Comparison of three catching methods for collecting anopheline mosquitoes

Which trap is best? Alternatives to outdoor human landing catches for malaria vector surveillance: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Human landing catches (HLC) are an entomological collection technique in which humans are used as attractants to capture medically relevant host-seeking mosquitoes. The use of this method has been a topic of extensive debate for decades mainly due to ethical concerns. Many alternatives to HLC have been proposed; however, no quantitative review and meta-analysis comparing HLC to outdoor alternative trapping methods has been conducted.

METHODS

A total of 58 comparisons across 12 countries were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing the standardized mean difference of Anopheles captured by HLC and alternative traps. To explain heterogeneity, three moderators were chosen for analysis: trap type, location of study, and species captured. A meta-regression was fit to understand how the linear combination of moderators helped in explaining heterogeneity. The possibility of biased results due to publication bias was also explored.

RESULTS

Random-effects meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the mean difference of Anopheles collected. Moderator analysis was conducted to determine the effects of trap type, geographical location of study, and the species of Anopheles captured. On average, tent-based traps captured significantly more Anopheles than outdoor HLC (95% CI: [- .9065, - 0.0544]), alternative traps in Africa captured on average more mosquitoes than outdoor HLC (95% CI: [- 2.8750, - 0.0294]), and alternative traps overall captured significantly more Anopheles gambiae s.l. than outdoor HLC (95% CI: [- 4.4613, - 0.2473]) on average. Meta-regression showed that up to 55.77% of the total heterogeneity found can be explained by a linear combination of the three moderators and the interaction between trap type and species. Subset analysis on An. gambiae s.l. showed that light traps specifically captured on average more of this species than HLC (95% CI: [- 18.3751, - 1.0629]). Publication bias likely exists. With 59.65% of studies reporting p-values less than 0.025, we believe there is an over representation in the literature of results indicating that alternative traps are superior to outdoor HLC.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no consensus on a single "magic bullet" alternative to outdoor HLC. The diversity of many alternative trap comparisons restricts potential metrics for comparisons to outdoor HLC. Further standardization and specific question-driven trap evaluations that consider target vector species and the vector control landscape are needed to allow for robust meta-analyses with less heterogeneity and to develop data-driven decision-making tools for malaria vector surveillance and control.

Applications and limitations of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention miniature light traps for measuring biting densities of African malaria vector populations: a pooled-analysis of 13 comparisons with human landing catches

Background

Measurement of densities of host-seeking malaria vectors is important for estimating levels of disease transmission, for appropriately allocating interventions, and for quantifying their impact. The gold standard for estimating mosquito—human contact rates is the human landing catch (HLC), where human volunteers catch mosquitoes that land on their exposed body parts. This approach necessitates exposure to potentially infectious mosquitoes, and is very labour intensive. There are several safer and less labour-intensive methods, with Centers for Disease Control light traps (LT) placed indoors near occupied bed nets being the most widely used.

Methods

This paper presents analyses of 13 studies with paired mosquito collections of LT and HLC to evaluate these methods for their consistency in sampling indoor-feeding mosquitoes belonging to the two major taxa of malaria vectors across Africa, the Anopheles gambiae sensu lato complex and the Anopheles funestus s.l. group. Both overall and study-specific sampling efficiencies of LT compared with HLC were computed, and regression methods that allow for the substantial variations in mosquito counts made by either method were used to test whether the sampling efficacy varies with mosquito density.

Results

Generally, LT were able to collect similar numbers of mosquitoes to the HLC indoors, although the relative sampling efficacy, measured by the ratio of LT:HLC varied considerably between studies. The overall best estimate for An. gambiae s.l. was 1.06 (95% credible interval: 0.68–1.64) and for An. funestus s.l. was 1.37 (0.70–2.68). Local calibration exercises are not reproducible, since only in a few studies did LT sample proportionally to HLC, and there was no geographical pattern or consistent trend with average density in the tendency for LT to either under- or over-sample.

Conclusions

LT are a crude tool at best, but are relatively easy to deploy on a large scale. Spatial and temporal variation in mosquito densities and human malaria transmission exposure span several orders of magnitude, compared to which the inconsistencies of LT are relatively small. LT, therefore, remain an invaluable and safe alternative to HLC for measuring indoor malaria transmission exposure in Africa.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-015-0761-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparative evaluation of light-trap catches, electric motor mosquito catches and human biting catches of Anopheles in the Three Gorges Reservoir

The mosquito sampling efficiency of light-trap catches and electric motor mosquito catches were compared with that of human biting catches in the Three Gorges Reservoir. There was consistency in the sampling efficiency between light-trap catches and human biting catches for Anopheles sinensis (r = 0.82, P<0.01) and light-trap catches were 1.52 (1.35-1.71) times that of human biting catches regardless of mosquito density (r = 0.33, P>0.01), while the correlation between electric motor mosquito catches and human biting catches was found to be not statistically significant (r = 0.43, P>0.01) and its sampling efficiency was below that of human biting catches. It is concluded that light-traps can be used as an alternative to human biting catches of Anopheles sinensis in the study area and is a promising tool for sampling malaria vector populations.

Comparison between anopheline mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) caught using different methods in a malaria endemic area of Papua New Guinea

The mosquito sampling efficiency of CDC (Centers for Disease Control) miniature light traps hung adjacent to mosquito nets, was compared with that of both indoor and outdoor human-bait collections in ten villages in the Wosera area of Papua New Guinea. The most frequently collected anopheline in the matched indoor and light trap samples was Anopheles koliensis Owen, followed by A. punctulatus Dönitz, A. karwari (James), A. farauti Laveran (sensu lato), A. longirostris Brug and A. bancroftii Giles. All species were much less frequent in the light traps than in landing catches. The hypothesis that the numbers of mosquitoes in light traps are proportional to human landing catches was examined using regression models that allowed for sampling error in both entomological measurements. Light traps under-sampled A. punctulatus and A. farauti s.l. at high densities. The models indicated that the ratio of light trap to landing catch females of A. koliensis and A. karwari increased with increasing mosquito density. Light trap catches of A. longirostris were proportional to indoor landing rates but when outdoor landing rates were high this species was under-sampled by light traps. Numbers of A. bancroftii in light traps were found to be proportional to those in outdoor landing catches, but were negatively related to those attempting to bite indoors. Circumsporozoite positivity rates for both Plasmodium falciparum Welch and P. vivax (Grassi & Feletti) in A. punctulatus and A. farauti s.l. were significantly higher in light trap collections than in either indoor or outdoor landing catches, suggesting that light traps may selectively sample older mosquitoes of these species.