A review of Musca sorbens (Diptera: Muscidae) and Musca domestica behavior and responses to chemical and visual cues.

Musca flies (Diptera: Muscidae) have been found culpable in the mechanical transmission of several infectious agents, including viruses, bacteria, protozoans, and helminths, particularly in low-income settings in tropical regions. In large numbers, these flies can negatively impact the health of communities and their livestock through the transmission of pathogens. In some parts of the world, Musca sorbens is of particular importance because it has been linked with the transmission of trachoma, a leading cause of preventable and irreversible blindness or visual impairment caused by Chlamydia trachomatis, but the contribution these flies make to trachoma transmission has not been quantified and even less is known for other pathogens. Current tools for control and monitoring of house flies remain fairly rudimentary and have focused on the use of environmental management, insecticides, traps, and sticky papers. Given that the behaviors of flies are triggered by chemical cues from their environment, monitoring approaches may be improved by focusing on those activities that are associated with nuisance behaviors or with potential pathogen transmission, and there are opportunities to improve fly control by exploiting behaviors toward semiochemicals that act as attractants or repellents. We review current knowledge on the odor and visual cues that affect the behavior of M. sorbens and Musca domestica, with the aim of better understanding how these can be exploited to support disease monitoring and guide the development of more effective control strategies.

Using trained dogs and organic semi-conducting sensors to identify asymptomatic and mild SARS-CoV-2 infections: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: A rapid, accurate, non-invasive diagnostic screen is needed to identify people with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We investigated whether organic semi-conducting (OSC) sensors and trained dogs could distinguish between people infected with asymptomatic or mild symptoms, and uninfected individuals, and the impact of screening at ports-of-entry. METHODS: Odour samples were collected from adults, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status confirmed using RT-PCR. OSC sensors captured the volatile organic compound (VOC) profile of odour samples. Trained dogs were tested in a double-blind trial to determine their ability to detect differences in VOCs between infected and uninfected individuals, with sensitivity and specificity as the primary outcome. Mathematical modelling was used to investigate the impact of bio-detection dogs for screening. RESULTS: About, 3921 adults were enrolled in the study and odour samples collected from 1097 SARS-CoV-2 infected and 2031 uninfected individuals. OSC sensors were able to distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals and uninfected, with sensitivity from 98% (95% CI 95-100) to 100% and specificity from 99% (95% CI 97-100) to 100%. Six dogs were able to distinguish between samples with sensitivity ranging from 82% (95% CI 76-87) to 94% (95% CI 89-98) and specificity ranging from 76% (95% CI 70-82) to 92% (95% CI 88-96). Mathematical modelling suggests that dog screening plus a confirmatory PCR test could detect up to 89% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, averting up to 2.2 times as much transmission compared to isolation of symptomatic individuals only. CONCLUSIONS: People infected with SARS-CoV-2, with asymptomatic or mild symptoms, have a distinct odour that can be identified by sensors and trained dogs with a high degree of accuracy. Odour-based diagnostics using sensors and/or dogs may prove a rapid and effective tool for screening large numbers of people.Trial Registration NCT04509713 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Responses of the putative trachoma vector, Musca sorbens, to volatile semiochemicals from human faeces.

The putative vector of trachoma, Musca sorbens, prefers to lay its eggs on human faeces on the ground. This study sought to determine whether M. sorbens females were attracted to volatile odours from human faeces in preference to odours from the faeces of other animals, and to determine whether specific volatile semiochemicals mediate selection of the faeces. Traps baited with the faeces of humans and local domestic animals were used to catch flies at two trachoma-endemic locations in The Gambia and one in Ethiopia. At all locations, traps baited with faeces caught more female M. sorbens than control traps baited with soil, and human faeces was the most successful bait compared with soil (mean rate ratios 44.40, 61.40, 10.50 [P<0.001]; 8.17 for child faeces [P = 0.004]). Odours from human faeces were sampled by air entrainment, then extracts of the volatiles were tested by coupled gas chromatography-electroantennography with laboratory-reared female M. sorbens. Twelve compounds were electrophysiologically active and tentatively identified by coupled mass spectrometry-gas chromatography, these included cresol, indole, 2-methylpropanoic acid, butanoic acid, pentanoic acid and hexanoic acid. It is possible that some of these volatiles govern the strong attraction of M. sorbens flies to human faeces. If so, a synthetic blend of these chemicals, at the correct ratios, may prove to be a highly attractive lure. This could be used in odour-baited traps for monitoring or control of this species in trachoma-endemic regions.

Are topical insect repellents effective against malaria in endemic populations? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recommended vector control tools against malaria, such as long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), mainly target mosquitoes that rest and feed on human hosts indoors. However, in some malaria-endemic areas, such as Southeast Asia and South America, malaria vectors primarily bite outdoors meaning that LLINs and IRS may be less effective. In these situations the use of topical insect repellents may reduce outdoor biting and morbidity from malaria. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of topical insect repellents against malaria. METHODS: Studies were identified using database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and clinical trials registers), as well as reference list searches and contact with researchers. Randomized and non-randomized controlled trials were included that assessed the effect of topical repellents (all active ingredients and concentrations) on Plasmodium falciparum or Plasmodium vivax malaria or infection in malaria-endemic populations. Meta-analysis of clinical data was conducted in order to generate summary risk ratios. RESULTS: Ten trials met the inclusion criteria. Studies varied in terms of repellent active ingredient and formulation, co-interventions, study population, compliance, and follow-up period. Topical repellents showed an 18% protective efficacy against P. falciparum malaria, although this was not significant (95% CI: -8%, 38%). Similarly, the average protective efficacy of topical repellents against P. vivax malaria did not reach significance (protective efficacy: 20%, 95% CI: -37%, 53%). Exclusion of non-randomized trials from the meta-analysis did not alter the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Although topical repellents can provide individual protection against mosquitoes, the results of this meta-analysis indicate that topical repellents are unlikely to provide effective protection against malaria. However, there was substantial heterogeneity between studies included and the relatively small number of studies meant that this heterogeneity could not be fully explored in the analysis. Further well-designed trials of topical repellents at appropriate doses and alternative modes of repellent delivery, such as spatial repellents and long-lasting insecticide-treated clothing, are required.

Assessment of methods used to determine the safety of the topical insect repellent N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET).

N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) has been registered for commercial use as an insect repellent for over five decades, and is used widely across the world. Concerns over the safety of DEET first emerged during the 1980s after reports of encephalopathy following DEET exposure, particularly in children. However, the role of DEET in either the illness or deaths was and remains purely speculative. In response to these cases a number of reviews and investigations of DEET safety were carried out. Here we examine the methods used and information available to determine the safety of DEET in humans. Animal testing, observational studies and intervention trials have found no evidence of severe adverse events associated with recommended DEET use. Minor adverse effects noted in animal trials were associated with very large doses and were not replicated between different test species. The safety surveillance from extensive humans use reveals no association with severe adverse events. This review compares the toxicity assessment using three different models to define the risk assessment and safety threshold for DEET use in humans and discusses the clinical consequences of the thresholds derived from the models.The theoretical risks associated with wearing an insect repellent should be weighed against the reduction or prevention of the risk of fatal or debilitating diseases including malaria, dengue, yellow fever and filariasis. With over 48 million European residents travelling to regions where vector borne diseases are a threat in 2009, restricting the concentration of DEET containing repellents to 15% or less, as modelled in the 2010 EU directive, is likely to result in extensive sub-therapeutic activity where repellents are infrequently applied. Future European travellers, as a consequence of inadequate personal protection, could potentially be at increased risk of vector borne diseases. Risk assessments of repellents should take these factors into account when setting safe limits.

Laboratory and experimental hut evaluation of a long-lasting insecticide treated blanket for protection against mosquitoes.

BACKGROUND: Long-lasting insecticide treated blankets (LLIBs) may provide additional protection against malaria where use of long lasting insecticidal nets (LLIN) is low or impractical such as in disaster or emergency situations. METHODS: Initial efficacy testing of a new candidate LLIB was carried out at LSHTM and KCMUCo, before and after washing, in cone and ball bioassays and arm-in-cage tests against pyrethroid susceptible Anopheles gambiae. A small scale field trial was conducted using veranda-trap experimental huts in northern Tanzania against wild An. arabiensis and Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes. Treatments included unwashed and 5 times washed permethrin treated LLIB and blankets hand-treated with permethrin (ITB), untreated blankets, and a holed unwashed Olyset net. RESULTS: Cone test mortality was 75% for LLIB when unwashed, but decreased to 32% after 5 washes and <10% after 10 washes. In arm-in-cage tests protection against biting was 100% for LLIBs regardless of the number of washes while reduction in landings was 79% when unwashed, 75% after 5 washes, but declined to 41% after 10 and 33% after 20 washes. In ball bioassays using pyrethroid resistant An. arabiensis, mortality was low in all treatments (<35%) and there was no significant difference in mortality between Olyset net, LLIB or ITB (p > 0.05). Percentage mortality of An. arabiensis in huts with LLIB unwashed (26%) was not statistically different to Olyset net (31%, p = 0.5). The 5 times washed LLIB reduced blood-feeding by 49% which was equivalent to Olyset net (p > 0.086). There was no significant difference in percentage blood-feeding between LLIB and ITB unwashed or 5 times washed (p = 0.147 and p = 0.346 respectively). The 5 times washed LLIB reduced blood-feeding of Culex quinquefasciatus by 40%, although the Olyset provided the greatest protection with 85% inhibition. ELISA analysis of a sub-sample of blood fed mosquitoes showed that not all had fed on humans in the huts, therefore blood-feeding inhibition may have been underestimated. CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrated the potential of LLIBs to provide substantial personal protection even against pyrethroid resistant mosquitoes. LLIBs may prove particularly useful where LLINs are unsuitable or net usage is low.

Can topical insect repellents reduce malaria? A cluster-randomised controlled trial of the insect repellent N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) in Lao PDR.

BACKGROUND: Mosquito vectors of malaria in Southeast Asia readily feed outdoors making malaria control through indoor insecticides such as long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying more difficult. Topical insect repellents may be able to protect users from outdoor biting, thereby providing additional protection above the current best practice of LLINs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A double blind, household randomised, placebo-controlled trial of insect repellent to reduce malaria was carried out in southern Lao PDR to determine whether the use of repellent and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) could reduce malaria more than LLINs alone. A total of 1,597 households, including 7,979 participants, were recruited in June 2009 and April 2010. Equal group allocation, stratified by village, was used to randomise 795 households to a 15% DEET lotion and the remainder were given a placebo lotion. Participants, field staff and data analysts were blinded to the group assignment until data analysis had been completed. All households received new LLINs. Participants were asked to apply their lotion to exposed skin every evening and sleep under the LLINs each night. Plasmodium falciparum and P. vivax cases were actively identified by monthly rapid diagnostic tests. Intention to treat analysis found no effect from the use of repellent on malaria incidence (hazard ratio: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.01, p = 0.868). A higher socio-economic score was found to significantly decrease malaria risk (hazard ratio: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.90, p = 0.004). Women were also found to have a reduced risk of infection (hazard ratio: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.37-0.92, p = 0.020). According to protocol analysis which excluded participants using the lotions less than 90% of the time found similar results with no effect from the use of repellent. CONCLUSIONS: This randomised controlled trial suggests that topical repellents are not a suitable intervention in addition to LLINs against malaria amongst agricultural populations in southern Lao PDR. These results are also likely to be applicable to much of the Greater Mekong Sub-region. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with number NCT00938379.