Deployment of attractive targeted sugar baits in western Zambia: installation, monitoring, removal, and disposal procedures during a Phase III cluster randomized controlled trial

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Attractive Targeted Sugar Baits (ATSBs) offer a complementary vector control strategy to interventions targeting blood feeding or larval control by attacking the sugar feeding behaviour of adult mosquitoes using an attract-and-kill approach. Western Zambia was the first location to receive and deploy ATSB Sarabi version 1.2 stations in a Phase III cluster randomized controlled trial. This paper describes ATSB station installation, monitoring, removal, and disposal, quantifies ATSB station coverage, and reports major reasons for ATSB station replacement. METHODS: ATSB stations were deployed during two annual transmission seasons, through scheduled installation and removal campaigns. During deployment, monitoring was conducted per protocol to maintain high coverage of the ATSB stations in good condition. Routine monitoring visits during the trial captured details on ATSB station damage necessitating replacement following pre-defined replacement criteria. Annual cross-sectional household surveys measured ATSB station coverage during peak malaria transmission. RESULTS: A total of 67,945 ATSB stations were installed in Year 1 (41,695 initially installed+ 26,250 installed during monitoring) and 69,494 ATSB stations were installed in Year 2 (41,982 initially installed+ 27,512 installed during monitoring) across 35 intervention clusters to maintain high coverage of two ATSB stations in good condition per eligible household structure. The primary reasons for ATSB station replacement due to damage were holes/tears and presence of mold. Cross-sectional household surveys documented high coverage of ATSB stations across Year 1 and Year 2 with 93.1% of eligible structures having ≥ 2 ATSB stations in any condition. DISCUSSION: ATSB station deployment and monitoring efforts were conducted in the context of a controlled cRCT to assess potential product efficacy. Damage to ATSB stations during deployment required replacement of a subset of stations. High coverage of eligible structures was maintained over the two-year study despite replacement requirements. Additional research is needed to better understand the impact of damage on ATSB station effectiveness under programmatic conditions, including thresholds of threats to physical integrity and biological deterioration on product efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing ATSB stations to address causes of damage and conducting implementation research to inform optimal delivery and cost-effective deployment will be important to facilitate scale-up of ATSB interventions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.