti and Ph. papatasi collected by CDC light traps from seven villages in six different provinces. Knockdown rates (KDT) were noted at 5 min intervals during the exposure to DDT and to lambdacyhalothrin. After one hour of exposure, sandflies were transferred to the observation tubes for 24 hours. After this period, mortality rate was calculated. Data were analyzed by Probit analysis program to determine the knockdown time 50% and 90% (KDT50 and KDT90) values.

Results

Study results showed that Ph.sergenti and Ph. papatasi were susceptible to all insecticides tested. Comparison of KDT values showed a clear difference between the insecticide knock-down effect in studied villages. This effect was lower in areas subject to high selective public health insecticide pressure in the framework of malaria or leishmaniasis control.

Conclusion

Phlebotomus sergenti and Ph. papatasi are susceptible to the insecticides tested in the seven studied villages but they showed a low knockdown effect in Azilal, Chichaoua and Settat. Therefore, a study of insecticide susceptibility of these vectors in other foci of leishmaniasis is recommended and the level of their susceptibility should be regularly monitored.

Authors: Chafika Faraj, Souad Ouahabi, El Bachir Adlaoui, Mohamed Elkohli, Lhoussine Lakraa, Mohammed ElRhazi and Btissam Ameur

Full Article: Insecticide susceptibility status of Phlebotomus (Paraphlebotomus) sergenti and Phlebotomus (Phlebotomus) papatasi in endemic foci of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Morocco (PDF)

Source: Parasites & Vectors 2012, 5:51 doi:10.1186/1756-3305-5-51

Published: 19 March 2012

Copyright: © 2012 Chafika Faraj et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

How to Prevent Malaria

QUESTION:

What is the prevention of malaria?

ANSWER:

Malaria can be prevented in a number of ways, the main three of which are bite reduction, prophylaxis and vector control.

Bite reduction just means steering clear of mosquitoes, and specifically those that transmit malaria. These bite mostly between dusk and dawn, so if walking around at these times of day in a malarial area, it is worth wearing long sleeves and pants, and applying an insect repellant – ones containing DEET are the most effective at keeping off mosquitoes, in my opinion, but they also contain very toxic chemicals so should be used with care.

Specifically, 100% DEET shouldn’t be applied directly to bare skin, since it can be absorbed and cause problems for the liver. Natural insecticides, such as those containing citronella, are also an option. At night, it is advised to sleep under a bednet, which prevents mosquitoes from biting you while you sleep. Nets which are infused with pyrethrin, or other insecticides, are recommended.

Pyrethrin spray can also be used on clothing, to stop mosquitoes biting through light cloth. On a broader scale, bite reduction can also be achieved through better screening of windows and doors, and other ‘environmental’ controls.

Prophylaxis, when referring to malaria, means taking certain medication in order to prevent the onset of the disease. Several different drugs exist, and different ones are recommended depending on the type of malaria you are likely to encounter. Moreover, each has different potential side effects, different schedules of ingestion and come at a range of prices.

Since they do cost money, and are sometimes very expensive, prophylaxis against malaria is usually only used by short term visitors to malarial zones, although since pregnant women are more susceptible to malaria, they may choose to take prophylaxis during their term in order to prevent infection – it should be noted that most of the drugs used for malaria prophylaxis are NOT recommended for pregnant women so it is important to check carefully before starting on any of these medications.

For more info on malaria prevention while pregnant, why not check out the Q&A question about pregnancy and travelling to Belize?

For info on malaria prophylaxis in general, there is a Prophylaxis Forum dedicated to this here on this website, so have a look!

Finally, there is vector control. This means reducing the number of mosquitoes around so that there are less to transmit malaria! Spraying households with insecticides has been very effective in reducing malaria transmission in a number of settings, and although it suffers from a lack of cost-effectiveness and sustainability in the long run, may still be very useful in high-endemicity regions or those where drug-resistant malaria is rife.

Another approach to vector control is to eliminate habitat for the mosquito larvae. The larvae breed in pools of stagnant water, such as ditches or puddles; filling these in can reduce the number of larvae that can mature into biting mosquitoes. Obviously, some water sources, such as wells and irrigation ditches, are required by communities, particularly in rural areas, and so cannot be removed. As such, larval control is probably mostly an effective strategy in urban transmission settings.

Finally, on a slight tangent to traditional vector control, there has long been interest in the idea of controlling malaria through manipulation of mosquito genetics in such a way that populations could be replaced with individuals that cannot transmit the disease. A research article on this subject is available on this website. See: Malaria Control with Transgenic Mosquitos.

 

Toxic Sugar Bait Can Help Control Mosquitos

An improved knowledge of mosquito life history could strengthen malaria vector control efforts that primarily focus on killing mosquitoes indoors using insecticide treated nets and indoor residual spraying.

Natural sugar sources, usually floral nectars of plants, are a primary energy resource for adult mosquitoes but their role in regulating the dynamics of mosquito populations is unclear. To determine how the sugar availability impacts Anopheles sergentii populations, mark-release-recapture studies were conducted in two oases in Israel with either absence or presence of the local primary sugar source, flowering Acacia raddiana trees.

Compared with population estimates from the sugar-rich oasis, An. sergentii in the sugar-poor oasis showed smaller population size (37,494 vs. 85,595), lower survival rates (0.72 vs. 0.93), and prolonged gonotrophic cycles (3.33 vs. 2.36 days). The estimated number of females older than the extrinsic incubation period of malaria (10 days) in the sugar rich site was 4 times greater than in the sugar poor site.

Sugar feeding detected in mosquito guts in the sugar-rich site was significantly higher (73%) than in the sugar-poor site (48%). In contrast, plant tissue feeding (poor quality sugar source) in the sugar-rich habitat was much less (0.3%) than in the sugar-poor site (30%). More important, the estimated vectorial capacity, a standard measure of malaria transmission potential, was more than 250-fold higher in the sugar-rich oasis than that in the sugar-poor site.

Our results convincingly show that the availability of sugar sources in the local environment is a major determinant regulating the dynamics of mosquito populations and their vector potential, suggesting that control interventions targeting sugar-feeding mosquitoes pose a promising tactic for combating transmission of malaria parasites and other pathogens.

Authors: Weidong Gu1*, Günter Müller2, Yosef Schlein2, Robert J. Novak1, John C. Beier3

1 Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America, 2 Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, IMRIC, Kuvin Centre for the Study of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, 3 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Miller School of Medicine, Center for Global Health Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, United States of America

Citation: Gu W, Müller G, Schlein Y, Novak RJ, Beier JC (2011) Natural Plant Sugar Sources of Anopheles Mosquitoes Strongly Impact Malaria Transmission Potential. PLoS ONE 6(1): e15996. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015996

Editor: Anne Charlotte Gruner, Singapore Immunology Network, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore

Copyright: © 2011 Gu et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This project was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (grant 47302). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

See full text: Natural Plant Sugar Sources of Anopheles Mosquitoes Strongly Impact Malaria Transmission Potential (PDF)