Mind the gap: residual malaria transmission, veterinary endectocides and livestock as targets for malaria vector control (original) (raw)

The work of Pooda et al. published in Malaria Journal [1] provides encouraging evidence of the potential use of systemic insecticides in cattle as a complementary means to further reduce residual malaria transmission that persists despite high coverage of current front-line vector measures, namely long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual sprays (IRS).

LLINs and IRS interventions are responsible for most of the remarkable reductions in malaria burden achieved in this century [2], but even more ambitious new vector control measures will be required to achieve elimination of transmission from most endemic areas in the years ahead [3–5]. This is because LLINs and IRS leave two obvious spatial and temporal gaps wherever vector mosquitoes attack people outdoors, especially in the evenings and mornings, or rest outdoors before and after feeding [3–5]. There is, however, a third gap that does not usually receive as much attention, specifically their failure to kill mosquitoes that feed on animals rather than humans.

Zoophagic vectors that feed predominantly on animals can sustain malaria transmission even if they only bite humans infrequently [6]. Even with near-complete coverage of human sleeping spaces and houses, LLINs and IRS cannot be reasonably expected to have any meaningful impact upon the density or longevity of zoophagic vector populations, because they achieve no insecticidal coverage of the animals that constitute their main source of protein [4, 6].

Fortunately, by far the most common source of blood for most zoophagic malaria vectors are domesticated livestock, cattle in particular [7], so it is also possible to control the malaria transmission they mediate through veterinary applications of insecticides [8], the most exciting of which may be the systemic insecticides which the mosquito actually ingests along with its blood meal. Fritz et al. first described increased mortality of Anopheles gambiae feeding on ivermectin-treated cattle and suggested a potential role of this strategy for integrated vector management [9]. These findings have since been extended to Anopheles culicifacies and Anopheles stephensi, the main malaria vectors of Pakistan [10], and more recently to an important African vector of residual transmission, Anopheles arabiensis [11].

This latest report by Pooda et al. [1] now demonstrates similar increased mortality and reduced fertility of Anopheles coluzzii, a widely distributed vector species which maintains robust malaria transmission all across west and central Africa [12]. Interestingly, the lethal effect of ivermectin was seen even when the colony used had high prevalence of the kdr mutation which contributes to pyrethroid resistance in many parts of Africa.

Although the evidence base is growing fast, the full potential of ivermectin for malaria vector and transmission control remains to be established, but most discourse thus far has focused on medical delivery to human beings [13]. However, the alternative strategy of veterinary delivery to livestock has several advantages:

• Long-lasting injectable veterinary formulations of ivermectin already exist that can dramatically increase the effectiveness of this approach, by not only targeting a more important blood source for vector populations than humans, but also by achieving far longer duration of efficacy than is possible with the oral formulations available for human pharmaceutical delivery.
• A much greater diversity of different endectocides are available for cattle and other livestock, which offers an opportunity to combine drugs with different mechanisms of action, especially if ivermectin is to be used for mass drug administration to humans.
• Integrating an endectocide into traditional zooprophylaxis strategies [14] removes potential risks of accidentally increasing malaria transmission by increasing vector survival and reproduction [15], because mosquitoes attracted to feeding on animals could be killed rather than merely diverted away from humans.
• Endectocides can contribute to an overall One Health strategy by simultaneously improving livestock and human health. Nonzoonotic livestock parasites pose an important burden on human health by reducing economic output and nutrient availability. In addition to preventing malaria transmission, broadening the use of veterinary endectocides also offers an excellent opportunity to alleviate poverty and malnutrition by reducing the burden of livestock parasites on the health and economic resilience of their human owners [16].

Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax are both strict anthroponoses, so it is understandable that ivermectin mass drug administration for malaria control and elimination is usually viewed primarily as an intervention for human populations. However, the use of veterinary antiparasitic drugs with insecticidal proprieties in domesticated livestock could perhaps achieve greater impact in many settings where persisting transmission is mediated by zoophagic vectors, and contribute to human health in previously unforeseen ways.

Abbreviations

LLINs:

long-lasting insecticide-treated nets

IRS:

indoor residual spraying

References

1. Pooda SH, Rayaisse JB, Hien F-S, Lefevre T, Yerbanga S, Bengaly Z, et al. Administation of ivermectin to peridomestic cattle: a promising approach to target the residual transmission of human malaria. Malar J. 2015;14:496.
   Article PubMed Central Google Scholar
2. Bhatt S, Weiss DJ, Cameron E, Bisanzio D, Mappin B, Dalrymple U, et al. The effect of malaria control on Plasmodium falciparum in Africa between 2000 and 2015. Nature. 2015;526:207–11.
   Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
3. WHO. Guidance note: Control of residual malaria parasite transmission. World Health Organization Global Malaria Programme; 2014: pp 5.
4. Killeen GF. Characterizing, controlling and eliminating residual malaria transmission. Malar J. 2014;13:330.
   Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
5. Durnez L, Coosemans M: Residual transmission of malaria: an old issue for new approaches. In: Manguin S editor, Rijeka: Intech. Anopheles mosquitoes—New insights into malaria vectors. 2013. p. 671–704.
6. Kiware SS, Chitnis N, Moore SJ, Devine GJ, Majambere S, Killeen GF. Simplified models of vector control impact upon malaria transmission by zoophagic mosquitoes. PLoS One. 2012;7:e37661.
   Article PubMed CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar
7. Garrett-Jones C, Boreham P, Pant CP. Feeding habits of anophelines (Diptera: Culicidae) in 1971–1978, with reference to the human blood index: a review. Bull Entomol Res. 1980;70:165–85.
   Article Google Scholar
8. Rowland M, Durrani N, Kenward M, Mohammed N, Urahman H, Hewitt S. Control of malaria in Pakistan by applying deltamethrin insecticide to cattle: a community-randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;357:1837–41.
   Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
9. Fritz ML, Siegert PY, Walker ED, Bayoh MN, Vulule JR, Miller JR. Toxicity of bloodmeals from ivermectin-treated cattle to Anopheles gambiae s.l. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2009;103:539–47.
   Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
10. Naz SM, Ahmad A, Ahmad M, Zaman S. Efficacy of ivermectin for control of zoophilic malaria vectors in Pakistan. Pakistan J Zool. 2013;45:1585–91.
    CAS Google Scholar
11. Poche RM, Burruss D, Polyakova L, Poche DM, Garlapati RB. Treatment of livestock with systemic insecticides for control of Anopheles arabiensis in western Kenya. Malar J. 2015;14:351.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
12. Coetzee M, Hunt RH, Wilkerson R, Della Torre A, Coulibaly MB, Besansky NJ. Anopheles coluzzii and Anopheles amharicus, new members of the Anopheles gambiae complex. Zootaxa. 2013;3619:246–74.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
13. Chaccour CJ, Rabinovich NR, Slater H, Canavati SE, Bousema T, Lacerda M, et al. Establishment of the ivermectin research for malaria elimination network: updating the research agenda. Malar J. 2015;14:243.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
14. Donnelly B, Berrang-Ford L, Ross NA, Michel P. A systematic, realist review of zooprophylaxis for malaria control. Malar J. 2015;14:313.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
15. Saul A. Zooprophylaxis or zoopotentiation: the outcome of introducing animals on vector transmission is highly dependent on the mosquito mortality while searching. Malar J. 2003;2:32.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
16. Rist CL, Garchitorena A, Ngonghala CN, Gillespie TR, Bonds MH. The burden of livestock parasites on the poor. Trends Parasitol. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.pt.2015.09.005.
    PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Competing interests

Both authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Internal Medicine, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
   Carlos Chaccour
2. ISGlobal, Barcelona Ctr. Int. Health Res. (CRESIB), Hospital Clínic, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
   Carlos Chaccour
3. Instituto de Salud Tropical, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
   Carlos Chaccour
4. Ifakara Health Institute, Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Thematic Group, Ifakara, Kilombero, Morogoro, United Republic of Tanzania
   Gerry F. Killeen
5. Department of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
   Gerry F. Killeen

Authors

1. Carlos Chaccour
2. Gerry F. Killeen

Corresponding author

Correspondence toGerry F. Killeen.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chaccour, C., Killeen, G.F. Mind the gap: residual malaria transmission, veterinary endectocides and livestock as targets for malaria vector control.Malar J 15, 24 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-015-1063-y

Download citation

• Received: 04 December 2015
• Accepted: 22 December 2015
• Published: 12 January 2016
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-015-1063-y

Keywords