Table 4.
Summary of the intervention effects (IRR (95% CIs)) on Culicidae and Culicoides at the household level and at the three trap positions (house, dog and chicken) compared to control (placebo)
| Variable | Trap position | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Household Total | House | Dog | Chicken | |||
| Culicidae | Arm | PI | 0.54 (0.30–0.97)* | 0.39 (0.20–0.74)* | 0.88 (0.42–1.85) | 0.52 (0.25–1.07)¥ |
| DC | 0.94 (0.55–1.59) | 1.19 (0.60–2.33) | 0.81 (0.43–1.5) | 0.86 (0.42–1.79) | ||
| Round | 15 | 0.67 (0.38–1.15) | 0.74 (0.37–1.49) | 0.39 (0.2–0.78)* | 0.74 (0.35–1.56) | |
| 16 | 2.67 (1.4–5.09)* | 2.47 (1.05–5.78)* | 1.21 (0.54–2.69) | 4.88 (2.2–10.84)*** | ||
| 17 | 2.22 (0.91–5.41)¥ | 2.38 (0.85–6.64)¥ | 1.10 (0.51–2.41) | 3.68 (1.24–10.93)* | ||
| Host | H | 1.0 (0.90–1.12) | 0.96 (0.84–1.11) | 1.02 (0.93–1.12) | 1.03 (0.92–1.16) | |
| D | 0.98 (0.89–1.08) | 1.05 (0.93–1.2) | 0.94 (0.85–1.04) | 0.98 (0.86–1.11) | ||
| C | 1.01 (1–1.02)¥ | 1.01 (0.99–1.02) | 1.01 (0.99–1.03) | 1.01 (0.99–1.02) | ||
| Culicoides | Arm | PI | 0.47 (0.26–0.85)* | 0.54 (0.2–1.47) | 0.64 (0.33–1.24) | 0.48 (0.27–0.84)* |
| DC | 0.74 (0.40–1.37) | 0.94 (0.27–3.32) | 1.29 (0.72–2.3) | 0.78 (0.43–1.4) | ||
| Round | 15 | 3.15 (1.8–5.51)*** | 2.04 (0.49–8.59) | 3.40 (1.72–6.75)*** | 3.48 (1.48–8.19)* | |
| 16 | 31.6 (19.4–51.6)*** | 4.16 (1.02–17.02)* | 42.37 (21.56–83.23)*** | 37.8 (20.2–70.4)*** | ||
| 17 | 13.32 (6.9–25.3)*** | 1.59 (0.38–6.64) | 20.18 (9.06–44.92)*** | 15.6 (7.39–32.9)*** | ||
| Host | H | 0.95 (0.86–1.05) | 0.88 (0.78–0.98)* | 1.02 (0.94–1.1) | 0.94 (0.83–1.06) | |
| D | 1.13 (1.03–1.25)* | 0.97 (0.83–1.13) | 1.07 (0.97–1.18) | 1.16 (1.04–1.29)* | ||
| C | 1.01 (1.0–1.02)* | 1.01 (1.0–1.02)* | 1.01 (1.0–1.03)¥ | 1.01 (1.0–1.02)* | ||
Abbreviations: Arm, treatment arm; PI, pheromone + lambda-cyhalothrin insecticide; DC, deltamethrin dog-collar. Hosts; H = human, D = dog, C = chicken. Categorical variables (control arm and round 14) were used as references for the comparisons. ¥P ≤ 0.1, *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001. Intervention effects were estimated from negative binomial regression outcome of total capture rates (females + males) for each Dipteran group. This analysis takes into account the effect of a priori predictors, factor change in capture rate [IRR (95% CIs)] and clustering on municipality