Table 3.
Summary of eight modeling studies that report on zooprophylaxis as a malaria vector control tool
| Authors | Data source | Species | Study aim | Study design | Recommendations on the use of zooprophylaxis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Franco et al., [75] | Pakistan and Ethiopia | An. stephensi, An. arabiensis | To model the role of livestock in malaria control | Mathematical model | Livestock could have zooprophylactic effect with certain conditions such as maximum density of vector population prior to introduction, and sufficiently high number of livestock. Treatment of livestock with non-repellent insecticides and increasing the attractiveness of livestock with attractants will maximize efficacy. |
| Levens, [77] | Multiple sources | An. arabiensis | To model the role of insecticide zooprophylaxis, LLINs | Mathematical model | More than 80% coverage of LLINs to community and 80% coverage of insecticide treatment to livestock are important to achieve global reduction and elimination of the disease. |
| Nah et al., [76] | South Korea and others | An. sinensis | To investigate the effect of zooprophylaxis | Mathematical model | Decrease of animal population increases the basic reproduction number R0. Passive zooprophylaxis is an effective malaria control strategy in South Korea. |
| Hassanali et al., [72] | n/a | n/a | Relationship between hosts, mosquito habitat, and the relative number of individuals in the group | Computer simulation model | When the distance between human and animal host increases, the number of bites/person first decreases and is followed by an increase in the number of bites. Animals should not be placed very close to humans because it could lead zoopotnentiation and at the same animals should not be placed very far from humans otherwise they lose their protective efficacy. |
| Killeen and Smith, [78] | n/a | An. arabiensis, An. gambiae | To predict the effect of mass coverage of LLINs on users and non-users | Computer simulation model | With mass coverage of LLINs and IRS capable of excito-repellency in the presence of cattle, it is possible to protect both the users and non-users of ITNs. |
| Kawaguchi et al., [73] | n/a | n/a | Combining zooprophylaxis and IRS | Computer Simulation model | Habitat separation of cattle and humans is important for the success of zooprophylaxis. When blood host density is below the blood feeding satiation level, zooprophylaxis will fail. Spraying insecticides in human dwellings diverts mosquitoes to other hosts. |
| Saul, [74] | n/a | n/a | Examining the effects of animals on the transmission of vector-borne diseases | Computer simulation model | Feeding on animals decreases transmission to humans but increases mosquito survival rate. Keeping animals and humans away from breeding sites is a practical control measure. Insecticide zooprophylaxis may reduce vectorial capacity. |
| Killeen et al., [84] | n/a | An. funestus, An. gambiae An. arabiensis | The influence of host availability on vector blood meal choice | Computer simulation model | Increased cattle populations would cause a significant reduction in malaria in the Gambia due to a high An. arabiensis population, compared to no significant influence in Tanzania. |
n/a not applicable