edoc

Single blinded semi-field evaluation of MAÏA® topical repellent ointment compared to unformulated 20% DEET against Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles arabiensis and Aedes aegypti in Tanzania

Mbuba, E. and Odufuwa, O. G. and Tenywa, F. C. and Philipo, R. and Tambwe, M. M. and Swai, J. K. and Moore, J. D. and Moore, S. J.. (2021) Single blinded semi-field evaluation of MAÏA® topical repellent ointment compared to unformulated 20% DEET against Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles arabiensis and Aedes aegypti in Tanzania. Malar J, 20. p. 12.

[img] PDF - Published Version
Available under License CC BY (Attribution).

1350Kb

Official URL: https://edoc.unibas.ch/89210/

Downloads: Statistics Overview

Abstract

BACKGROUND: N,N-Diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET) topical mosquito repellents are effective personal protection tools. However, DEET-based repellents tend to have low consumer acceptability because they are cosmetically unappealing. More attractive formulations are needed to encourage regular user compliance. This study evaluated the protective efficacy and protection duration of a new topical repellent ointment containing 15% DEET, MAIA((R)) compared to 20% DEET in ethanol using malaria and dengue mosquito vectors in Bagamoyo Tanzania. METHODS: Fully balanced 3 x 3 Latin square design studies were conducted in large semi-field chambers using laboratory strains of Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto, Anopheles arabiensis and Aedes aegypti. Human volunteers applied either MAIA((R)) ointment, 20% DEET or ethanol to their lower limbs 6 h before the start of tests. Approximately 100 mosquitoes per strain per replicate were released inside each chamber, with 25 mosquitoes released at regular intervals during the collection period to maintain adequate biting pressure throughout the test. Volunteers recaptured mosquitoes landing on their lower limbs for 6 h over a period of 6 to 12-h post-application of repellents. Data analysis was conducted using mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: The protective efficacy of MAIA((R)) and 20% DEET was not statistically different for each of the mosquito strains: 95.9% vs. 97.4% against An. gambiae (OR = 1.53 [95% CI 0.93-2.51] p = 0.091); 96.8% vs 97.2% against An. arabiensis (OR = 1.08 [95% CI 0.66-1.77] p = 0.757); 93.1% vs 94.6% against Ae. aegypti (OR = 0.76 [95% CI 0.20-2.80] p = 0.675). Average complete protection time (CPT) in minutes of MAIA((R)) and that of DEET was similar for each of the mosquito strains: 571.6 min (95% CI 558.3-584.8) vs 575.0 min (95% CI 562.1-587.9) against An. gambiae; 585.6 min (95% CI 571.4-599.8) vs 580.9 min (95% CI 571.1-590.7) against An. arabiensis; 444.1 min (95% CI 401.8-486.5) vs 436.9 min (95% CI 405.2-468.5) against Ae. aegypti. CONCLUSIONS: MAIA((R)) repellent ointment provides complete protection for 9 h against both An. gambiae and An. arabiensis, and 7 h against Ae. aegypti similar to 20% DEET (in ethanol). MAIA((R)) repellent ointment can be recommended as a tool for prevention against outdoor biting mosquitoes in tropical locations where the majority of the people spend an ample time outdoor before going to bed.
Faculties and Departments:09 Associated Institutions > Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH)
09 Associated Institutions > Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH) > Department of Epidemiology and Public Health (EPH) > Vector Biology > New Vector Control Interventions (Moore)
UniBasel Contributors:Moore, Sarah Jane and Moore, Jason and Mbuba, Emmanuel and Odufuwa, Olukayode and Tambwe, Mgeni Mohamed
Item Type:Article, refereed
Article Subtype:Research Article
ISSN:1475-2875 (Electronic)1475-2875 (Linking)
Note:Publication type according to Uni Basel Research Database: Journal article
Language:English
Related URLs:
Identification Number:
edoc DOI:
Last Modified:20 Dec 2022 12:52
Deposited On:20 Dec 2022 12:52

Repository Staff Only: item control page