Skip to main content
. 2013 May 1;88(5):897–907. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.12-0467

Table 3.

Frequencies of kdr alleles in Anopheles gambiae M molecular form (A) and S molecular form (B) populations in continental Equatorial Guinea, 2009–2011, following several years of vector control*

Site (A) Intervention 2N L1014L 95% CI L1014S 95% CI L1014F 95% CI
Akurenam ITN 56 1.8% 3.5 19.6% 10.4 78.6% 10.7
Bicurga ITN 40 0.0% 20.0% 12.4 80.0% 12.4
Evinayong ITN 20 0.0% 20.0% 17.5 80.0% 17.5
Mongomo ITN 8 0.0% 12.5% 22.9 87.5% 22.9
Niefang ITN 16 18.8% 19.1 25.0% 21.1 56.3% 24.3
Ayamiken IRS 54 0.0% 18.5% 10.4 81.5% 10.4
Ebebiyin IRS 16 18.8% 19.1 0.0% 81.3% 19.1
Etofili IRS 40 0.0% 22.5% 12.9 77.5% 12.9
Mbini IRS 196 8.2% 3.8 6.1% 3.4 85.7% 4.9
Site (B) Intervention 2N L1014L 95% CI L1014S 95% CI L1014F 95% CI
Bicurga ITN 332 0.3% 0.6 28.6% 4.9 71.1% 4.9
Evinayong ITN 390 4.9% 2.1 26.4% 4.4 68.7% 4.6
Niefang ITN 634 9.3% 2.3 32.6% 3.7 58.0% 3.8
Nsork ITN 244 22.1% 5.2 11.1% 3.9 66.8% 5.9
Ayamiken IRS 476 0.8% 0.8 39.1% 4.4 60.1% 4.4
Etofili IRS 62 0.0% 32.3% 11.6 67.7% 11.6
Mbini IRS 484 4.1% 1.8 13.8% 3.1 82.0% 3.4
Micomeseng IRS 148 4.7% 3.4 37.8% 7.8 57.4% 7.8
Nsok Nsomo IRS 484 1.7% 1.2 15.5% 3.2 82.9% 3.4
Average 5.3% 26.4% 68.3%
*

kdr = knockdown resistance; CI = confidence interval; ITN = insecticide-treated net; IRS = indoor residual spraying.