1921
Volume 102, Issue 6
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645

Abstract

Abstract.

-transmitted diseases, especially dengue, are increasing throughout the world and the main preventive methods include vector control and the avoidance of mosquito bites. A simple Premise Condition Index (PCI) categorizing shade, house, and yard conditions was previously developed to help prioritize households or geographical areas where resources are limited. However, evidence about the accuracy of the PCI is mixed. The current study aimed to contribute to a better understanding of the relevance by collecting data from 2,400 premises at four time points over 1 year in Kampong Cham, Cambodia. Regression models were then used to identify associations between PCI and adult female mosquitoes and pupae. In addition, receiver operating characteristic curves were used to measure the ability of PCI to identify premises in the top quartile of mosquito abundance. The density of adult females was positively associated with PCI at the household (ratio of means = 1.16 per point on the PCI scale) and cluster level (ratio of means = 1.54). However, the number of pupae was negatively associated with PCI at the household level (rate ratio = 0.74) and did not have a statistically significant association at the cluster level. Receiver operating characteristic curves suggest the PCI score had “rather low accuracy” (area under the ROC curve = 0.52 and 0.54) at identifying top-quartile premises in terms of adult female and pupae, respectively. These results suggest that caution is warranted in the programmatic use of PCI in areas of similar geography and mosquito abundance.

[open-access] This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0453
2020-04-06
2020-09-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/14761645/102/6/tpmd190453.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0453&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Seng CM, Setha T, Nealon J, Socheat D, Nathan MB, 2008. Six months of Aedes aegypti control with a novel controlled-release formulation of pyriproxyfen in domestic water storage containers in Cambodia. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 39: 822826.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Vannice KS, Roehrig JT, Hombach J, 2015. Next generation dengue vaccines: a review of the preclinical development pipeline. Vaccine 33: 70917099.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alphey L, Mckemey A, Nimmo D, Neira Oviedo M, Lacroix R, Matzen K, Beech C, 2013. Genetic control of Aedes mosquitoes. Pathog Glob Health 107: 170179.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Franz AWE, Clem RJ, Passarelli AL, 2014. Novel genetic and molecular tools for the investigation and control of dengue virus transmission by mosquitoes. Curr Trop Med Rep 1: 2131.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ye YH, Carrasco AM, Frentiu FD, Chenoweth SF, Beebe NW, van den Hurk AF, Simmons CP, O'Neill SL, McGraw EA, 2015. Wolbachia reduces the transmission potential of dengue-infected Aedes aegypti. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 9: e0003894.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Turelli M, Barton NH, 2017. Deploying dengue-suppressing Wolbachia: robust models predict slow but effective spatial spread in Aedes aegypti. Theor Popul Biol 115: 4560.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowman LR, Donegan S, McCall PJ, 2016. Is dengue vector control deficient in effectiveness or evidence?: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 10: e0004551.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Focks D, Alexander N, 2006. Multicountry Study of Aedes aegypti Pupal Productivity Survey Methodology: Findings and Recommendations.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Tun-Lin W, Kay BH, Barnes A, 1995. The Premise Condition Index: a tool for streamlining surveys of Aedes aegypti. Am J Trop Med Hyg 53: 591594.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Seng CM, Setha T, Nealon J, Chantha N, Socheat D, Nathan MB, 2008. The effect of long-lasting insecticidal water container covers on field populations of Aedes aegypti (L.) mosquitoes in Cambodia. J Vector Ecol 33: 333341.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chadee DD, 2004. Key premises, a guide to Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) surveillance and control. Bull Entomol Res 94: 201207.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Stewart Ibarra AM, Ryan SJ, Beltran E, Mejia R, Silva M, Munoz A, 2013. Dengue vector dynamics (Aedes aegypti) influenced by climate and social factors in Ecuador: implications for targeted control. PLoS One 8: e78263.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kay BH, Ryan PA, Lyons SA, Foley PN, Pandeya N, Purdie D, 2002. Winter intervention against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae in subterranean habitats slows surface recolonization in summer. J Med Entomol 39: 356361.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Williams CR, Long SA, Webb CE, Bitzhenner M, Geier M, Russell RC, Ritchie SA, 2007. Aedes aegypti population sampling using BG-Sentinel traps in north Queensland Australia: statistical considerations for trap deployment and sampling strategy. J Med Entomol 44: 345350.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Knox TB, Yen NT, Nam VS, Gatton ML, Kay BH, Ryan PA, 2007. Critical evaluation of quantitative sampling methods for Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) immatures in water storage containers in Vietnam. J Med Entomol 44: 192204.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Maciel-de-Freitas R, Peres RC, Souza-Santos R, Lourenco-de-Oliveira R, 2008. Occurrence, productivity and spatial distribution of key-premises in two dengue-endemic areas of Rio de Janeiro and their role in adult Aedes aegypti spatial infestation pattern. Trop Med Int Health 13: 14881494.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Andrighetti MTM, Galvani KC, Macoris MDLDG, 2009. Evaluation of premise condition index in the context of Aedes aegypti control in Marília, São Paulo, Brazil. Dengue Bull 33: 167175.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Azil AH, Bruce D, Williams CR, 2014. Determining the spatial autocorrelation of dengue vector populations: influences of mosquito sampling method, covariables, and vector control. J Vector Ecol 39: 153163.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Basker P, Ezhil R, 2012. Study on the correlation of premises condition index and the presence of larvae of Aedes species mosquitoes in human dwellings of the cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu, India. Osong Public Health Res Perspect 3: 37.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Manrique-Saide P et al., 2013. The risk of Aedes aegypti breeding and premises condition in South Mexico. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 29: 337345.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Moloney JM, Skelly C, Weinstein P, Maguire M, Ritchie S, 1998. Domestic Aedes aegypti breeding site surveillance: limitations of remote sensing as a predictive surveillance tool. Am J Trop Med Hyg 59: 261264.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Espinoza-Gómez F, Moisés Hernández Suárez C, Coll Cárdenas R, 2001. Factors that modify the larval indices of Aedes aegypti in Colima, Mexico. Rev Panam Salud Publica 10: 612.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Nogueira LA, Gushi LT, Miranda JE, Madeira NG, Ribolla PE, 2005. Application of an alternative Aedes species (Diptera: Culicidae) surveillance method in Botucatu city, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Am J Trop Med Hyg 73: 309311.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kay HB, Watson TM, Ryan PA, 2008. Definition of productive Aedes notoscriptus (Diptera: Culicidae) habitats in western Brisbane, and a strategy for their control. Aust J Entomol 47: 142148.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Peres RC, Rego R, Maciel-de-Freitas R, 2013. The use of the premise condition index (PCI) to provide guidelines for Aedes aegypti surveys. J Vector Ecol 38: 190192.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Montgomery B, Ritchie S, 2002. Roof gutters: a key container for Aedes aegypti and Ochlerotatus notoscriptus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Australia. Am J Trop Med Hyg 67: 244246.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Trewin BJ, Kay BH, Darbro JM, Hurst TP, 2013. Increased container-breeding mosquito risk owing to drought-induced changes in water harvesting and storage in Brisbane, Australia. Int Health 5: 251258.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Huy R et al., 2010. National dengue surveillance in Cambodia 1980–2008: epidemiological and virological trends and the impact of vector control. Bull World Health Organ 88: 650657.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. WHO, 2015. Dengue Situation Update 462 Update on the Dengue Situation in the Western Pacific Region Northern Hemisphere. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. World Health Organization, 2009. Dengue Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment, Prevention and Control , New Edition. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241547871_eng.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hustedt J et al., 2017. Determining the efficacy of guppies and pyriproxyfen (Sumilarv® 2MR) combined with community engagement on dengue vectors in Cambodia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 18: 367.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Espinoza-Gómez F, Hernández-Suárez CM, Coll-Cárdenas R, 2001. Educational campaign versus malathion spraying for the control of Aedes aegypti in Colima, Mexico. Public Health Pol Pract 56: 148152.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Zeileis A, Lumley T, Berger S, Graham N, 2018. Robust Covariance Matrix Estimators. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/sandwich/sandwich.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Swets JA, 1988. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240: 12851293.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Shmueli G, 2010. To explain or to predict? Stat Sci 25: 289310.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0453
Loading
/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0453
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Received : 14 Jun 2019
  • Accepted : 15 Feb 2020
  • Published online : 06 Apr 2020
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error