Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2024 Mar 7;18(3):e0012036. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012036

Socio-ecological risk factors associated with human flea infestations of rural household in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar

Adélaïde Miarinjara 1,*, Annick Onimalala Raveloson 2,3, Stephen Gilbert Mugel 1, Nick An 1, Andry Andriamiadanarivo 4, Minoarisoa Esther Rajerison 5, Rindra Vatosoa Randremanana 6, Romain Girod 2, Thomas Robert Gillespie 1,4,*
Editor: Benjamin L Makepeace7
PMCID: PMC10950221  PMID: 38452122

Abstract

Plague is a flea-borne fatal disease caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, which persists in rural Madagascar. Although fleas parasitizing rats are considered the primary vectors of Y. pestis, the human flea, Pulex irritans, is abundant in human habitations in Madagascar, and has been found naturally infected by the plague bacterium during outbreaks. While P. irritans may therefore play a role in plague transmission if present in plague endemic areas, the factors associated with infestation and human exposure within such regions are little explored. To determine the socio-ecological risk factors associated with P. irritans infestation in rural households in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar, we used a mixed-methods approach, integrating results from P. irritans sampling, a household survey instrument, and an observational checklist. Using previously published vectorial capacity data, the minimal P. irritans index required for interhuman bubonic plague transmission was modeled to determine whether household infestations were enough to pose a plague transmission risk. Socio-ecological risk factors associated with a high P. irritans index were then identified for enrolled households using generalized linear models. Household flea abundance was also modeled using the same set of predictors. A high P. irritans index occurred in approximately one third of households and was primarily associated with having a traditional dirt floor covered with a plant fiber mat. Interventions targeting home improvement and livestock housing management may alleviate flea abundance and plague risk in rural villages experiencing high P. irritans infestation. As plague-control resources are limited in developing countries such as Madagascar, identifying the household parameters and human behaviors favoring flea abundance, such as those identified in this study, are key to developing preventive measures that can be implemented at the community level.

Author summary

Plague is a bacterial disease transmitted by flea bites, and the rat fleas are the main vectors of Yersinia pestis, the plague bacterium. Households in plague endemic-areas of Madagascar are frequently infested by Pulex irritans, the human flea, which does become naturally infected with the plague bacterium during epidemic. The intensity of flea infestation varies among households, but the reasons for such disparities are poorly understood. This study identifies factors associated with P. irritans infestation in rural households in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar. Infestation risk was more pronounced for poor households living in homes made with organic construction materials and flea density did not show a seasonal pattern. One third of the household experienced high flea infestation, putting inhabitants at risk of sustained interhuman plague transmission, should the fleas or a household member become infected. While P. irritans may be a secondary vector, this additional route of plague transmission deserves more attention from epidemiologists. The factors identified in this analysis suggest that improvement of housing and better management of livestock would alleviate flea burden and potential plague risk in rural plague-endemic villages experiencing high flea infestation.

Background

Fleas (Order Siphonaptera) are bloodsucking, wingless insects with laterally- compressed bodies and hind legs specialized for jumping [1]. Flea species from Pulicidae and Tungidae families are important pests for humans and domestic animals and include species such as Xenopsylla cheopis (the Oriental rat flea), Pulex irritans (the human flea), Ctenocephalides canis and Ctenocephalides felis (dog and cat fleas, respectively), Echidnophaga gallinacea (the sticktight flea), and Tunga penetrans (jigger flea), which are commonly found in the human environment [2]. In many cases, flea infestations are concurrent among livestock and companion animals, which act as reservoir and/or principal hosts [35]. Flea infestations have not received much attention despite their detrimental impacts on community morbidity, wellbeing, and productivity in low-income countries [68].

Fleas undergo full metamorphosis and the immature flea life-stages live among the dust and crevices of floors within homes or in animal host burrows. The photophobic worm-like larvae require high humidity to survive and feed on various organic debris in the environment. Flea life cycle from egg to adult is influenced by factors related to the immediate environment, such as temperature, humidity, and host presence [2,9,10]. Adult fleas of both sexes feed exclusively on blood. Some flea species live in animal nests and burrows as adults, while others live on host fur, leaving only if the host dies. Host blood source has a decisive impact on flea population maintenance since blood components determine flea fitness and survival [11]. Flea host specificity (i.e., number of host species exploited) depends on factors that affect both adult and immature stage survival; and host availability and preferences determine flea distributions and their role in the transmission of pathogenic parasites and bacteria [9]. Cat and dog fleas serve as intermediate hosts for various tapeworms (Order Cyclophyllidea), contributing to the spread of the parasite among companion animals and potential zoonotic exposure [9]. Murine typhus is a flea-borne rickettsial disease caused by infection with Rickettsia typhi that has been detected in flea species including C. felis, E. gallinacea, P. irritans, and X. cheopis [12,13]. Fleas may also play a limited role in the transmission of tularemia, a bacterial disease caused by Francisella tularensis [9]. Bartonella sp., responsible for bartonellosis, has been detected in various flea species parasitizing commensal and wild hosts [2].

Among flea-borne diseases, plague is arguably the most infamous [2]. Yersinia pestis, the etiologic agent of plague, is a highly virulent bacterium that has killed millions during three historic human pandemics and continues to re-emerge [14]. The transmission cycle of Y. pestis is complex, involving multiple vertebrate hosts. Plague is principally a flea-borne rodent disease, characterized by circulation within resistant rodent populations, inducing low or no mortality but allowing persistence of the pathogen in the environment (enzootic plague), and transmission between susceptible rodent populations inducing high mortality (epizootic) [15]. Humans are most likely to become infected when flea numbers are high and epizootic plague is decimating a susceptible rodent population, as infected fleas from dead rodents are seeking new hosts [16].

In countries such as Uganda, Madagascar, and Tanzania, where bubonic plague is prevalent, C. felis and P. irritans are among the most abundant fleas in homes and are categorized as house-dwelling, free, host-seeking or house fleas, as opposed to on-host fleas [1719]. Interestingly, C. felis, and the human flea, P. irritans, are considered of low concern for public health despite a presumable role in plague transmission [17,2022]. In Madagascar, rat fleas are the only target of vector control efforts, and solely within the framework of plague epidemic mitigation [19,23,24]. Troublingly the insecticide powder used for flea control during plague outbreaks, spread on the household floor or contained in bait stations, has little effect on P. irritans [23,24]. Furthermore, households in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar were frequently infested by a large number of human fleas at magnitudes rarely found in other countries reporting human plague outbreaks [18,25]. Although the intensity of flea infestation varies greatly among households, the reasons for such disparities are poorly understood [19,23]. Research regarding P. irritans biology, ecology, and the conditions under which this species may play a role in plague transmission are scarce in Madagascar, though this knowledge would be valuable to develop science-based plague control strategies.

The aim of the present study was to determine the socio-ecological risk factors associated with P. irritans infestations that may increase plague transmission risk in rural Madagascar households where plague is known to circulate, or recent outbreaks have occurred. Our primary hypothesis was that P. irritans density is driven by seasonal patterns and influenced by household characteristics. As ectoparasite control resources are limited in developing countries, identifying household parameters and human behaviors favoring flea abundance and plague risk are key to developing preventive measures that can be implemented by community engagement. Our specific aims were: 1. to identify household-level characteristics that correspond to high-risk P. irritans abundance and 2. to assess seasonal variation in P. irritans abundance in homes in plague-endemic region of Madagascar.

Methods

Ethic statement

Participants in this study were adults (> 18 years old) that provided oral informed consent for interview and flea sampling in their homes. The project was reviewed and approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board (STUDY00004288), the Institut Pasteur de Madagascar scientific committee, and the biomedical research ethics committee of the Malagasy Ministry of Public Health (Comité d’Ethique de la Recherche Biomédicale, case number 82-MSANP/SG/AMM/CERBM).

Study area

Repeated cross-sectional surveys and household flea sampling were conducted in four rural villages within the plague-endemic Southeastern part of the Central Highlands of Madagascar [19,26] (Fig 1). Two villages, Nanda and Alakamisy Ambohimaha, belong to the Lalangina district, within the Matsiatra Ambony Region where multiple suspected or confirmed plague outbreaks have been reported in the past decade. The other two villages, Soafandry and Ambohipanalinana, belong to the district of Ambositra (Amoron’i Mania region), which has several active plague foci [27,28].

Fig 1. Map of study sites for investigation of socio-ecological risk factors for rural household flea infestations in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar.

Fig 1

The map was generated with QGIS software (https://qgis.org/en/site/about/index.html). Administrative boundaries were downloaded from GADM: https://gadm.org/index.html.

Survey instrument

Interviews were conducted during the dry season (June—July 2022) when workload in rice paddies was lowest and heads of households were expected to be available for interviews. The survey instrument was developed in English, translated to Malagasy, and validated via back-translation [29] before being administered orally to each head of household in Malagasy. Village leaders and investigators called open community gatherings where attendees were informed of the purpose, scope, methods, and plans for information sharing of the study, and an investigator disclosed that participation in the study was voluntary and prospective participants were asked for their informed consent. Households were selected randomly, starting from the village gathering place to the periphery and included when an adult (>18 years old) was present and orally consented to participate to the study. The survey instrument focused on socio-ecological variables that may influence abundance of P. irritans in households including demographics, sleeping arrangement, presence of animals, behavioral practices related to home hygiene, and attitudes towards rodents and fleas (S1 File). Observational data related to household characteristics such as building materials and presence/absence of animal housing were also collected.

Flea sampling

Fleas were sampled twice in the four villages, once during the dry season (June–July 2022) and once during the rainy season (November 2021 in Nanda and October 2022 for the three other villages). Fleas were sampled via candle trap method [30]. Briefly, a candle (21.5 cm in height and 1.5 cm in diameter) was lit in the middle of a pale-colored enamel plate (diameter = 22.5 cm) containing water mixed with a pinch of laundry powder. Fleas attracted by the candlelight fell into soapy water and died. Each household received one candle trap per night for three consecutive nights. Candle traps were placed in a room chosen by each head of the household (typically the bedroom) and lit before bedtime, burning until the wick reached the water level (about eight hours). Fleas were collected the following morning one by one, placed on blotting paper to remove excess water, and stored in separate 1.5 ml vials containing 70% ethanol using fine-tip entomological forceps. Flea species were later identified based on morphology using an identification key [31] and individuals of each species were counted at 25X magnification.

Data analysis

The factors associated with P. irritans abundance in households were analyzed using two approaches where the outcome variable was characterized as raw flea count per household (Model 1) or a binomial categorization of P. irritans index per household based on simulated plague transmission risk (Model 2). Variables were selected a priori according to relevant scientific literature [38] and the research team members’ own experiences (see Table 1). Variables were excluded if there was too much homogeneity (<20% in a level) in the dataset and were included in the model if there was low collinearity (assessed using “VIF”, variance inflation factor function from the R package “car” [32]). Both Models 1 and 2 were conducted on flea data from the dry season only (when interviews were conducted).

Table 1. Characteristics of rural households in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar.

Variables (total number of observations) Factors Observation Proportion (%)
Respondent gender (n = 95) Female 79 83.16
Male 16 14.81
Head of household gender (n = 104) Female 19 18.27
Male 85 81.73
Head of household marital status (n = 104) Married 79 75.96
Single Female 19 18.27
Single Male 6 5.77
Head of household finished primary school (n = 97) * Yes 40 41.24
No 57 58.76
For couples, spouse finished primary school (n = 79) Yes 36 45.57
No 43 54.43
Household size (n = 104) * 1 to 4 53 50.96
>4 51 49.04
House cleaned daily (n = 104) Yes 87 83.65
No 17 16.35
Head of household reported rodent activities in house within last two months (n = 104) * Yes 79 75.96
No 25 24.04
Household used insecticide to control pests (n = 104) * Yes 84 80.77
No 20 19.23
At least one household member sleeps on floor (n = 104) * Yes 43 41.35
No 61 58.65
At least one household member sleeps under a bed net (n = 104) * Yes 72 69.23
No 32 30.77
Roof type (n = 104) * Thatch 35 33.65
Clay tiles 36 34.62
Metal sheets 33 31.73
Floor type (n = 104) * Mat 69 66.35
Board 24 23.08
Concrete 6 5.77
Other 5 4.81
Livestock kept near house (n = 103) Yes 59 57.28
No 44 42.72
Owning livestock (n = 104) Yes 89 85.58
No 15 14.42
Livestock kept indoors at night (n = 104) Yes 82 78.85
No 22 21.15
Chickens kept indoors at night (n = 104) * Yes 65 62.50
No 39 37.50
Other poultry kept indoors at night (n = 104) Yes 27 25.96
No 77 74.04
Pigs kept indoors at night (n = 104) * Yes 33 31.73
No 71 68.27
Cows kept indoors at night (n = 104) * Yes 35 33.65
No 69 66.35
Rabbits and guinea pigs kept indoors at night (n = 104) Yes 21 20.19
No 83 79.81

* Variables included in both models.

Model 1 focused on risk factors for flea abundance as measured by P. irritans count per household (totaled across three consecutive sampling nights) using a generalized linear mixed model, which included a random effect for village and utilized a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in flea counts.

Model 2 explored the potential for flea abundance sufficient for plague transmission [17,33,34] by modeling the risk factors associated with a household exhibiting a density of P. irritans per person greater than or equal to that estimated to sustain person-to-person transmission of Y. pestis as has been done previously [17], based on P. irritans vector competence during early phase transmission [21]. Model assumptions accounting vector competence included that: infectious fleas could locate human hosts, early phase transmission was the primary mode of vector transmission, all hosts were equally sought and bitten by fleas [17,33] and parameters were similar for fleas from different populations. The average number of fleas per person required to sustain transmission (m) was modeled as follows:

m=R0·(r(a·b·pn)) Eq 1

In the equation, R0 represented the average number of secondary infections and was set at R0 = 1 to model minimum sustained transmission at a population level [34]. The daily biting rate of P. irritans, a, was described using a beta distribution based on a recent laboratory study in which 230 of 280 P. irritans fed daily on human blood [21]. The probability of acquiring and transmitting Y. pestis during early phase transmission (within 24-hours of infectious blood meal), b, was described using a beta distribution based on the same study, which found that 15 of 181 P. irritans transmitted Y. pestis. The probability of P. irritans surviving the extrinsic incubation period (here, the 24-hours of early phase transmission), pn, was estimated to be one, because nearly all fleas survived this short period [17,21]. The average life expectancy of the human host following the threshold septicemia, 1/r, was estimated as two days based on previous reports [27,35]. Then, using 10,000 simulated random draws from beta distributions for a and b, a distribution for m was generated using R Studio software [32].

Households were categorized as at “higher infestation risk” when Pii (P. irritans index, the total number of P. irritans collected in a household across three nights divided by the household size) ≥ mean (m) or households were categorized at “lower infestation risk” when Pii < mean (m), referring to household plague transmission via P. irritans if a single person were infected.

A binomial generalized linear model was used to identify risk factors for a household being at “higher infestation risk” based on this Pii categorization from the dry season. Village was treated as a fixed effect because the model failed to converge with random effects. A sensitivity analysis was performed with lower and upper 95% confidence intervals of m. Seasonality of P. irritans was assessed by comparing total flea number per village between seasons using an ANOVA test. All analyses were conducted using R Studio software [32]. R codes and data are available at OSF.

Results

A total of 126 households were visited in the four villages. Of the households visited, 82.54% participated in all components of the study during both wet and dry seasons. Five heads of household declined to participate in the interview but participated in the flea sampling component. In addition, 12 households only participated in one season of flea sampling, and an additional five households ended involvement prematurely. Only households that gave interview consent and where flea sampling was conducted during both seasons were included in analyses (n = 104).

Mean household size was four and ranged from one to 14. Most respondents were women (83.16%), but men (i.e., husband, father, son, or older brother) were usually identified as head of household (81.73%). Among household heads, 24.04% were identified as single (female = 18.27%, male = 5.77%), 58.76% had not finished primary school, 41.35% reported having at least one household member sleeping on the floor (without an elevated bedframe), and 69.23% reported at least one household member using a mosquito net at night on a regular basis.

Most enrolled households resided in houses constructed in traditional fashion (S2 File) for the southern part of the Central Highlands of Madagascar with three-stories (ground floor, first floor and attic) and at least two rooms per level (S3 File). Residents usually slept on the first floor and the kitchen was usually in the attic. Most families kept livestock on the ground floor at night (78.85%), and animal enclosures and pens were observed in proximity to many homes (57.28%). Most households (85.58%) owned livestock, with an average of nine animals per household. A summary of household characteristics is presented in Table 1.

Most floors were either dirt covered with a woven plant fiber mat (66.35%), wooden boards (23.08%), or concrete (5.77%). Other material types such as vinyl sheets and tarps were infrequently observed. House floor cleaning was done daily for 83.65% of respondents. Walls were generally constructed of sun-dried or baked clay bricks, or of mud blocks. In some homes, interior and exterior walls were plastered with a mixture of sand, mud, and/or cement. Roofs were either baked clay tiles (34.62%), thatched (33.65%), or corrugated iron sheet (31.73%).

Rodents were reported in 75.96% of homes, dominated by the house mouse (Mus musculus) (69.23%) and the black rat (Rattus rattus) (25.96%). Flea nuisance was a common problem in the communities (Table 2), with 50.98% of heads of households reporting that they or family members experienced severe flea nuisance (bites, scratches or the sensation of fleas crawling on body) in the last two months. Flea nuisance was mostly experienced at night (80.77%) and in bed and/or in the bedroom (79.49%). In addition, 73.03% of heads of households reported experiencing more intense flea nuisance with warmer temperatures (wet season). Domestic insecticide use was a common practice (Table 2), with 58.81% of households having used insecticide in the last two months and 80.77% having used chemical insecticide to control household pests at some point. Most participants bought insecticide from the local market and only 52.22% could give the name (brand or commercial name) of insecticide used, 79.01% of which were bought in liquid form and 8.64% as powder. The primary target of domestic insecticide treatments were fleas (67.80%), followed by cockroaches (27.97%), and mosquitoes (7.63%).

Table 2. Flea nuisance perception and insecticide use in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar.

Variable (total number of observations) Factor Observation Frequency (%)
Flea nuisance intensity (n = 102) Rare 17 16.67
Moderate 33 32.35
Severe 52 50.98
Nuisance by time of day (n = 104) Night 84 80.77
Other 20 17.09
Location in house with highest nuisance (n = 104) On bed & / or in bedroom 93 79.49
Kitchen & other 11 9.40
Season with highest nuisance (n = 104) Wet season 76 73.08
Dry season 17 16.35
Other 11 10.58
Insecticide used in household (n = 104) Yes 84 80.77
No 20 19.23
Insecticide form (n = 81) Liquid 64 79.01
Powder 7 8.64
Other 10 12.35
Commercial name of insecticide identified (n = 84) Yes 47 52.22
No 37 41.11
Insecticide used within last two months (n = 104) Yes 48 40.68
No 38 32.20
Do not know 18 15.25
Flea control (n = 104) Yes 80 67.80
No 24 27.12
Cockroach control (n = 104) Yes 33 27.97
No 71 60.17
Mosquito control (n = 104) Yes 9 7.63
No 95 80.51

Candle traps were set in rooms according to head of household directive, with 65.38% placed on the 1st floor, 24.04% in the attic, and 10.58% on the ground floor. The head of household usually chooses the bedroom (74.36%). In some instances, the room in which the trap was set served as a bedroom and kitchen (20.51%), as a spare room where nobody was sleeping (4.27%) or kitchen (1.70%).

A total of 9,352 fleas were collected from 126 houses investigated, with 98.18% (n = 9,182) being P. irritans and the remainder identified as C. felis (n = 154), E. gallinacea (n = 11), and T. penetrans (n = 5). Flea species distribution per village and per season is summarized in Table 3. Household flea prevalence was 99.03% during the dry season and 98.08% during the rainy season. The number of fleas collected did not differ per village when compared between seasons (Fig 2).

Table 3. Distribution of flea species per village and per season in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar.

Village Dry season Wet season
P.i. C.f. E.g. T.p. Total P.i. C.f. E.g. T.p. Total
Alakamisy- Ambohimaha 745 5 0 0 750 852 0 0 1 853
Ambohipanalinana 997 8 1 0 1006 1266 19 0 0 1285
Nanda 1783 5 4 0 1792 1905 95 3 0 2003
Soafandry 904 12 2 0 918 730 10 1 4 745
Total 4429 30 7 0 4466 4753 124 4 5 4886

P.i.: Pulex irritans, C.f.: Ctenocephalides felis, E.g.: Echidnophaga gallinacea, T.p.: Tunga penetrans

Fig 2. Boxplot comparing flea number per village between seasons in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar.

Fig 2

ALA: Alakamisy Ambohimaha (p-value = 0.461), AMB: Ambohipanalinana (p-value = 0.435), NAN: Nanda (p-value = 0.530), SOA: Soafandry (p-value = 0.904). Black diamond-shaped points inside the boxes are mean values. Horizontal bars in boxes are the 50th percentiles (medians), and the bottom and the top of the box represent the 25th and the 75th percentiles, respectively. The two limits of vertical lines above and at the bottom of the box are the whiskers and represent the maximum and the minimum values of the data. Points outside the limit of vertical line are “outlier,” which are values outside 95% of the confidence interval.

Since P. irritans represented >98% of fleas recovered, only number of P. irritans was considered as outcome variable in both models. The mixed model of flea abundance (P. irritans count; Model 1, Table 4) demonstrated a strong association with household size, where households with more than four members had 1.92 times increased flea counts compared to households with fewer than four members, (p = 0.03, 95%CI: 1.08–3.41; Table 4). Households keeping chickens indoors at night had 1.75 times higher P. irritans count compared to those not keeping chickens indoors (p = 0.03, 95% CI: 1.07–2.28; Table 4). Households with rodent activity and keeping cows indoors at night (Table 4) also had increased flea counts though these estimates were marginally non-significant, indicating that increased precision through larger sample sizes may improve our estimate.

Table 4. Factors associated with flea infestation in households in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar.

Variables Levels Flea abundance Infestation at high risk for interhuman Y. pestis transmission
aOR p-value Low CI High CI aOR p-value Low CI High CI
Household size ≤4 (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>4 1.92 0.03 1.08 3.41 _ _ _ _
Roof type Elaborate* (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Primitive 1.38 0.30 0.75 2.54 3.86 0.18 0.59 34.78
Floor type Mat¥ (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Other 0.72 0.32 0.37 1.37 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.70
Head of household finished primary school Yes (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No 0.91 0.74 0.53 1.56 0.19 0.05 0.03 0.92
Any household member sleeping on floor No (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Yes 1.10 0.71 0.67 1.81 1.59 0.55 0.34 7.64
Any household member sleeping under ITN Yes (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No 0.94 0.82 0.55 1.61 0.35 0.25 0.05 1.94
Ever used insecticide Yes (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No 1.23 0.42 0.74 2.05 7.39 0.02 1.53 47.33
Reported rodent presence No (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
yes 1.66 0.07 0.96 2.87 6.64 0.07 1.06 70.64
Chickens indoors at night No (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Yes 1.75 0.03 1.06 2.88 4.20 0.08 0.91 24.01
Cow indoors at night No (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Yes 1.71 0.08 0.94 3.13 0.77 0.78 0.11 4.81
Pigs indoors at night No (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Yes 0.99 0.98 0.50 1.95 4.71 0.16 0.59 45.61
Village ALA (ref) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
AMB _ _ _ _ 0.21 0.29 0.01 3.43
NAN _ _ _ _ 0.51 0.57 0.05 5.22
SOA _ _ _ _ 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.86

*Elaborate roofs are made of corrugated iron sheets or clay tiles. Primitive roofs are made of thatch. Observation numbers for each category are in table 1.

¥ Floors covered with mats are usually earthen floor type. Other floor types are concrete, concrete mixed with broken tiles and wooden board. Ref: reference factor. Bolded terms are significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level. aOR: adjusted odds ratio, CI: confidence interval.

To emphasize the potential epidemiologic significance of observed P. irritans infestation, the model dichotomizing households into high and low interhuman Y. pestis transmission risk utilized a threshold for Pii = 7.43 (CI 95%: 7.31–7.55; Table 4) as simulated by vector competence modeling. Thirty-four out of 104 (32.70%) households exhibited a Pii over 7.43, suggesting increased risk for sustained interhuman Y. pestis transmission based on vector competence modeling. Households which never used insecticides for pest control had increased odds of higher infestation risk compared to those which had used insecticides (aOR = 7.39, p = 0.02, 95% CI: 1.53 -– 47.33; Table 4). Households with floors made of concrete or board, as opposed to traditional fiber mats had lower odds of being in high-risk infestation households (aOR = 0.085, p = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.01–0.70; Table 4). Surprisingly, households with heads who had not finished primary school had lower odds of high infestation risk (aOR = 0.19, p = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03–0.92; Table 4). A large aOR was found for primitive roof types (i.e., thatch), indicating increased odds higher Y. pestis transmission risk, though the effect was non-significant with wide confidence intervals (aOR = 3.86, p = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.59–34.78; Table 4). Households keeping chickens indoors at night and reporting rodent activity also had increased odds of high infestation risk, though these estimates were marginally non-significant (aOR = 4.20, p = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01–24.0 for indoor chickens; aOR = 6.64, p = 0.02, 95% CI: 1.53–47.33 for rodent activity; Table 4), suggesting that improved precision is necessary to better estimate this association. These results were robust to the m simulation for Pii thresholds (S4 File).

Discussion

Our observations of high household flea infestation rates dominated by the human flea P. irritans reinforce the findings of previous studies in rural Madagascar [19,22,23,36]. Furthermore, flea number captured per household in our study were high compared to adjusted averages reported in other countries using comparable sampling techniques [18,3739]. Consistent with other studies, the number of fleas was found to be highly variable among households within the same village emphasizing the likely role of household characteristics [19,23].

Madagascar is one of the countries where plague remains a public health concern. During the last two decades, there have been more than 13,000 human plague cases in Madagascar with a fatality rate of ~27% [27]. Our findings suggest that households in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar are frequently but heterogeneously infested by P. irritans, a flea species that has been found infected by the plague bacterium during previous epidemics in Madagascar and elsewhere [20,22,40]. Although the vector capacity of P. irritans is unknown, in Tanzania, the density and distribution of P. irritans was associated with plague frequency and plague incidence [18]. Laboratory transmission tests showed that P. irritans was a less potent vector than rodent fleas [20,21] but high household flea burden may facilitate an interhuman transmission event [20].

Based on laboratory data [21] and flea transmission modeling using the vectorial capacity equation for early-phase Y. pestis transmission following published procedures [17], a household infestation of more than seven P. irritans per person per household (Pii>7.43) was estimated to potentially sustain interhuman transmission of Y. pestis should the pathogen be present in this vector-host ecosystem. A third of surveyed households were in the higher risk category of high Pii, presenting a considerable threat of sustained Y. pestis transmission vectored solely by P. irritans. It is unlikely that a plague outbreak would be sustained solely by P. irritans, however, while the proportion of transmission events attributed to P. irritans may be low in the presence of more competent vectors, this additional route deserves more attention from epidemiologists. Since P. irritans was the most abundant species found in human domiciles, modeling based on this assumption was a first step toward exploring the role which P. irritans may play in local outbreaks. [20]

This study identifies factors associated with increased flea abundance that also place households in this plague-endemic area at increased risk of sustained transmission if flea were exposed to circulating Y. pestis. The results suggest several modifiable environmental features, including household construction materials associated with high flea infestation.

Certain floor types (i.e., concrete and board) were negatively associated with flea abundance, providing a protective effect. Previous studies reported that thorough and frequent floor cleaning could remove fleas of all developmental stages, as well as organic particles on which larvae feed, and thus could reduce flea infestations [4,41]. Most households reported daily floor sweeping (Table 1), although the dirt floor under the mat covering would be left undisturbed. The use of smoother flooring materials, such as board or concrete, may allow more thorough cleaning and may explain the protective effect demonstrated in our model. Indeed, studies involving other flea species mentioned earthen floor as one of the risk factors for the prevalence of flea infestations or flea-induced skin disorders [25,4244]. Flea immature stages are very susceptible to desiccation [2,45], and earthen floor covered with plant fiber mats may offer immature fleas the best conditions for survival.

Although the results did not achieve statistical significance and lack precision, the substantial effect size observed for primitive roof types (e.g., thatch) being linked to an increased likelihood of falling into the higher Y. pestis transmission risk category implies a potentially noteworthy role for this construction material. However, it is essential to note the need for further investigation to validate these preliminary findings. Organic material such as thatch may offer a more stable environment for insect development, as reported for other vectors [46]. Interestingly, another study that examined plague epidemiological data and household characteristics also associated thatched roof with human plague risk [26]. Although flea abundance was not among factors studied, thatched roofs favored human contact with the black rat and their fleas.

House construction materials may also reflect household income. In this study, individual household gross income was not assessed directly, but the national census reported that a mat floor and thatch roof are among the housing material characteristics of the poorest households in Madagascar [47]. With 88% of the rural population living under the International Poverty Line, house building materials choice would be biased toward locally sourced and thus, more affordable materials. Therefore, any action to alleviate flea burden should prioritize the most vulnerable households in the community. On a national scale, 77.8% of the Malagasy rural population live in houses constructed of non-durable materials, including 41.8% woven plant fiber mats, and 66.5% plant-derived roof materials [47]. Since insecticide treatment has little effect on P irritans infestation [23], improved house construction programs offer the most promise for mitigating infestations. This study identified strategic home modifications against P. irritans infestation that also align with non-profit and government goals. Increasing the number of households with more durable and easier to clean floor types would likely benefit the entire community by reducing flea infestation prevalence at village level. As reported for programs targeting other vectors, house improvement generated other health benefits and increased inhabitant life quality [48].

Keeping any livestock indoors at night was among the risk factors identified. Although the odds ratios of keeping pigs and chicken indoors at night were non-significant with plague risk analysis (Model 2), the analysis of factors affecting flea abundance (Model 1) showed that keeping chickens indoors at night increases the odds of having P. irritans infestation (Table 4). Raising chicken was among the risk factor for house flea infestation in a study conducted in China [25] and chicken DNA was among the host genetic material detected in wild-caught P. irritans in DR Congo [49]. In this study, 66.35% of the households raised chicken and more than 60% kept them indoors at night. Therefore, keeping those animals in separate structures may alleviate flea burden. In Madagascar livestock housing choice may vary according to region, climate, and farming practices [50]. Unfortunately, in the study area, livestock were usually kept on the ground floor at night, due to concern of theft, which may promote flea infestation and increase the disease transmission risk. These animals are among potential hosts for adult P. irritans in Madagascar since this species has been collected in pig pens [30] and on chickens [51]. In other countries, this flea species has also been found infesting various livestock including chickens and pigs, [3,5,52]. However, without host blood source identification from field-caught fleas, it is difficult to establish a clear link between flea abundance and any animal presence. In addition, animal waste was pointed out as a potential source of flea reinfestation in cattle since manure accumulation is a source of heat, humidity, and organic material favorable for flea larvae development [3,52].

Domestic insecticide use was highlighted as a common practice for flea control in our study. The model suggested that insecticide use against any household pest might be a factor that influenced flea infestation. The elevated prevalence of P. irritans infestation may elucidate the necessity for employing domestic insecticides to mitigate the perceived nuisance as reflected in Table 2. Nonetheless, our analysis revealed an elevated adjusted odds ratio with wide confidence interval (Table 4), emphasizing the need for caution in interpreting the possible effect due to the considerable uncertainty. Although our model showed that chemical insecticides may have a protective function against high flea abundance, there are concerns for the long-term efficacy of this method due to insecticide resistance. Previous studies in Madagascar suggested that insecticide treatment deployed during plague outbreaks were inefficient for the P. irritans [23,24]. However, insecticide resistance in P. irritans has never been investigated in Madagascar. This is especially concerning as most of study participants could not recall the name of insecticides used. This lack of household knowledge surrounding insecticide use could lead to mismanagement of chemicals that may induce insecticide resistance in P. irritans and other flea species over time.

Seasonal abundance among rodent flea has been correlated with climatic factors in the Central Highlands of Madagascar [45,53], with higher flea indices observed in the beginning of the rainy season, which coincides with the onset of bubonic plague transmission [54]. In this study a seasonal pattern for P. irritans abundance was not established despite interview respondents reporting more intense flea nuisance during the rainy season (Table 2). Since rodent flea abundance depends also on rodent host physiology and reproduction [36], P. irritans appear to benefit from a more stable home environment. However, our findings are limited by small sample size and the fact that our study represents only a snapshot in time for both seasons.

Rodent presence was examined in this study, since rodents are the host of many flea species, including P. irritans [55]. Interestingly, P. irritans has rarely been found infesting rodents in Madagascar and thus, might not be the primary host for this flea species [22,53]. Analysis of homeowner responses concerning perceptions of flea nuisance (Table 2) suggests a potential scenario where this species is feeding on humans. Interestingly, we found a positive association between household size and P. irritans abundance. Households with more than four members have, on average, 1.92 times higher odds of experiencing P. irritans infestation (Table 4). Consequently, the larger family size may offer an increased opportunity for fleas to access blood meals and sustain a larger flea population. Moreover, in larger households, diverse activities may increase flea exposure. Similar trends were observed in Ethiopia regarding tungiasis [43,44], and in Bogota regarding flea-induced skin disorder [42], indicating higher risks for children going to school, from larger families, and those using public transportation. Research in China suggests that floor fleas can transfer between houses, especially in larger villages [25]. Sampling fleas in shared spaces like schools, churches, and public transportation could be valuable for future investigations.

Our results demonstrated that the odds of a high flea infestation index varied by village. This effect could be due to the proportion of households per village presenting one or several risk factors. Although no village level factors were included in the present model, it has been demonstrated elsewhere that village size, distance between homes, proportion of households raising chickens, and presence of a central waste disposal area can influence the prevalence of off-host fleas [25]. These village-level factors may influence P. irritans ecology and deserve to be investigated further in the future.

One of the main plague risk indicators is the flea index, which is obtained by dividing number of fleas by number of hosts sampled [56]. The same method was applied to obtain a house or nest index for off-host fleas [16]. The P. irritans index calculated in this study estimated human exposure to flea bites capable of sustaining plague transmission for each household. This index was obtained by dividing the total number of P. irritans collected during three successive nights by household size. A limitation of our study was that the sampling method underestimates the number of fleas collected in the household, since only a single room per household was sampled. Furthermore, our model assumed that members of the same household were equally exposed to flea bite risk, whereas the odds of being bitten by fleas may vary even between individuals within a household [5]. More extensive sampling, including more household rooms, would give a better estimate of a household’s flea population. Another limitation of our study was the scarcity of P. irritans vector competence studies [21]. Our model was based on poor vector competence of P. irritans collected from owls and foxes, which may under-estimate vector competence of human-adapted strains that may bite more frequently [21]. Therefore, the strength of the model could be improved by incorporating more in vivo values of vector competence on the human-adapted strains from plague-endemic areas of Madagascar. Entomological parameters such as biting rates, host preferences, and daily survivorship of infected P. irritans, must also be further explored to quantify the role of P. irritans in plague epidemics in Madagascar.

Conclusions

The present study confirms that P. irritans infestation is a neglected nuisance in rural households in Madagascar. Since this flea species does become naturally infected with the plague bacterium, further studies concerning its biology, ecology, and vector competence are wanted. Our results demonstrate that one third of investigated households in plague endemic areas of Madagascar were exposed to a high P. irritans index, putting them at risk of sustained interhuman plague transmission, should the fleas or a household member become infected. Furthermore, infestation risk was more pronounced for poor households living in homes made with organic materials, and in close contact with livestock. The factors identified in this analysis suggest that improvement of housing and better management of livestock would alleviate flea burden and potential plague risk in rural plague-endemic villages experiencing high flea infestation.

Supporting information

S1 File. Survey instrument in English.

(PDF)

pntd.0012036.s001.pdf (494.1KB, pdf)
S2 File. Photos of the traditional three-story house in the central highland of Madagascar with various roof type.

(PDF)

pntd.0012036.s002.pdf (997.9KB, pdf)
S3 File. Diagram of three-story traditional house in the central highland of Madagascar, with common use of each level.

(PDF)

pntd.0012036.s003.pdf (174.7KB, pdf)
S4 File. Sensitivity analysis of the infestation at high risk for interhuman Y. pestis transmission using m upper and lower cut-off values.

(PDF)

pntd.0012036.s004.pdf (218.5KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We thank Centre Valbio Ranomafana for logistical support; Andrianirina O. Rafanambinantsoa, Paul JN. Niaina, Jean-Francois A. Randrianasolo, Farida Juliette and Mandimby A, Rajaonarimanana, for assistance with flea collection and interview. We are also grateful to Belen Santana-Godinez for her contribution to the early conception of the project, to Pr. Josef Zeyer for his critical review and insightful comments which improved the manuscript, and to Dr. Mireille Harimalala for hosting the students working on this project in her research group at Institut Pasteur de Madagascar. We also want to extend our gratitude to the study participants and the authorities in the villages visited.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files, as well as at OSF, under a public repository link (https://osf.io/6mqux/?view_only=70d21dff44ce42bc8fc9bc45d8a9bf8c) in the manuscript main text.

Funding Statement

AM received funding from The Branco Weiss Fellowship Society in Science, (https://brancoweissfellowship.org) and The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, through the Centennial Travel Award (https://www.astmh.org/awards-fellowships-medals/awards-and-honors/centennial-travel-award). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Durden LA, Traub R. Fleas (Siphonaptera). In: Mullen R G, Durden LA, editors. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. Academic Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bitam I, Dittmar K, Parola P, Whiting MMF, Raoult D. Fleas and flea-borne diseases. International Journal of Infectious Diseases [Internet]. 2010;14(8):e667–76. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2009.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Christodoulopoulos G, Theodoropoulos G, Kominakis A, Theis JH. Biological, seasonal and environmental factors associated with Pulex irritans infestation of dairy goats in Greece. Vet Parasitol. 2006. Apr 15;137(1–2):137–43. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.12.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dahm JR, Bailey JB, Kelly RF, Chikungwa P, Chulu J, Junior LC, et al. Risk factors associated with Ctenocephalides felis flea infestation of peri-urban goats: a neglected parasite in an under-appreciated host. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2021. Dec;53(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rahbari S, Nabian S, Nourolahi F, Arabkhazaeli F, Ebrahimzadeh E. Flea infestation in farm animals and its health implication. Iran J Parasitol [Internet]. 2008. [cited 2019 Apr 24];3(2):43–7. Available from: http://ijpa.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijpa/article/view/61 [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gizaw Z, Engdaw GT, Nigusie A, Gebrehiwot M, Destaw B. Human Ectoparasites Are Highly Prevalent in the Rural Communities of Northwest Ethiopia: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Environ Health Insights [Internet]. 2021;15. Available from: doi: 10.1177/11786302211034463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.McNair CM. Ectoparasites of medical and veterinary importance: Drug resistance and the need for alternative control methods [Internet]. Vol. 67, Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2015. [cited 2023 Mar 13]. p. 351–63. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jpp/article-abstract/67/3/351/6128192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wafula ST, Ssemugabo C, Namuhani N, Musoke D, Ssempebwa J, Halage AA. Prevalence and risk factors associated with Tungiasis in Mayuge district, Eastern Uganda. Pan African Medical Journal [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2022 Jul 9];24. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC5012786/ doi: 10.11604/pamj.2016.24.77.8916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gage KL. Fleas, the Siphonaptera. In: Marquardt WC, editor. Biology of Diseases Vectors. Second edi. Dana Dreibelbis; 2004. p. 77. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mullen GR, Durden LA. Medical and veterinary entomology. Academic press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Prasad R. Host dependency among haematophagous insects: a case study on flea-host association. Proc Indian Acad Sci (Anim Sci) [Internet]. 1987. [cited 2022 Nov 25];96(4):349–60. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03179588 [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rakotonanahary RJL, Harrison A, Maina AN, Jiang J, Richards AL, Rajerison M, et al. Molecular and serological evidence of flea-associated typhus group and spotted fever group rickettsial infections in Madagascar. Parasit Vectors. 2017. Mar 4;10(1). doi: 10.1186/s13071-017-2061-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ehlers J, Krüger A, Rakotondranary SJ, Ratovonamana RY, Poppert S, Ganzhorn JU, et al. Molecular detection of Rickettsia spp., Borrelia spp., Bartonella spp. and Yersinia pestis in ectoparasites of endemic and domestic animals in southwest Madagascar. Acta Trop [Internet]. 2020. Jan 11 [cited 2020 Jan 15];205:105339. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001706X19315700#! doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2020.105339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Vallès X, Stenseth NChr, Demeure C, Horby P, Mead PS, Cabanillas O, et al. Human plague: An old scourge that needs new answers. PLoS Negl Trop Dis [Internet]. 2020. Aug 27;14(8):e0008251. Available from: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gage KL, Kosoy MY. Natural history of plague: perspectives from more than a century of research. Annu Rev Entomol. 2005;50(50):505–28. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gratz N. Rodent Reservoirs & Flea Vectors of Natural Foci of Plague. In: Plague Manual Epidemiology, Distribution, Surveillance and Control—World Health Organization. 1999. p. 63–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Eisen RJ, Borchert JN, Holmes JL, Amatre G, Van Wyk K, Enscore RE, et al. Early-phase transmission of Yersinia pestis by cat fleas (Ctenocephalides felis) and their potential role as vectors in a plague-endemic region of Uganda. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2008;78(6):949–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Laudisoit A, Leirs H, Makundi RH, Van Dongen S, Davis S, Neerinckx S, et al. Plague and the human flea, Tanzania. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13(5):687–93. doi: 10.3201/eid1305.061084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rahelinirina S, Harimalala M, Rakotoniaina J, Randriamanantsoa MG, Dentinger C, Zohdy S, et al. Tracking of Mammals and Their Fleas for Plague Surveillance in Madagascar, 2018–2019. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2022;106(6):1601–9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.21-0974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Blanc G, Baltazard M. Recherches sur le mode de transmission naturelle de la peste bubonique et septicemique. Vol. Tome 3, Archives de l’Institut Pasteur du Maroc. 1945. 173–354 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Miarinjara A, Bland DM, Belthoff JR, Hinnebusch BJ. Poor vector competence of the human flea, Pulex irritans, to transmit Yersinia pestis. Parasit Vectors [Internet]. 2021. Dec 10 [cited 2021 Jun 10];14(1):317. Available from: https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-021-04805-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ratovonjato J, Rajerison M, Rahelinirina S, Boyer S. Yersinia pestis in Pulex irritans fleas during plague outbreak, Madagascar. Emerg Infect Dis [Internet]. 2014. [cited 2016 Feb 23];20(8):1414–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4111190/ doi: 10.3201/eid2008.130629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Miarinjara A, Rahelinirina S, Razafimahatratra LN, Girod R, Boyer S, Razafimahatratra NL, et al. Field assessment of insecticide dusting and bait station treatment impact against rodent flea and house flea species in the Madagascar plague context. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(8):e0007604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007604 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rakotoarisoa A, Ramihangihajason T, Ramarokoto C, Rahelinirina S, Halm A, Piola P, et al. Bubonic Plague Outbreak Investigation in the Endemic District of Tsiroanomandidy—Madagascar, October 2014. Journal of Cases Report and Studies. 2016;5(1):1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yin JX, Geater A, Chongsuvivatwong V, Dong XQ, Du CH, Zhong YH. Predictors for abundance of host flea and floor flea in households of villages with endemic commensal rodent plague, Yunnan Province, China. PLoS Negl Trop Dis [Internet]. 2011. Jan 29 [cited 2015 May 9];5(3):e997. Available from: http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0000997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rakotosamimanana S, Taglioni F, Ravaoarimanga M, Rajerison ME, Rakotomanana F. Socioenvironmental determinants as indicators of plague risk in the central highlands of Madagascar: Experience of Ambositra and Tsiroanomandidy districts. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023;17(9):e0011538. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Andrianaivoarimanana V, Piola P, Wagner DM, Rakotomanana F, Maheriniaina V, Andrianalimanana S, et al. Trends of Human Plague, Madagascar, 1998–2016. Emerg Infect Dis [Internet]. 2019. Feb [cited 2019 Jan 29];25(2):220–8. Available from: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/25/2/17-1974_article.htm doi: 10.3201/eid2502.171974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rakotosamimanana S, Kassie D, Taglioni F, Ramamonjisoa J, Rakotomanana F, Rajerison M. A decade of plague in Madagascar: a description of two hotspot districts. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1970;1(3):185–216. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Brygoo E, Rajenison S. Puces et rats d’un village de l’itasy, en zone d’endémie pesteuse. Archives de l’ Institut Pasteur de Madagascar Inst Pasteur Madagascar. 1960;28:109–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Harimalala M, Ramihangihajason TR, Rakotobe Harimanana R, Girod R, Duchemin JB. Illustrated Morphological Keys for Fleas (Siphonaptera) in Madagascar. J Med Entomol. 2021;58(4):1701–16. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjab023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna Austria. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. Available from: http://www.r-project.org/ [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Eisen RJ, Bearden SW, Wilder AP, Montenieri JA, Antolin MF, Gage KL. Early-phase transmission of Yersinia pestis by unblocked fleas as a mechanism explaining rapidly spreading plague epizootics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A [Internet]. 2006;103(42):15380–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17032761\nhttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC1592641 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0606831103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lorange EA, Race B, Sebbane F, Hinnebusch BJ. Poor Vector Competence of Fleas and the Evolution of Hypervirulence in Yersinia pestis. J Infect Dis [Internet]. 2005. Jun 1 [cited 2015 Nov 11];191(11):1907–12. Available from: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/long/191/11/1907 doi: 10.1086/429931 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Teh WL, Chun JWH, Pollitzer R. Clinical observations upon the manchurian plague epidemic, 1920–21. Journal of Hygiene. 1923;21(3):298–306. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rahelinirina S, Scobie K, Ramasindrazana B, Andrianaivoarimanana V, Rasoamalala F, Randriantseheno LN, et al. Rodent control to fight plague: field assessment of methods based on rat density reduction. Integr Zool [Internet]. 2021. Mar 30 [cited 2021 Apr 21];16(6):868–85. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1749-4877.12529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Haule M, Lyamuya EE, Hang’ombe BM, Kilonzo BS, Matee MI. Investigation of fleas as vectors in the transmission of plague during a quiescent period in North-Eastern, Tanzania. J Entomol Nematol. 2013;5(7):88–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kilonzo BS, Makundi RH, Mbise TJ. A decade of plague epidemiology and control in the Western Usambara mountains, north-east Tanzania. Acta Trop [Internet]. 1992. Apr [cited 2018 May 7];50(4):323–9. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0001706X92900678 doi: 10.1016/0001-706x(92)90067-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mwalimu CD, Mgode G, Sabuni C, Msigwa F, Mghamba J, Nyanga A, et al. Preliminary investigation and intervention of the suspected plague outbreak in Madunga, Babati District-Tanzania. Acta Trop. 2022. Sep 1;233:106566. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2022.106566 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Karimi Y, Eftekhari M, Almeida CR. Sur L’écologie des puces impliquées dans L’épidemiologie de la peste et le rôle éventuel de certains insectes hématophages dans son processus au nord-est du Brésil. Vol. 67, Bulletin de la Société de Pathologie Exotique. 1974. p. 583–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dryden M, Neal J, Bennett G. Concepts of flea control. Companion animal practice. 1989;19(4–5):11–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Halpert E, Borrero E, Ibañez-Pinilla M, Chaparro P, Molina J, Torres M, et al. Prevalence of papular urticaria caused by flea bites and associated factors in children 1–6 years of age in Bogotá, D.C. World Allergy Organization Journal. 2017. Nov 7;10(1):36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hyuga A, Larson PS, Ndemwa M, Muuo SW, Changoma M, Karama M, et al. Environmental and household-based spatial risks for tungiasis in an endemic area of coastal Kenya. Trop Med Infect Dis [Internet]. 2022. Dec 23 [cited 2023 Feb 9];7(1):2. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/1/2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jorga SD, Dessie YL, Kedir MR, Donacho DO. Prevalence of Tungiasis and its risk factors of among children of Mettu woreda, southwest Ethiopia, 2020. PLoS One. 2022. Jan 1;17(1 January). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kreppel KS, Telfer S, Rajerison M, Morse A, Baylis M. Effect of temperature and relative humidity on the development times and survival of Synopsyllus fonquerniei and Xenopsylla cheopis, the flea vectors of plague in Madagascar. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9(1). doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1366-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lindsay SW, Jawara M, Mwesigwa J, Achan J, Bayoh N, Bradley J, et al. Reduced mosquito survival in metal-roof houses may contribute to a decline in malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Institut national de statistique de Madagascar (INSTAT). Rapport thématique sur les résultats du RGPH-3 thème 5: Habitation et Cadre de Vie de la Population. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Castro-Arroyave D, Monroy MC, Irurita MI. Integrated vector control of Chagas disease in Guatemala: a case of social innovation in health. Infect Dis Poverty [Internet]. 2020. Apr 14 [cited 2023 Nov 6];9(1):1–9. Available from: https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-020-00639-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Woods ME, Montenieri JA, Eisen RJ, Zeidner NS, Borchert JN, Laudisoit A, et al. Identification of flea blood meals using multiplexed real-time polymerase chain reaction targeting mitochondrial gene fragments. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2009;80(6):998–1003. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Costard S, Porphyre V, Messad S, Rakotondrahanta S, Vidon H, Roger F, et al. Multivariate analysis of management and biosecurity practices in smallholder pig farms in Madagascar. Prev Vet Med. 2009;92(3):199–209. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ehlers J, Poppert S, Ratovonamana RY, Ganzhorn JU, Tappe D, Krüger A. Ectoparasites of endemic and domestic animals in southwest Madagascar. Acta Trop [Internet]. 2019;196:83–92. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001706X19301731 doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Moemenbellah-Fard MD, Shahriari B, Azizi K, Fakoorziba MR, Mohammadi J, Amin M. Faunal distribution of fleas and their blood-feeding preferences using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays from farm animals and human shelters in a new rural region of southern Iran. Journal of Parasitic Diseases [Internet]. 2016. Mar [cited 2019 Apr 24];40(1):169–75. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27065620 doi: 10.1007/s12639-014-0471-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Rasoamalala F, Gostic K, Parany MJ, Rahelinirina S, Rahajandraibe S, Gorgé O, et al. Population dynamics of plague vector fleas in an endemic focus: implications for plague surveillance. J Med Entomol. 2023;61(1):201–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Andrianaivoarimanana V, Kreppel K, Elissa N, Duplantier JMM, Carniel E, Rajerison M, et al. Understanding the persistence of plague foci in Madagascar. PLoS Negl Trop Dis [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2015 Aug 17];7(11):e2382. Available from: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Buckland PC, Sadler JP. A Biogeography of the Human Flea, Pulex irritans L. (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae). J Biogeogr [Internet]. 1989. Mar [cited 2018 May 7];16(2):115. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2845085?origin=crossref [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Pollitzer R. Plague. Vol. 229, World Health Organization Monograph Series. No 22. Geneva Switzerland; 1954.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012036.r001

Decision Letter 0

Benjamin L Makepeace, Victoria J Brookes

6 Sep 2023

Dear Dr Miarinjara,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Socio-ecological risk factors associated with rural household human flea infestations in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar." for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Benjamin L. Makepeace

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Victoria Brookes

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Please review the referees' comments carefully, especially the critique of reviewer 2 regarding the choice of statistical method, which does seem inappropriate. The revised manuscript must include reanalysis with alternative approaches.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Nice use of candle trap!

Is the R code available with the data? I would strongly recommend that it is, either as part of suppl data or at any of the servers with doi or github.

Reviewer #2: Major critique:

Stepwise regression should almost never be used. The selection of variables to include in a regression model based on their individual p-values is normally bad practice, even though it is a practice that has been proposed and is still used (perhaps especially in some biomedical journals). There is now quite a bit of literature about why the approach is normally inappropriate, why it leads to analytic and statistical problems, and the different types of problems that are inherent in this approach.

While this article is in the "Journal of Big Data", the logic is relevant for smaller datasets as well and the bibliography lists many of the papers that discuss problems with the approach.

https://journalofbigdata.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40537-018-0143-6

Here are a few other accessible articles that likewise include references to the relevant literature:

https://towardsdatascience.com/stopping-stepwise-why-stepwise-selection-is-bad-and-what-you-should-use-instead-90818b3f52df

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/06/02/hate-stepwise-regression/

Briefly, a better approach to regression would begin with scientific hypotheses about which variables are likely important for the process that you are trying to model. Presumably, many of the variables from the survey were included in the survey because the researchers thought they could be important.

One of the larger problems with stepwise regression then comes from its deviance from the scientific approach. If you have a variable that you think should be important for the process you're modeling, and it is not showing a statistical association - that finding is of scientific value. It is equally as important (maybe even moreso) than a statistically significant finding. A related issue is that sometimes variables in a regression modify the association between other variables and the outcome of interest - EVEN WHEN they are not statistically significant. Conversely, another issue is that some variables that are not statistically significant on their own can become statistically significant in a regression model, after other factors/variables have been accounted for.

I suggest starting with the variables that you think should be important (hopefully based on scientific hypotheses or logic). Generate a table with their odds ratios and confidence intervals (or other relevant statistics - such as abundance/counts/risk ratios, etc.) Then include the model adjusted odds ratios and confidence intervals in the table as well. IF you have variables that are redundent, then it could be good to exclude all but one from the model based on that redundency (not based on p-values). You can often tell which ones are redundent by looking at how they co-vary (are they essentially always the same in the same households?), through logical reasoning, or by model behavior.

Another issue that I see has to do with the model that was used (binarly generalized linear model, which most folks would call a logistic regression). The approach begins with Equation 1 - which is an equation for the number of fleas per person required to sustain transmission, under a host of assumptions (including a major one of R0 = 1). I believe the authors need to either re-think this step or provide further justification for its use. It depends heavily on quite a lot of assumptions, and furthermore i don't think all of the assumptions or this approach are necessary. We already know that there is ongoing disease risk in this setting. Why rely on a theoretical model that would normally only be applied to larger populations? For example, R0 is normally only useful as a concept for larger, homogeneously mixing populations. From this equation, a continuous variable is generated. This continuous variable is then categorized as binary (0 or 1) based on a hypothesized threshold over which there is greater risk of infection. I see another problem with this step, in that risk is not binary and the threshold for high versus low risk appears relatively arbitrary.

My proposal then would be to model the abundance of fleas. This could also be done using a generalized additive model, but would instead be a type of count model (Poisson, negative binomial, etc., depending on the data). It would be possible and important to account for household occupancy still. The regression could account for repeat observations within households across nights and seasons using a random intercept at the household level (i.e. each household has its own intercept). Seasonal variation could then be measured in abundance, while accounting for the other factors that might be of importance. I believe that this would be a better analytic approach, and that it would still achieve the goal of this research: to indentify factors that contribute to risk of infection by rodent/flea-borne disease - with an inherent assuption that more fleas per person is tantamount to more risk of flea-borne disease per person.

Another approach could be to model 'm' from Equation 1 as a Gaussian GLM, but the approach that I suggest above (Poisson or negative binomial, with counts of fleas per house and a random intercept per house) would likely be more straightforward and would rely on many fewer assumptions.

Minor issues:

Line 73: "...plague is the most infamous." I don't doubt this, but since this is a scientific manuscript it is probably better to only include statements that can be supported, or to soften the statement. One solution could be to include: "...plague is arguably the most infamous" Or otherwise the authors could include a reference that shows that plague is in fact the most infamous (surveys?)

Line 79: State what is mean by 'humans are most vulnerable' Does it mean they are more likely to come into contact with rodents or fleas? To be infected? To have severe disease?

Line 103: Household level analyses are valuable and there could be household level interventions - but the results from household level analyses could also lead to community level interventions, whereby community engagement approaches community members with information about household level correlates of fleas.

Line 119: Does the fact that interviews were done in the dry season influence the results? Might respondents have answered differently if they'd been interviewed in the wet season? Is this also why there were very few male respondents?

Line 130: How were the surveys developed? Were they based on pre-existing surveys?

Line 138: How were households selected for inclusion in this study?

Line 249: The authors probably mean 'multivariable analysis" instead of 'multivariate analysis'. A multivariate regression would mean that there were different outcomes being modeled. I believe here there is a single outcome being modeled, with muliple predictor variables in the model. This would be a multivariable regression.

Line 255: I'm not sure what is meant by "our analysis did not demonstrate statistical significance." It looks as though several variables are statistically significant.

Along the same lines, it would be better to present model-adjusted odds ratios (or rate ratios with a Poisson or negative binomial regression) and their confidence intervals. No p-values are needed if we have the effect size and confidence intervals, and these statistics are much more informative than the p-values. It is good to not rely too heavily on p-values as few people really understand them.

Reviewer #3: Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? - yes

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? - yes

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? - yes

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? - yes

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? - yes

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? - no

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: Was the night irritation/bits truly linked to fleas. Were bedbugs considered? Often bedbug are not known and blame goes onto fleas. Not self-reporting bedbugs does not mean they not there.

I did not find the information about the animals within household, descriptive data. The floor mats and dirt makes perfect sense with pigs indoors. This is perfect for Pulex emergance. The lesser # of Ctenocephalides is likely that dogs would not be allowed inhouse unlike pigs that would be spending more time there, so depositing flea eggs on he floor mats to develop. You OR for pigs indoors includes 1 and that is really unexpected for me, could you granulate the "livestock" what other livestock is there? What about daytime? Where are the pigs traditionally? Inside or outside during the day? Or are they allowed inside during the day?

Reviewer #2: Please see my comments in the methods section, which will have relevance to this section

Reviewer #3: Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? yes

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? yes

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? yes, but table 4 is in the wrong place

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The recommendations are sound and completely fair given the data authors had. Authors should point that the fleas that emerge are only those that developed in the household, fleas don't jump off the animal. So what you detected is what developed within the trap. Placing the trap in areas where animals spent most of their time is beneficial, because they will usually not emerge (triggered by the light/heat) further then say 2 feet away. Pulex will be primary from pigs in this context, hence my question before about the pigs inside and time they spent there day/night. While you cannot go back you can provide cultural context beyond just saying they keep them in at night due to theft. I would be expecting that pigs might be simply allowed to be inside the house all the time and in fact rest there as well.

Reviewer #2: Please see my comments in the methods section, which will have relevance to this section

Reviewer #3: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? yes

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? yes, but can be enriched

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? yes

-Is public health relevance addressed? yes but can be expanded

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Make the data and code available via doi.

Reviewer #2: Please see my comments in the methods section, which will have relevance to this section

Reviewer #3: Review of the manuscript entitled “Socio-ecological risk factors associated with rural household human flea infestations in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar.”

The manuscript is presenting a study with two main components. First, analysis of data from field data collections in Madagascar of human fleas in rural households across dry and wet seasons in 4 villages is done. This elucidates the association of possible risk factors with high flea infestation. Second, the researchers propose a model to estimate the minimum number of fleas per person necessary to sustain plague transmission once the pathogen enters the human-flea ecosystem.

Overall comment: this research adds important insights to the field and adds valuable information to the mounting evidence that the human flea could also be involved in plague outbreaks even if only in a minor role. The description of the environment Malagasy live in, in rural areas, and how they are affected by and deal with human flea infestations is very informative. I would suggest elaborating more on this to enable readers to understand the conditions better. Explaining the living conditions and what kind of livestock is usually kept where is important (such as broody hens in the bedroom).

Major comments:

In the background section:

Traditional housing is associated with flea infestation, so maybe add a short paragraph here on living conditions and traditional housing in rural Mada. % of people living with reed roofs, mats, livestock below (which livestock species are in the houses), fleas are abundant, sometimes rooms/floors are abandoned due to flea infestation.

Table 4 belongs into the results section.

Please discuss in more detail the use of the mats on the ground, namely as an affordable substitute for furniture (i.e. people sitting on the mats during meals, sleeping on mats, children playing on the mats). Following this it is important to also later discuss the difficulties of discouraging their use and suggest ways of improving the situation (exposing them to the sun, dusting with strong insecticide etc.). Also the possibility of government interventions such as IRS.

Please add to your limitations that trapping in the same type of room (i.e. bedroom) across all households would standardize data more. Also, that trapping across 2 wet seasons but only 1 dry season may have affected the results on seasonality.

Apart from lab studies to learn more about P. irritants, I suggest you also recommend research on possible interventions.

Minor comments:

Please consider changing the title to:

Socio-ecological risk factors associated with human flea infestations of rural household in

plague-endemic areas of Madagascar.

Page 2 line 32 change to “risk factors associated with such…”

Background:

Please add a sentence explaining the variable host specificity of fleas. (ref 10).

Page 5 line 90-92: what do want to state by saying other plague reporting countries do not report this magnitude of human fleas? Do you mean that is why Mada may have more and more prolonged outbreaks? Explain please.

Page 6 line 126 informed oral consent or written consent?

Page 8 line 164: explain threshold septicemia.

Page 8 line 168 you need to define household size to avoid misunderstanding. People per household versus floor area in m2

page 8 line 174: categorical variable levels like what? Can you give an example?

Table 1: did you ask how often insecticide was used?

How did you deal with the connection between owning livestock and keeping livestock?

Results:

Please explain clearer why keeping livestock would increase P. irritans density.

Page 10 line 192: women or men more likely to finish primary school?

Line 193 sleeping on the floor on what?

page 11 203 covered with a woven plant….

Line 208 consider calling it corrugated iron sheet instead of metal sheet.

Line 209 …mainly reported to be the house mouse….

Line 215 please stick to wet and dry or explain earlier that warm and wet and cool and dry goes together. Otherwise the reader cannot follow here.

Page 12: any info on what active ingredient is in the commonly sold insecticides?

Page 14 line 256 ..was found to be lower…

Line 259 …found for households

Discussion

Why is table 4 in the discussion? Should be in the results section

Page 17 line 307 delete Conversely

Consider mentioning a possible connection between the use of mats and thatched roofs, because they are both indicators of low socio-economic status.

Consider rewriting the livestock part in the discussion to clarify what species are usually kept per household (i.e. every hh has chickens), where they are kept etc.

Page 20 line 363 delete susceptible

Line 379 present tense: demonstrate

Conclusion

Page 21 line 389: …competence are needed…

Line 391 change to: …index. According to the model estimates this puts them….

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: This is interesting study that I enjoyed reading. What surprised me was that Pulex was considered, in introduction you rightly discounted Ctenocephalides due to being poor vector of Yersinia. Is Pulex actually good vector? There some old works that compared vectorial capacity of different fleas, could you provide the insight and evidence how it compared to say Oriental rat flea? You elude to it in discussion, but some of it might be suited for introduction as well and I am surprised you say no one knows if Pulex can transmit Yersinia - I believe I read an old study about that, but I can be incorrect.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents results from an analysis of data on flea abundance, household characteristics, and and other household-level socio-economic factors thought to be associated with rodents, fleas, and rodent-borne disease. The topic and described data appear quite interesting and relevant. I've got several minor comments and critiques and one major one, with the latter focused on the statistical approach.

Reviewer #3: Overall comment: this research adds important insights to the field and adds valuable information to the mounting evidence that the human flea could also be involved in plague outbreaks even if only in a minor role. The description of the environment Malagasy live in, in rural areas, and how they are affected by and deal with human flea infestations is very informative. I would suggest elaborating more on this to enable readers to understand the conditions better. Explaining the living conditions and what kind of livestock is usually kept where is important (such as broody hens in the bedroom).

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012036.r003

Decision Letter 1

Benjamin L Makepeace, Victoria J Brookes

13 Feb 2024

Dear Dr Miarinjara,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Socio-ecological risk factors associated with human flea infestations of rural household in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar." for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Benjamin L. Makepeace

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Victoria Brookes

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

The reviewers and I find the manuscript to be greatly improved and appreciate the effort made to reanalyse the data. However, reviewer 2 highlights some important issues with interpretation that must be addressed by revisions to language in the paragraphs they critique below.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes, but see my notes

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes, but see my notes

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have done a great job of addressing my previous critiques. I appreciate that they've added the new model I suggested (modeling counts of fleas), and am satisfied with their argument to keep the older model in as well.

Overall I think this leads to a much improved manuscript. I have a few remaining critiques, that are likely holdovers from the older manuscript and need to now be updated.

Major:

A few of the variables (especially with regard to house materials) were not statistically significant in the models. In particular, this means that their confidence intervals crossed the 1.0 threshold, and that it isn't really possible to say whether those associations were negative or positive. This doesn't exclude the possibility of a true ecological association, and it is possible that the reason for not being statistically significant is because of a lack of power. There are other possibilities as well.

Line 365 - please soften this statement since we can't be sure whether the association was negative or positive, given the confidence intervals. There is a lot of uncertainty in that point estimate. You could mention that the odds ratio is large and positive, but that the confidence intervals crossed the threshold so that no certain statements can be made about the association between this variable and the outcome.

Line 383: Do note that there was an effect of having chickens indoors and the abundance of fleas...

Line 398: We can't be sure from this analysis that a larger sample size would actually reveal the hypothesize association. If the authors wanted to, they could pursue a post-hoc power analysis and discuss those results along these lines. I would suggest just softening these statements about ORs that had incredibly broad CIs.

Also, I note from Table 4 that there is a positive association between reported insecticide use and the odds of having an 'infestation' of fleas in the house. I've seen similar results previously for other disease systems, where individuals who are experiencing lots of exposure to arthropods are most likely to use insecticides to address that exposure. The results from a cross sectional survey can then make the association appear causal in the opposite direction - where houses with more insects are the most likely to use insecticide (though the insecticide was unlikely to be the cause of the insect infestation). Regardless, I suggest rewording the statements from line 398 with this in mind, and also with the results from Table 4 in mind.

Minor:

Line 110 - there is a mention that in Madagascar, during plague outbreaks, there are human flea infestations 'at magnitudes rarely found in other...' - I suggest specifying what is meant here explicitly. Perhaps something along the lines of:"...frequently infested by large numbers of human fleas..." This might help this statement be a bit more clear.

Line 208: Please use "generalized" for the generalized linear model.

Line 211 - there may be a typo in between "m. Seasonality"

Lastly, I found the positive association between numbers of humans in a house and numbers of fleas in a house to be interesting, especially given that the population dynamics of these anthropophilic fleas should be associated with the numbers of hosts to which they have access. Perhaps this association is obvious, but I would at least mention it in the discussion because it is a valuable finding and could potentially push the referenced modeling work further (i.e. there should/may be feedbacks between human and flea population dynamics).

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012036.r005

Decision Letter 2

Benjamin L Makepeace, Victoria J Brookes

29 Feb 2024

Dear Dr Miarinjara,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Socio-ecological risk factors associated with human flea infestations of rural household in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar.' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Benjamin L. Makepeace

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Victoria Brookes

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012036.r006

Acceptance letter

Benjamin L Makepeace, Victoria J Brookes

4 Mar 2024

Dear Dr Miarinjara,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Socio-ecological risk factors associated with human flea infestations of rural household in plague-endemic areas of Madagascar.," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Survey instrument in English.

    (PDF)

    pntd.0012036.s001.pdf (494.1KB, pdf)
    S2 File. Photos of the traditional three-story house in the central highland of Madagascar with various roof type.

    (PDF)

    pntd.0012036.s002.pdf (997.9KB, pdf)
    S3 File. Diagram of three-story traditional house in the central highland of Madagascar, with common use of each level.

    (PDF)

    pntd.0012036.s003.pdf (174.7KB, pdf)
    S4 File. Sensitivity analysis of the infestation at high risk for interhuman Y. pestis transmission using m upper and lower cut-off values.

    (PDF)

    pntd.0012036.s004.pdf (218.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review report_PNTD-D-23-00972.pdf

    pntd.0012036.s005.pdf (155.8KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx

    pntd.0012036.s006.docx (16.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files, as well as at OSF, under a public repository link (https://osf.io/6mqux/?view_only=70d21dff44ce42bc8fc9bc45d8a9bf8c) in the manuscript main text.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES