Table 1.
Summary of past studies of the efficacy relative to HLC of the CDC-LT and HDT against Anopheles species
| No. | Area of study | Dominant anophelines | Relative efficacy: Ratio to HLC (95% confidence intervals) | Was trap efficacy dependent on mosquito density? | References | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. CDC-LT | ||||||||
| i. Mosquito species | ||||||||
| 1 | Ulanga, Tanzania |
An. arabiensis An. funestus |
0.35 (0.27–0.46) 0.63 (0.51–0.79) |
Yes Yes |
This study | |||
| 2 | Ulanga, Tanzania |
98% An. gambiae s.l 2% An. funestus |
0.33 (0.24–0.46) 0.82 (0.61–1.10) |
Not assessed | Okumu et al. 2008 [59] | |||
| 3 | Kenya, Zambia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Tanzania |
An. gambiae s.l An. funestus |
1.06 (0.68–1.64) 1.37 (0.70–2.68) |
Yes Yes |
Briët et al. 2015 [15] | |||
| 4 | Lwanda, Kenya |
74% An. gambiae s.l 26% An. funestus |
1.86 (1.73–2.00) 1.91 (1.66–2.19) |
No No |
Mathenge et al. 2004 [60] | |||
| 5 | Ahero, Kenya |
An. arabiensis An. funestus |
0.56 (0.49–0.66) 1.19 (1.03–1.37) |
Yes Yes |
Mathenge et al. 2005 [30] | |||
| 6 | Rarieda, Kenya |
An. gambiae s.l An. funestus |
1.18 (0.55–2.54) 0.69 (0.49–0.98) |
Not assessed | Wong et al. 2013 [20] | |||
| ii. ITNs vs. no ITNs | ||||||||
| With ITNs | Without ITNs | |||||||
| 7 | Bo, Sierra Leone | An. gambiae s.l | 0.88 (0.72–1.05) | 0.78 (0.60–1.01) | No (without ITNs) Yes (with ITNs) | Magbity et al. 2002 [27]*† | ||
| iii. Indoors vs. outdoors | ||||||||
| Indoors | Outdoors | |||||||
| 8 | Wosera, Papua New Guinea |
An. koliensis An. panctulatus An. karwari An. farauti s.l An. longirostris An. bancroftii |
0.28 (0.27–0.29) 0.10 (0.09–0.11) 0.12 (0.11–0.13) 0.07 (0.06–0.09) 0.12 (0.08–0.15) 0.20 (0.15–0.27) |
0.27 (0.26–0.28) 0.09 (0.08–0.09) 0.12 (0.11–0.13) 0.06 (0.05–0.08) 0.07 (0.05–1.05) 0.15 (0.11–0.20) |
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes |
Hii et al. 2000 [58] | ||
| 9 | Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea |
An. gambiae s.s & An. melas |
0.12 (0.11–0.14) (Mongola area) 0.36 (0.32–0.40) (Arena Blanca area) 0.13 (0.10–0.16) (Riaba area) |
0.009 (0.01–0.012) (Mongola area) 0.10 (0.09–0.12) (Arena Blanca area) 0.07 (0.05–0.09) (Riaba area) |
Yes (indoors) No (outdoors) Yes Yes |
Overgaard et al. 2012 [55]* | ||
| iv. Location | ||||||||
| Kakola-Ombaka area | Masogo area | |||||||
| 10 | Nyando & Muhoroni, Kenya |
An. arabiensis An. funestus An. coustani |
1.98 (1.01–3.86) 0.88 (0.37–2.11) 3.03 (1.65–5.56) |
1.83 (0.70–4.79) 0.45 (0.13–1.57) 2.88 (1.15–7.22) |
Not assessed | Abong’o et al. 2021 [32] | ||
| B. HDT | ||||||||
| 1 | Ulanga, Tanzania |
An. arabiensis An. funestus |
0.04 (0.01–0.14) 0.10 (0.07–0.15) |
Yes Yes |
This study | |||
| i. Type of host bait | ||||||||
| Cow-baited | Human-baited | |||||||
| 2 | Kisumu & Homa Bay, Kenya |
An. gambiae s.s & An. arabiesnsis & An. funestus & An. coustani |
7.08 (Kisian) 8.34 (Homa Bay) |
0.17 (Kisian) 0.60 (Homa Bay) |
Not assessed | Abong’o et al. 2018 [35]* | ||
| ii. Location | ||||||||
| Kakola-Ombaka area | Masogo area | |||||||
| 3 | Nyando & Muhoroni, Kenya |
An. arabiensis An. funestus An. coustani An. pharoensis |
5.69 (2.98–10.86) 1.38 (0.60–3.18) 0 18(0.09–0.37) NA |
1.32 (0.49–3.59) 0.66 (0.21–2.09) 2.88 (1.15–7.22) NA |
Not assessed | Abong’o et al. 2021 [32] | ||
| Lakkang area | Pucak area | |||||||
| 4 | Chikwawa, Malawi |
An. gambiae s.s & An. Arabiensis & An. coustani & An. quadriannulatus & An. tenebrosus |
1.03 (0.80–1.30) | 0.83–3.17) | Not assessed | Zembere et al. 2021 [33]* | ||
| iii. Season | ||||||||
| Rainy season | Early dry season | Late dry season | ||||||
| 5 | Vallée de Kou, Burkina Faso |
An. gambiae An. pharoensis An. coustani |
9.6 (9.4–9.7) 10.5 (10.4–10.7) NA |
2.2 (2.0–2.4) 2.8 (2.5–3.0) 18.6 (18.2–19.1) |
1.7 (1.3–2.0) 1.7 (1.3–2.1) NA |
Not assessed | Hawkes et al. 2017 [31] | |
NA not assessed because of data scarcity
*Ratio estimated for pooled mosquito species
†Three CDC-LTs were compared to two HLC catchers