Risk factors for house-entry by culicine mosquitoes in a rural town and satellite villages in The Gambia

• Main Authors: Jasseh Momodou, Green Clare, West Philippa, Kirby Matthew J, Lindsay Steve W
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2008-10-01
• Series: Parasites & Vectors
• Online Access: http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/1/1/41

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Screening doors, windows and eaves of houses should reduce house entry by eusynanthropic insects, including the common African house mosquito <it>Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus </it>and other culicines. In the pre-intervention year of a randomized controlled trial investigating the protective effects of house screening against mosquito house entry, a multi-factorial risk factor analysis study was used to identify factors influencing house entry by culicines of nuisance biting and medical importance. These factors were house location, architecture, human occupancy and their mosquito control activities, and the number and type of domestic animals within the compound.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>40,407 culicines were caught; the dominant species were <it>Culex thalassius</it>, <it>Cx. pipiens s.l.</it>, <it>Mansonia africanus</it>, <it>M. uniformis </it>and <it>Aedes aegypti</it>. There were four times more <it>Cx. pipiens s.l. </it>in Farafenni town (geometric mean/trap/night = 8.1, 95% confidence intervals, CIs = 7.2–9.1) than in surrounding villages (2.1, 1.9–2.3), but over five times more other culicines in the villages (25.1, 22.1–28.7) than in town (4.6, 4.2–5.2). The presence of <it>Cx. pipiens s.l. </it>was reduced in both settings if the house had closed eaves (odds ratios, OR town = 0.62, 95% CIs = 0.49–0.77; OR village = 0.49, 0.33–0.73), but increased per additional person in the trapping room (OR town = 1.16, 1.09–1.24; OR village = 1.10, 1.02–1.18). In the town only, <it>Cx. pipiens s.l. </it>numbers were reduced if houses had a thatched roof (OR = 0.70, 0.51–0.96), for each additional cow tethered near the house (OR = 0.73, 0.65–0.82) and with increasing distance from a pit latrine (OR = 0.97, 0.95–0.99). In the villages a reduction in <it>Cx. pipiens s.l. </it>numbers correlated with increased horses in the compound (OR = 0.90, 0.82–0.99). The presence of all other culicines was reduced in houses with closed eaves (both locations), with horses tethered outside (village only) and with increasing room height (town only), but increased with additional people in the trapping room and where cows were tethered outside (both locations).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The findings of this study advocate eave closure and pit latrine treatment in all locations, and zooprophylaxis using horses in rural areas, as simple control measures that could reduce the number of culicines found indoors.</p>