Insecticide-Treated Screening (ITS) of windows for household protection against insecticide resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l.: a semi-field trial at Kolongonouan village, central Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire

Insecticide-Treated Screening (ITS) of windows for household protection against insecticide resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l.: a semi-field trial at Kolongonouan village, central Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Insecticide-Treated Screening (ITS) of windows for household protection against insecticide resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l.: a semi-field trial at Kolongonouan village, central Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire Gonse Marius Zoh, Antoine Barreaux, Edouard Dangbenon, Alphonsine Amanan Koffi, and 6 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7319100/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Parasites & Vectors → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Despite the significant impact of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) on malaria, 597,000 deaths from malaria were still recorded in 2023. Additional measures are clearly needed to complement current tools. This study assessed the efficacy of various household modifications comprising different combinations of insecticide treated and untreated screening on the eaves and windows, to protect households against malaria vectors. Method The following interventions were evaluated in experimental houses in the village of Kolongonouan, within central Cote d’Ivoire: (i) Standard control house with small openings in the eaves and no window screens (SCH); ( ii) Insecticide Treated Screening (ITS) of windows with small openings in the eaves (ITS op); (iii) ITS of windows with eaves blocked to prevent mosquito entry via eaves (ITS blq); (i v) Insecticide treatment applied to the eaves using In2Care eave tubes, without window screening (ET); ( v) Untreated window screening together with insecticide treated eave tubes (SET). The efficacy of these treatments on indoor and outdoor density of naturally recruiting Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes was assessed using human landing catches. These impact of these treatments on mortality and blood feeding rate was further assessed using release-recapture experiments in which large enclosures were built around individual houses and a known number of mosquitoes released per night. In addition, for the ITS blq treatment, the importance of physical integrity was assessed by evaluating the effect of damaging the screening with two or four 4x4cm holes in each screened window. Results Adding treated window screening and blocking eaves (ITS blq) reduced the number of naturally recruiting An. gambiae entering houses overnight by 31.8% relative to standard control houses (SCH). The use of untreated screening + eave tubes (SET) produced a significantly similar reduction (27.0%). Eave tubes alone (ET) reduced indoor populations by 23.5% (significantly less impact than ITS blq or SET, but still a significant reduction relative to controls), while insecticide treated window screening with open eaves (ITS op) resulted in a marginally non-significant reduction of 18.1%. There was no significant difference in house entry between ET and ITS blq or ITS op. Maximum capture rates occurred between 11pm and 3am. There were no significant impacts of the treatments on the numbers of mosquitoes captured adjacent to the houses outdoors. In the release-recapture experiments, all treatments significantly reduced blood feeding rate and increased 24h mortality of An. gambiae , with again similar impact for ITS blq and SET. Damaging the ITS with two holes still led to a significant reduction in blood feeding rate, but with more extensive damage of four holes, the protective effect was lost. Mortality rate also declined with increasing levels of damage, although remained significantly higher relative to untreated window screening. Conclusion This study demonstrated that adding insecticide treated screening to windows and blocking access points in the eaves reduced mosquito entry, mortality and blood-feeding rate at household level to similar levels as insecticide treated eaves tubes combined with untreated window screening (SET). A previous cluster randomised controlled trial in this location demonstrated a significant reduction in malaria incidence and prevalence when SET was implemented at village scale. Insecticide-treated window screens could, therefore, yield similar epidemiological impact, while potentially being simpler and less expensive to implement. Larger-scale epidemiogical trials involving communities are needed to test this assumption and further optimize the approach. Vector control house modification screening Anopheles gambiae malaria Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Background Malaria burden has declined significantly in sub-Saharan Africa over the past 10–15 years. This reduction is mainly attributed to the large-scale use of insecticide-based interventions, such as Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) and Insecticide-Treated Nets (ITNs) [ 1 ]. Between 2004 and 2019, approximately 1.9 billion ITNs were distributed across the region [ 1 ]. However, despite these efforts, malaria elimination has not been achieved in endemic countries, partially attributable to the increasing resistance of malaria vectors to commonly used insecticides [ 2 ]. In rural areas of Africa, the open eaves of houses are a major entry point for malaria vectors, facilitating the exposure of mosquitoes inside dwellings and the transmission of malaria [ 3 ]. To address this, structural innovations have been developed to complement malaria control efforts. One such innovation is the eaves tube (ET), introduced by IN2CARE, which combines home improvement and vector control. Eaves tubes consist of plastic tubes installed in the eaves of houses, fitted with electrostatically charged inserts and treated with powdered insecticides [ 4 ]. With the remainder of the eaves blocked (either through further modification or because they were closed already), these inserts provide focal targets for mosquitoes attempting to enter the home, killing them on contact and significantly reducing vector densities inside [ 5 ]. Field trials in Africa have demonstrated the effectiveness of eaves tubes, combined with additional screening to create physical barriers in the windows, to reduce mosquito densities and malaria transmission when implemented on a large scale [ 6 , 7 ]. Eaves baffles, another intervention, involve installing physical barriers along open eaves to block mosquito entry while maintaining ventilation. These barriers, made from materials such as fine mesh, treated fabric or metal sheeting, can also be impregnated with insecticides to boost their effectiveness [ 8 – 10 ]. Despite the effectiveness of these technologies against malaria vectors, they can nevertheless have significant limitations during their use. Eave tubes, while reducing mosquito densities, depend on proper installation and maintenance, as gaps or damage to insecticide-treated inserts can allow mosquitoes to avoid the system [ 5 ]. Additionally, eave tubes alone may not provide complete protection if other entry points, such as windows and doors, are left unprotected [ 4 ]. Eave baffles, although effective in blocking mosquito entry through open eaves, can obstruct ventilation and require regular maintenance to ensure their continued efficacy, as insecticide treatments degrade over time [ 10 ]. In all cases, the absence of window screening or complete sealing of the house significantly reduces the effectiveness of these interventions, underscoring the need for integrated strategies that address all potential mosquito entry points [ 11 ]. Moreover, although eave tubes and window screening can be cost effective [ 12 ] the absolute cost of eave tubes and window screening per house currently represents a major barrier to large scale implementation. Insecticide-treated screening (ITS) has established as a cost-effective and efficient method of malaria vector control and has demonstrated significant potential in reducing mosquito populations and mitigating disease transmission [ 12 ]. In Mexico, ITS resulted in a sustained 50% reduction in indoor Aedes aegypti densities over a two-year period, highlighting its long-term effectiveness [ 13 ]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess at household level within a village, the entomological impact of Insecticide-Treated screening (ITS) fixed to windows on the behavior of insecticide resistant An. gambiae and how such effect compared with IN2CARE eave tubes. Methods Study area The study was conducted in the village of Kolongonouan, near Bouaké city, in central Côte d'Ivoire. Houses in the village were built with modern materials (bricks, cement, metal roofs) and only 20% had open eaves (Table 1 ). There were no screens on the windows or doors and in all instances, houses visited were not entirely mosquito proof. A few gaps or slits were found on beneath the door and across window lovers even when these were closed in the day or during the night (Fig. 1 ). Table 1 Number of houses and construction materials used in the study village HOUSING TYPES Number percentage (%) metal doors and windows 86 51.81 wooden doors and windows 29 17.47 mixed houses (wooden + metal or glass windows and doors) 51 30.72 Total 166 open eaves 35 21.08 screens on the windows or doors 0 0.00 The types and materials used to build houses in the study village Experimental house To simulate naturally poor house condition and study the impact that such condition may have on mosquito behaviour, five identical houses were built next to each other in the village of Kolongonouan (7.674768, − 5.162976) based on the predominant house type in the village. These houses described previously [ 14 ] had one bedroom, one living room and a terrace (Fig. 2 ). The living room and bedroom had two windows (one on the front and one on the back side). House materials consisted of brick and cement, with metal roofs, wooden ceilings, metal doors and windows with louvers. Windows and doors were also equipped with removable mosquito-proof screening (Fig. 3 ). When doors and windows were left open, panels of chicken wire that allowed natural airflow and mosquito entry and prevented room access by reptiles and rodents, were used as replacement. Four holes to accommodate Eave tubes were drilled per room (two on the front and two on the back side). As observed in the village houses [ 14 ], 1cm gap was left on beneath the door as well as in louvers when these were closed (Fig. 4 ). An enclosure made of polyethylene netting, which could be opened and closed by zipper on all four sides of the houses, was erected around each experimental house on the concrete base, covering the terrace entirely (Fig. 5 ). A sheet of plastic was used as roof over the entire house, to prevent rain from entering the enclosure. A white plastic sheet was also placed on the floor of the enclosure to facilitate the collection of dead mosquitoes [ 14 ]. The door to the enclosure was placed on the front side of the house and closed with a zipper to prevent escape of mosquitoes. Mosquito population. An. gambiae used in the natural recruitment experiment were wild free flying populations from the village of Kolongonouan whereas those used in the release recapture experiments were adult An. gambiae obtained from larvae collected within the city of Bouaké. Insecticide resistance levels in An. gambiae in these areas had recently been well documented [ 15 ]. Interventions and outcomes The study assessed the efficacy of Insecticide-Treated Screening (ITS) of windows alone or in combination with IN2CARE eave tubes (ET) to protect households against malaria vectors. The following combinations with these interventions were evaluated in the experimental houses between August-October 2022: (i) Standard control house with small openings in the eaves by damaging 1/4th of the eave tube inserts, and no window screens (SCH); (ii) ITS of windows with damaged or open eaves as above (ITS op); (iii) ITS of windows + closed eaves with a piece of tarpaulin to prevent mosquito entry via eaves (ITS blq); (iv) ET alone without ITS (ET); (v) SET (insecticide treated eave tubes + untreated screening of windows (SET). In the first instance, the efficacy of these treatments on indoor and outdoor mosquito density was assessed through natural recruitment. These experiments were then complemented by release-recapture experiments in which large enclosures were built around individual houses and a known number of mosquitoes released per night to assess i) blood feeding and mortality of mosquitoes and ii) the impact of adding holes to the ITS to simulate different levels of damage. Insecticide treated materials Eave tube inserts were treated with a wettable powder formulation of 10% β-cyfluthrin (Tempo 10 ©, Bayer) at 300–500 mg of powder per insert, already shown to be effective at killing pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes [ 16 , 17 ]. ITS was made from pieces of the roof material of PermaNet 3.0 (Vestergaard S.A., Switzerland) that contains PBO + deltamethrin. This product is known to be effective against the pyrethroid resistant mosquitoes in this location [ 18 ] and serves as a ‘proof of concept’ material. Experimental study procedure Natural mosquito recruitment into the experimental houses. Community behaviour in the study was slightly altered as described previously [ 14 ]. For example, windows were opened from 18:00 to 20:00, then closed from 20:00 to 6:00, and re-opened from 6:00 to 8:00. The front door was opened from 18:00 to midnight, closed from midnight to 5:00, and then re-opened from 5:00 to 8:00. Doors and windows remained closed during daytime when there was no activity (i.e. from 8.00 to 18.00). In each experimental house, one volunteer adult slept in the bedroom and another in the living room, between 20:00–8:00 under untreated mosquito nets. Two other volunteers were tasked to collect mosquitoes by human landing catches (HLC), one in the living room and the other outdoor on the terrace. HLCs were conducted 18:00–8:00 with replacement of volunteers halfway through by a second pair of volunteers. Mosquito capturers were seated with one of the legs unprotected and collected any mosquitoes landing on that leg using haemolysis glass tubes and a torch. Supervisors were present to keep the collectors awake in each house and doors, windows closed as appropriate. Treatments were rotated every three days between the 5 experimental houses. This required 15 collection nights to complete one round of rotations. In total 2 rounds were performed, i.e. 30 collection nights, in a way that each treatment was evaluated 6 times in one house. Release recapture experiment to assess blood feeding and mosquito mortality Each house had a sleeper in the bedroom and another in the living room under untreated net. Sleepers entered houses at 20:00 and a supervisor ensured that doors and windows were opened and closed at the indicated intervals above. A total of 100 non-blood-fed, five-day-old female An. gambiae , starved for 6 hours with access to water, were released 15 minutes after the sleepers entered their respective houses. At 05:00 the following morning, sleepers collected all mosquitoes within the house and the enclosure using torches and aspirators. The status (alive or dead, unfed or blood-fed) of the mosquitoes was recorded and survivors brought back to the laboratory then fed on a 10% sugar solution to monitor mortality after 24 hours holding. Sleepers rotated on consecutive nights whereas treatments were evaluated on 3 nights in each house before rotating to the next house. Thus, a total of 15 nights of release recapture per treatment (i.e. 1 full rotation) and an average of 1500 mosquitoes were released. For the ITS physical integrity release-recapture, the same ITS pieces were reused two months later, each deliberately holed with a 4 cm × 4 cm opening to simulate natural physical degradation. Every eave was blocked with pieces of tarpaulin, while doors and windows were closed and opened under the same condition as above. Each treatment was evaluated over 3 nights in each house, with a total of 12 release recapture nights per treatment (i.e. 1 full rotation) and 1200 mosquitoes released on average. Data analysis Data were collected using Excel software, organized by experimental hut and day of operation, and subsequently exported to STATA 18 for final analysis. The dataset was described according to treatment type, capture location, and key outcome parameters, including blood-feeding and mortality rates. Proportions and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for descriptive analysis. Linear regression was primarily used to assess the effect of treatments on the number of females captured per location, by performing pairwise comparisons between interventions. It was also employed to evaluate the impact of treatments on mortality and blood-feeding rates, with weighting applied based on the number of mosquitoes exposed, to account for differences in group sizes. This method allowed for a more accurate estimation of treatment effects while controlling for potential imbalances in data distribution. The analytical approach was applied to all possible treatment combinations to explore associations between interventions and outcome parameters. Results Impact on natural mosquito recruitment to house The ITS blq was as good at preventing entry of An. gambiae as ET and SET and all better than the control SCH and ITS op (P < 0.001). ITS op reduced by 18% entry rate to house but the magnitude was not significant (P = 0.0893). SET had greater impact on house entry prevention than ET (27% vs 23.5%) (P = 0. 0022) (Table 2 ). The outdoor mosquito collection session indicated no significant differences between any of the insecticide treated material and the control SCH (P > 0.05). The peak recruitment period to houses happened between 11pm and 03am with on average between 3 to 4 An. gambiae accessing both control SCH and ITS op houses per hour (Fig. 6 ). ET, ITS blq and SET moderately reduced access rate to houses during these peak recruitment hours (> 24%). The best reduction derived from house with ITS blq (31.8%). Table 2 Natural recruitment. Density of An. gambiae (s.l.) inside and outside each experimental house. SCH ITS op ITS blq ET SET No. females caught 1697 1389 1169 1299 1239 No. indoor 978 a 836 a 507 b 662 c 476 b deterrence (%) - 18.1 31.8 23.5 27.0 No. outdoor 719 a 553 a, b, c 662 a, b, c 637 a, b, c 763 a SCH : standard untreated Control house; ITS op : insecticide treated window screening with open eave; ITS blq : insecticide treated window screening with blocked eave; ET : Treated Eave Tubes without window screening; SET : untreated window screening and treated eave tubes. Impact of ITS on mosquito entry, blood-feeding and mortality in release recapture experiment. The trend for treatment impact on house entry in the release recapture experiment within the enclosure mirrored that observed with the free flying recruitment within house. None of the treatment protected against An. gambiae bite except SET and ITS blq which induced similar effect (35.7% vs 33.4% blood feeding inhibition: P = 0. 8909) (Table 3 ). Table 3 Summary of the release-recapture experiment with the resistant strain of Anopheles gambiae M'bé in experimental houses. SCH ITS op ITS blq ET SET Total recaptured 1361 1246 1197 1255 1136 No. within room 768 623 355 531 368 No. within enclosure 593 623 842 724 768 Blood fed (%) 40.1 a 35.0 a 25.9 b 35.1 a 26.8 b 95% Conf. limits (37.50–42.77) (32.34–37.71) (23.43–28.47) (32.49–37.85) (24.20-29.43) blood feed inh. (%) - 12.7 35.7 12.5 33.4 24h mortality (%) 6.2 a 24.2 b 33.7 c 35.1 c 40.7 c 95% Conf. limits (4.95–7.58) (21.88–26.72) (30.99–36.42) (32.41–37.77) (37.80–43.59) SCH : standard untreated Control House (with untreated eave tubes open 1/4); ITS_op : Insecticide Treated window Screening (with untreated eave tubes open 1/4); ET : Treated Eave Tubes; ITS_blq : Insecticide treated window screen with blocked untreated eaves tubes; SET : untreated window screen and treated eave tubes All Overnight mortality rates were better than the control SCH (P 0.05). SET induced the highest mortality rate (40.7%) although similar to that induced by ITS blq (P = 0.7076) and ET (P = 0.9653). Effectiveness of holed ITS blq in housing protection. Relative to control, there was a significant reduction in blood feeding up to two holes made in the intact ITS blq (47.4% inhibition rate) (P < 0.05) but the effect disappeared after four holes (7.4% inhibition) (p = 0. 2665). Two months after the first release recapture, mortality rate with the intact ITS blq was 23.3% compared to 33.7% in the first experiment (Table 4 ). There was no significant difference in mortality between two holes, four holes and the intact ITS blq. Table 4 Summary of the release-recapture experiment with the resistant strain of Anopheles gambiae from Bouake in experimental houses. UTS ITS blq ITS blq 2X ITS blq 4X Total recaptured 1125 914 1009 966 No. within room 419 227 280 327 No. within enclosure 706 687 729 639 Blood fed (%) 32.1 a 25.9 b 17.0 c 29.9 a, b 95% Conf. limits (29.3–34.9) (23.11–28.90) (14.77–19.51) (27.04–32.91) Blood feed inh. (%) - 19.8 47.4 7.4 24h mortality (%) 3.2 a 23.3 b 18.23 b, c 16.46 c 95% Conf. limits (2.33–4.50) (20.59–26.18) (15.89–20.76) (14.17–18.95) UTS : untreated window screening without holes; ITS blq : insecticide treated window screening without holes; ITS blq2X : insecticide treated window screening with 2 holes; ITS blq4X : insecticide treated window screening with 4 Discussion House-based interventions such as window screening, are among the oldest methods against vector-borne diseases [ 19 ]. However, their impact on malaria transmission and factors affecting their effectiveness remain unclear. The aim of this study was to assess at household level within a village, the entomological impact of Insecticide-Treated screening (ITS) of windows on the behaviour of insecticide resistant An. gambiae and how such effect compared with IN2CARE eave tubes. The study demonstrated a significant reduction in indoor mosquito density within houses equipped with ITS with eaves of the house closed (ITS blq) compared to standard control house with small openings at eave level (SCH). Similar reductions were observed with houses equipped with eave tubes alone (ET) or SET (insecticide treated eave tubes + untreated screening of windows). In the release-recapture experiment, ITS blq, SET and ET were equally effective in reducing mosquito entry. Screening houses to prevent mosquito entry has proven effective in different settings. For example, a study in Ethiopia showed that screening doors and windows and closing eaves with mud reduced indoor An. arabiensis density by 40% [ 20 ]. Similarly, a study in the Gambia found that screening windows and doors plus closing eaves reduced indoor density by 59% [ 10 ]. Other studies reported higher malaria vector densities in poorly constructed houses compared to improved structures [ 21 – 23 ]. In the current study, optimum protection against mosquito bites was reached after midnight when most residents had closed their doors and gone to bed. These findings under real-life condition highlight the influence of human behaviour on the effectiveness of malaria control interventions, which may differ from results obtained under controlled experimental conditions. For example, experimental hut trials evaluating product efficacy often do not account for human behaviour, such as residents staying awake late at night with doors or windows open during dry and hot seasons [ 14 ]. Further research is needed to assess the impact of opened and closed doors/windows at different time points from the evening on the effectiveness of vector control tools. In addition to reducing indoor densities of An. gambiae , ITS of windows also impacted mosquito mortality and blood-feeding rates against pyrethroid-resistant populations. Results from the second experiment showed higher mosquito mortality in all ITS-treated houses relative to control. Only ITS blq and SET reduced in similar proportion blood-feeding rates of An. gambiae . The efficacy of SET in decreasing blood-feeding rates and increasing mosquito mortality has been previously reported in malaria vectors [ 14 , 17 ]. Interestingly, ITS blq was as effective as SET in preventing mosquito blood feeding while maintaining insecticidal effects. Similar findings were reported in Mexico, where ITS installation reduced Aedes aegypti blood-feeding rates, even a year later [ 24 , 25 , 13 ]. Randomized controlled trials also showed ITS to reduce prevalence of anemia in children, suggesting its impact on mosquito blood feeding and mortality in affected regions [ 10 ]. With potential for preventive measure, ITS of windows with long lasting product and material may provide long-term benefits to households, as it is less invasive and easy to implement strategy compared to eave tubes which involves drilling of homes in addition to maintenance. High levels of satisfaction and acceptance of ITS as a protective method against mosquito bites have been observed in Mexico [ 13 ]. However, operational challenges, such as the long-term physical degradation of the material in ITS as well as resistance of Active Ingredients (AIs) in ITS to UV light may affect its durability in the field. The intensive use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) in field conditions has often been associated with a decline in their long-term effectiveness. In this study, the top surface of a new generation LLIN (PermaNet 3.0 LN) was used as screening material in the ITS. Important to note is that the aim was to provide a proof of concept and not to advocate for repurposing LLINs in this way. Hopefully the encouraging results provide motivation for further product development research to develop a robust screening material with appropriate, easy to use fitting and fastening. A related study demonstrated that PermaNet 3.0 LN used in EaveTubes achieved over 50% mortality in pyrethroid-resistant An. gambiae , reinforcing the potential of LLIN-derived materials in lethal house lure strategies [ 26 ]. However, their study also highlighted rapid loss of efficacy under environmental exposure, and our own findings showed that holes in the screening material significantly compromised its protective effect. These insights suggest that future ITS development should prioritize purpose-designed, weather-resistant materials with sustained insecticidal activity and improved physical durability. Considering that SET demonstrated significant epidemiological impact in similar area of insecticide resistance in An. gambiae , if we scaled up ITS then we would expect similar epi impact. Also, need to stress that the economic analysis showed SET to cost over $ 200 per house. Although acknowledging the current study was proof of concept, the pieces of LLIN material we used here cost less then $ 3 (or some such). We anticipate that even if this was a more bespoke product, perhaps with simple fastening mechanisms such as heavy duty Velcro or staples, it ought to be possible to do this for a fraction of the cost and hassle of SET. Further large-scale studies incorporating environmental variables would then be warranted to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of insecticide-treated window screening in combination with existing vector control tools, such as LLINs, to optimize malaria prevention strategies. Conclusion This study underscores the potential of innovative strategies, such as insecticide-treated screening (ITS), to enhance malaria vector control in Africa. ITS has shown promise as an effective tool for reducing mosquito entry and blood feeding while simultaneously killing mosquitoes that manage to enter households. However, operational challenges, such as physical and insecticidal degradation in the screen and variation in household behaviour, could compromise its long-term effectiveness. Studies comparing product efficacy under real life conditions in controlled houses with human behaviour involvement and in experimental huts must be conducted to assess differences in impact on mosquito mortality and blood feeding, key indicators for malaria transmission. Abbreviations AIs Active Ingredients LLINs Long Last Insecticide Nets IRS Indoor Residual Spraying ITNs Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) and Insecticide-Treated Nets ITS Insecticide Treated Screening ITS op ITS of windows with small openings in the eaves ITS blq ITS of windows with eaves blocked to prevent mosquito entry via eaves ET Insecticide treatment applied to the eaves using In2Care eave tubes, without window screening SCH Standard control house with small openings in the eaves and no window screens SET Untreated window screening together with insecticide treated eave tubes Declarations Acknowledgements We thank the community members of Kolongonouan village for their cooperation and participation in the study. We are grateful to the technical team at VCPEC/IPR for their assistance in fieldwork and logistics. Funding This work was supported by the Vector Control Product Evaluation Centre/Institut Pierre Richet, Bouaké, Cote d’Ivoire. Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Authors’ contributions MBT, RN, MGZ, AB conceived the study and designed the experiments. MGZ, AB, AAK and LPA coordinated fieldwork and data collection. MGZ, SC, NB and SYK conducted the entomological experiments. MGZ, AB and ED analyzed the data. MGZ drafted the manuscript. RN, MBT, AB critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Ethics approval and consent to participate Written informed consent was obtained from all field volunteer workers following a detailed explanation of the study objectives and procedures. Field workers received financial compensation for their participation and were administered a yellow fever vaccine as a preventive measure. Additionally, they were provided with free medical treatment for any malaria cases occurring during the study period. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health of Côte d’Ivoire. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Author details 1 Centre d’Entomologie Médicale et Vétérinaire, Université Alassane Ouattara (CEMV-UAO), Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire. 2 Vector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP), Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire. 3 Institut Pierre Richet (IPR)/Institut National de Santé Publique (INSP), Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire. 4 Cirad, UMR INTERTRYP, Nairobi, Kenya 2. 5 INTERTRYP, Univ Montpellier, Cirad, IRD, Montpellier, France. 6 Animal Health Theme, ICIPE, Nairobi, Kenya. 7 Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, United States. 8 Department of Biology, University of York, United Kingdom. 9 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom References World malaria report 2020 20 years of global progress and challenges. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015791 . Accessed 3 Aug 2025. Ranson H, Lissenden N. Insecticide Resistance in African Anopheles Mosquitoes: A Worsening Situation that Needs Urgent Action to Maintain Malaria Control. Trends Parasitol. 2016;32:187–96. Lindsay SW, Snow RW. The trouble with eaves; house entry by vectors of malaria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1988;82:645–6. Knols BGJ, Farenhorst M, Andriessen R, Snetselaar J, Suer RA, Osinga AJ, et al. Eave tubes for malaria control in Africa: an introduction. Malar J. 2016;15:404. Sternberg ED, Ng’habi KR, Lyimo IN, Kessy ST, Farenhorst M, Thomas MB, et al. Eave tubes for malaria control in Africa: initial development and semi-field evaluations in Tanzania. Malar J. 2016;15:447. Sternberg ED, Cook J, Ahoua Alou LP, Aoura CJ, Assi SB, Doudou DT, et al. Evaluating the impact of screening plus eave tubes on malaria transmission compared to current best practice in central Côte d’Ivoire: a two armed cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:894. Andriessen R, Snetselaar J, Suer RA, Osinga AJ, Deschietere J, Lyimo IN, et al. Electrostatic coating enhances bioavailability of insecticides and breaks pyrethroid resistance in mosquitoes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:12081–6. Killeen GF, Masalu JP, Chinula D, Fotakis EA, Kavishe DR, Malone D, et al. Control of Malaria Vector Mosquitoes by Insecticide-Treated Combinations of Window Screens and Eave Baffles. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23:782–9. Oxborough RM, Kitau J, Mosha FW, Rowland MW. Modified veranda-trap hut for improved evaluation of vector control interventions. Med Vet Entomol. 2015;29:371–9. Kirby MJ, Ameh D, Bottomley C, Green C, Jawara M, Milligan PJ, et al. Effect of two different house screening interventions on exposure to malaria vectors and on anaemia in children in The Gambia: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2009;374:998–1009. Lindsay SW, Emerson PM, Charlwood JD. Reducing malaria by mosquito-proofing houses. Trends Parasitol. 2002;18:510–4. Sternberg ED, Cook J, Alou LPA, Assi SB, Koffi AA, Doudou DT, et al. Impact and cost-effectiveness of a lethal house lure against malaria transmission in central Côte d’Ivoire: a two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2021;397:805–15. Che-Mendoza A, Medina-Barreiro A, Koyoc-Cardeña E, Uc-Puc V, Contreras-Perera Y, Herrera-Bojórquez J, et al. House screening with insecticide-treated netting provides sustained reductions in domestic populations of Aedes aegypti in Merida, Mexico. Apperson C, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12:e0006283. Barreaux AMG, Oumbouke WA, Brou N, Tia IZ, Ahoua Alou LP, Doudou DT, et al. The role of human and mosquito behaviour in the efficacy of a house-based intervention. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2021;376:20190815. Oumbouke WA, Pignatelli P, Barreaux AMG, Tia IZ, Koffi AA, Ahoua Alou LP, et al. Fine scale spatial investigation of multiple insecticide resistance and underlying target-site and metabolic mechanisms in Anopheles gambiae in central Côte d’Ivoire. Sci Rep. 2020;10:15066. Oumbouke WA, Tia IZ, Barreaux AMG, Koffi AA, Sternberg ED, Thomas MB, et al. Screening and field performance of powder-formulated insecticides on eave tube inserts against pyrethroid resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l.: an investigation into ‘actives’ prior to a randomized controlled trial in Côte d’Ivoire. Malar J. 2018;17:374. Barreaux AMG, Brou N, Koffi AA, N’Guessan R, Oumbouke WA, Tia IZ, et al. Semi-field studies to better understand the impact of eave tubes on mosquito mortality and behaviour. Malar J. 2018;17:306. Kweka EJ, Lyaruu LJ, Mahande AM. Efficacy of PermaNet® 3.0 and PermaNet® 2.0 nets against laboratory-reared and wild Anopheles gambiae sensu lato populations in northern Tanzania. Infect Dis Poverty. 2017; doi: 10.1186/s40249-016-0220-z . Furnival-Adams J, Olanga EA, Napier M, Garner P. House modifications for preventing malaria. Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013398 . Massebo F, Lindtjørn B. The effect of screening doors and windows on indoor density of Anopheles arabiensis in south-west Ethiopia: a randomized trial. Malar J. 2013;12:319. Getawen SK, Ashine T, Massebo F, Woldeyes D, Lindtjørn B. Exploring the impact of house screening intervention on entomological indices and incidence of malaria in Arba Minch town, southwest Ethiopia: A randomized control trial. Acta Trop. 2018;181:84–94. Tusting LS, Bottomley C, Gibson H, Kleinschmidt I, Tatem AJ, Lindsay SW, et al. Housing Improvements and Malaria Risk in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Multi-Country Analysis of Survey Data. von Seidlein L, editor. PLOS Med. 2017;14:e1002234. Animut A, Balkew M, Lindtjørn B. Impact of housing condition on indoor-biting and indoor-resting Anopheles arabiensis density in a highland area, central Ethiopia. Malar J. 2013;12:393. Manrique-Saide P, Herrera-Bojórquez J, Medina-Barreiro A, Trujillo-Peña E, Villegas-Chim J, Valadez-González N, et al. Insecticide-treated house screening protects against Zika-infected Aedes aegypti in Merida, Mexico. Kittayapong P, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15:e0009005. Kua KP, Lee SWH. Randomized trials of housing interventions to prevent malaria and Aedes-transmitted diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Von Seidlein L, editor. PLOS ONE. 2021;16:e0244284. Oumbouke WA, Barreaux AMG, Zran IT, Koffi AA, N’Guessan Y, Alou LPA, et al. Exploring alternative insecticide delivery options in a “lethal house lure” for malaria vector control. 2023; doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-31116-7 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Parasites & Vectors → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 16 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 08 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 13 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 08 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 08 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 07 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7319100","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":502596442,"identity":"ff45c06d-17c1-45a2-a852-752d1707edfc","order_by":0,"name":"Gonse Marius Zoh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Centre d’Entomologie Médicale et Vétérinaire, Université Alassane Ouattara (CEMV-UAO)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gonse","middleName":"Marius","lastName":"Zoh","suffix":""},{"id":502596443,"identity":"658b22a3-4860-493b-a484-2c6bff901a70","order_by":1,"name":"Antoine Barreaux","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"INTERTRYP, Univ Montpellier, Cirad, IRD","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Antoine","middleName":"","lastName":"Barreaux","suffix":""},{"id":502596444,"identity":"3692f8a5-0d61-4e1d-a8b0-18145a392bd5","order_by":2,"name":"Edouard Dangbenon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Vector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Edouard","middleName":"","lastName":"Dangbenon","suffix":""},{"id":502596446,"identity":"825bd4bd-39b6-4fc4-b6c9-91d9306746db","order_by":3,"name":"Alphonsine Amanan Koffi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institut Pierre Richet (IPR)/Institut National de Santé Publique (INSP)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alphonsine","middleName":"Amanan","lastName":"Koffi","suffix":""},{"id":502596448,"identity":"26f6f1a6-d8d2-44fe-9586-81cedfdad507","order_by":4,"name":"Ludovic Phamien Ahoua Alou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institut Pierre Richet (IPR)/Institut National de Santé Publique (INSP)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ludovic","middleName":"Phamien Ahoua","lastName":"Alou","suffix":""},{"id":502596449,"identity":"1057d9e6-29e8-426c-ac98-51eb771bd46e","order_by":5,"name":"Soromane Camara","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institut Pierre Richet (IPR)/Institut National de Santé Publique (INSP)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Soromane","middleName":"","lastName":"Camara","suffix":""},{"id":502596450,"identity":"6c46c0e6-d675-45b8-93a3-6ce8d47f1aea","order_by":6,"name":"N'guessan Brou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Vector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"N'guessan","middleName":"","lastName":"Brou","suffix":""},{"id":502596451,"identity":"fed9e70f-f3d8-4121-8008-6d14b6adb293","order_by":7,"name":"Serge Yao Koffi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Vector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Serge","middleName":"Yao","lastName":"Koffi","suffix":""},{"id":502596452,"identity":"e6907ca3-e7a7-46ee-95d6-f58dbadffc1c","order_by":8,"name":"Matthew Brian Thomas","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Matthew","middleName":"Brian","lastName":"Thomas","suffix":""},{"id":502596453,"identity":"a2bc4a00-50af-41b2-9f4d-8fa3ed7b6215","order_by":9,"name":"Raphael N'Guessan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"London School of Hygiene \u0026 Tropical Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Raphael","middleName":"","lastName":"N'Guessan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-07 13:08:25","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7319100/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7319100/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-025-07194-z","type":"published","date":"2025-12-30T15:57:06+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89581976,"identity":"b555f493-9717-41d9-94c1-b38e1ed688fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-21 14:14:19","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":746128,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExample of house not entirely mosquito proof in the study village\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7319100/v1/dcbe8fdfd3c62e8cd6c0e9ca.png"},{"id":89581977,"identity":"41607ae4-a481-4bfc-9f8e-4396263278b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-21 14:14:19","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":42668,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePlan of experimental houses\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7319100/v1/d3c1d3fc7d6d4d41fd0255eb.png"},{"id":89580986,"identity":"dd5f6a02-3e5a-41ea-8e7a-859667500ce7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-21 14:06:19","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":271402,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExperimental houses equipped with removable mosquito-proof screening used for natural recruitment experiment\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7319100/v1/a26111069e6284466c367b0a.png"},{"id":89581979,"identity":"5c9f8653-287a-4937-a7d8-90ab4c896ffb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-21 14:14:19","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":229545,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e1cm slits under the louvers of closed doors and windows simulating the living conditions of rural households\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7319100/v1/292c181571678dfaa57bfa2f.png"},{"id":89580979,"identity":"25398fe5-4f90-43f7-99a6-aca87f0c7c3a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-21 14:06:19","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":569990,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExperimental house with retracted (a) and closed (b) enclosure\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7319100/v1/1bd6f8809dc71fdb26a6cff5.png"},{"id":89582351,"identity":"ac989c7e-0b19-4abd-b08a-2f877b184ead","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-21 14:22:19","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71159,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean number of \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e captured per hour in experimental houses\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7319100/v1/75f909315bfcce534b4222d9.png"},{"id":99545212,"identity":"e8be08b9-a7d9-49f4-97d3-f09c6e8fac3a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-05 16:02:41","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3507394,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7319100/v1/e60d845e-c381-45fe-8a71-2d6437028f08.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eInsecticide-Treated Screening (ITS) of windows for household protection against insecticide resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l.: a semi-field trial at Kolongonouan village, central Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eMalaria burden has declined significantly in sub-Saharan Africa over the past 10\u0026ndash;15 years. This reduction is mainly attributed to the large-scale use of insecticide-based interventions, such as Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) and Insecticide-Treated Nets (ITNs) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Between 2004 and 2019, approximately 1.9\u0026nbsp;billion ITNs were distributed across the region [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. However, despite these efforts, malaria elimination has not been achieved in endemic countries, partially attributable to the increasing resistance of malaria vectors to commonly used insecticides [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn rural areas of Africa, the open eaves of houses are a major entry point for malaria vectors, facilitating the exposure of mosquitoes inside dwellings and the transmission of malaria [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. To address this, structural innovations have been developed to complement malaria control efforts. One such innovation is the eaves tube (ET), introduced by IN2CARE, which combines home improvement and vector control. Eaves tubes consist of plastic tubes installed in the eaves of houses, fitted with electrostatically charged inserts and treated with powdered insecticides [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. With the remainder of the eaves blocked (either through further modification or because they were closed already), these inserts provide focal targets for mosquitoes attempting to enter the home, killing them on contact and significantly reducing vector densities inside [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Field trials in Africa have demonstrated the effectiveness of eaves tubes, combined with additional screening to create physical barriers in the windows, to reduce mosquito densities and malaria transmission when implemented on a large scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Eaves baffles, another intervention, involve installing physical barriers along open eaves to block mosquito entry while maintaining ventilation. These barriers, made from materials such as fine mesh, treated fabric or metal sheeting, can also be impregnated with insecticides to boost their effectiveness [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR9\" citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite the effectiveness of these technologies against malaria vectors, they can nevertheless have significant limitations during their use. Eave tubes, while reducing mosquito densities, depend on proper installation and maintenance, as gaps or damage to insecticide-treated inserts can allow mosquitoes to avoid the system [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, eave tubes alone may not provide complete protection if other entry points, such as windows and doors, are left unprotected [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Eave baffles, although effective in blocking mosquito entry through open eaves, can obstruct ventilation and require regular maintenance to ensure their continued efficacy, as insecticide treatments degrade over time [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. In all cases, the absence of window screening or complete sealing of the house significantly reduces the effectiveness of these interventions, underscoring the need for integrated strategies that address all potential mosquito entry points [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, although eave tubes and window screening can be cost effective [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] the absolute cost of eave tubes and window screening per house currently represents a major barrier to large scale implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInsecticide-treated screening (ITS) has established as a cost-effective and efficient method of malaria vector control and has demonstrated significant potential in reducing mosquito populations and mitigating disease transmission [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. In Mexico, ITS resulted in a sustained 50% reduction in indoor \u003cem\u003eAedes aegypti\u003c/em\u003e densities over a two-year period, highlighting its long-term effectiveness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess at household level within a village, the entomological impact of Insecticide-Treated screening (ITS) fixed to windows on the behavior of insecticide resistant \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e and how such effect compared with IN2CARE eave tubes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy area\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in the village of Kolongonouan, near Bouak\u0026eacute; city, in central C\u0026ocirc;te d'Ivoire. Houses in the village were built with modern materials (bricks, cement, metal roofs) and only 20% had open eaves (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). There were no screens on the windows or doors and in all instances, houses visited were not entirely mosquito proof. A few gaps or slits were found on beneath the door and across window lovers even when these were closed in the day or during the night (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of houses and construction materials used in the study village\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHOUSING TYPES\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003epercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003emetal doors and windows\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.81\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ewooden doors and windows\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17.47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003emixed houses (wooden\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;metal or glass windows and doors)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e166\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eopen eaves\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003escreens on the windows or doors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003eThe types and materials used to build houses in the study village\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExperimental house\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo simulate naturally poor house condition and study the impact that such condition may have on mosquito behaviour, five identical houses were built next to each other in the village of Kolongonouan (7.674768, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;5.162976) based on the predominant house type in the village. These houses described previously [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] had one bedroom, one living room and a terrace (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The living room and bedroom had two windows (one on the front and one on the back side). House materials consisted of brick and cement, with metal roofs, wooden ceilings, metal doors and windows with louvers. Windows and doors were also equipped with removable mosquito-proof screening (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). When doors and windows were left open, panels of chicken wire that allowed natural airflow and mosquito entry and prevented room access by reptiles and rodents, were used as replacement. Four holes to accommodate Eave tubes were drilled per room (two on the front and two on the back side). As observed in the village houses [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], 1cm gap was left on beneath the door as well as in louvers when these were closed (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). An enclosure made of polyethylene netting, which could be opened and closed by zipper on all four sides of the houses, was erected around each experimental house on the concrete base, covering the terrace entirely (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). A sheet of plastic was used as roof over the entire house, to prevent rain from entering the enclosure. A white plastic sheet was also placed on the floor of the enclosure to facilitate the collection of dead mosquitoes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. The door to the enclosure was placed on the front side of the house and closed with a zipper to prevent escape of mosquitoes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMosquito population.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e used in the natural recruitment experiment were wild free flying populations from the village of Kolongonouan whereas those used in the release recapture experiments were adult \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e obtained from larvae collected within the city of Bouak\u0026eacute;. Insecticide resistance levels in \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e in these areas had recently been well documented [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInterventions and outcomes\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study assessed the efficacy of Insecticide-Treated Screening (ITS) of windows alone or in combination with IN2CARE eave tubes (ET) to protect households against malaria vectors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe following combinations with these interventions were evaluated in the experimental houses between August-October 2022: (i) Standard control house with small openings in the eaves by damaging 1/4th of the eave tube inserts, and no window screens (SCH); (ii) ITS of windows with damaged or open eaves as above (ITS op); (iii) ITS of windows\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;closed eaves with a piece of tarpaulin to prevent mosquito entry via eaves (ITS blq); (iv) ET alone without ITS (ET); (v) SET (insecticide treated eave tubes\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;untreated screening of windows (SET).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the first instance, the efficacy of these treatments on indoor and outdoor mosquito density was assessed through natural recruitment. These experiments were then complemented by release-recapture experiments in which large enclosures were built around individual houses and a known number of mosquitoes released per night to assess i) blood feeding and mortality of mosquitoes and ii) the impact of adding holes to the ITS to simulate different levels of damage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInsecticide treated materials\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEave tube inserts were treated with a wettable powder formulation of 10% β-cyfluthrin (Tempo 10 \u0026copy;, Bayer) at 300\u0026ndash;500 mg of powder per insert, already shown to be effective at killing pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. ITS was made from pieces of the roof material of PermaNet 3.0 (Vestergaard S.A., Switzerland) that contains PBO\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;deltamethrin. This product is known to be effective against the pyrethroid resistant mosquitoes in this location [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] and serves as a \u0026lsquo;proof of concept\u0026rsquo; material.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExperimental study procedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNatural mosquito recruitment into the experimental houses.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunity behaviour in the study was slightly altered as described previously [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. For example, windows were opened from 18:00 to 20:00, then closed from 20:00 to 6:00, and re-opened from 6:00 to 8:00. The front door was opened from 18:00 to midnight, closed from midnight to 5:00, and then re-opened from 5:00 to 8:00. Doors and windows remained closed during daytime when there was no activity (i.e. from 8.00 to 18.00).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn each experimental house, one volunteer adult slept in the bedroom and another in the living room, between 20:00\u0026ndash;8:00 under untreated mosquito nets. Two other volunteers were tasked to collect mosquitoes by human landing catches (HLC), one in the living room and the other outdoor on the terrace. HLCs were conducted 18:00\u0026ndash;8:00 with replacement of volunteers halfway through by a second pair of volunteers. Mosquito capturers were seated with one of the legs unprotected and collected any mosquitoes landing on that leg using haemolysis glass tubes and a torch. Supervisors were present to keep the collectors awake in each house and doors, windows closed as appropriate. Treatments were rotated every three days between the 5 experimental houses. This required 15 collection nights to complete one round of rotations. In total 2 rounds were performed, i.e. 30 collection nights, in a way that each treatment was evaluated 6 times in one house.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eRelease recapture experiment to assess blood feeding and mosquito mortality\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach house had a sleeper in the bedroom and another in the living room under untreated net. Sleepers entered houses at 20:00 and a supervisor ensured that doors and windows were opened and closed at the indicated intervals above. A total of 100 non-blood-fed, five-day-old female \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e, starved for 6 hours with access to water, were released 15 minutes after the sleepers entered their respective houses. At 05:00 the following morning, sleepers collected all mosquitoes within the house and the enclosure using torches and aspirators. The status (alive or dead, unfed or blood-fed) of the mosquitoes was recorded and survivors brought back to the laboratory then fed on a 10% sugar solution to monitor mortality after 24 hours holding. Sleepers rotated on consecutive nights whereas treatments were evaluated on 3 nights in each house before rotating to the next house. Thus, a total of 15 nights of release recapture per treatment (i.e. 1 full rotation) and an average of 1500 mosquitoes were released.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the ITS physical integrity release-recapture, the same ITS pieces were reused two months later, each deliberately holed with a 4 cm \u0026times; 4 cm opening to simulate natural physical degradation. Every eave was blocked with pieces of tarpaulin, while doors and windows were closed and opened under the same condition as above.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach treatment was evaluated over 3 nights in each house, with a total of 12 release recapture nights per treatment (i.e. 1 full rotation) and 1200 mosquitoes released on average.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData were collected using Excel software, organized by experimental hut and day of operation, and subsequently exported to STATA 18 for final analysis. The dataset was described according to treatment type, capture location, and key outcome parameters, including blood-feeding and mortality rates. Proportions and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for descriptive analysis. Linear regression was primarily used to assess the effect of treatments on the number of females captured per location, by performing pairwise comparisons between interventions. It was also employed to evaluate the impact of treatments on mortality and blood-feeding rates, with weighting applied based on the number of mosquitoes exposed, to account for differences in group sizes. This method allowed for a more accurate estimation of treatment effects while controlling for potential imbalances in data distribution. The analytical approach was applied to all possible treatment combinations to explore associations between interventions and outcome parameters.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImpact on natural mosquito recruitment to house\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ITS blq was as good at preventing entry of \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e as ET and SET and all better than the control SCH and ITS op (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). ITS op reduced by 18% entry rate to house but the magnitude was not significant (P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0893). SET had greater impact on house entry prevention than ET (27% vs 23.5%) (P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0. 0022) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The outdoor mosquito collection session indicated no significant differences between any of the insecticide treated material and the control SCH (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The peak recruitment period to houses happened between 11pm and 03am with on average between 3 to 4 \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e accessing both control SCH and ITS op houses per hour (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). ET, ITS blq and SET moderately reduced access rate to houses during these peak recruitment hours (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;24%). The best reduction derived from house with ITS blq (31.8%).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural recruitment. Density of \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e (s.l.) inside and outside each experimental house.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSCH\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eITS op\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eITS blq\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eET\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSET\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo. females caught\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1697\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1389\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1169\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1299\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1239\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo. indoor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e978 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e836 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e507 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e662 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e476 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003edeterrence (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31.8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo. outdoor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e719 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e553 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea, b, c\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e662 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea, b, c\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e637 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea, b, c\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e763 \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eSCH\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003estandard untreated Control house;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eITS op\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003einsecticide treated window screening with open eave;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eITS blq\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003einsecticide treated window screening with blocked eave;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eET\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eTreated Eave Tubes without window screening;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eSET\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003euntreated window screening and treated eave tubes.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImpact of ITS on mosquito entry, blood-feeding and mortality in release recapture experiment.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe trend for treatment impact on house entry in the release recapture experiment within the enclosure mirrored that observed with the free flying recruitment within house.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone of the treatment protected against \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e bite except SET and ITS blq which induced similar effect (35.7% vs 33.4% blood feeding inhibition: P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0. 8909) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSummary of the release-recapture experiment with the resistant strain of \u003cem\u003eAnopheles gambiae\u003c/em\u003e M'b\u0026eacute; in experimental houses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSCH\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eITS op\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eITS blq\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eET\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSET\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal recaptured\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1361\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1246\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1197\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1255\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1136\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo. within room\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e768\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e623\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e355\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e531\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e368\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo. within enclosure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e593\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e623\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e842\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e724\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e768\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBlood fed (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40.1\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.0\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.9\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.1\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.8 \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% Conf. limits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(37.50\u0026ndash;42.77)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(32.34\u0026ndash;37.71)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(23.43\u0026ndash;28.47)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(32.49\u0026ndash;37.85)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(24.20-29.43)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eblood feed inh. (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e12.7\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e35.7\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e12.5\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e33.4\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e24h mortality (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6.2\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e24.2\u003c/b\u003e \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e33.7\u003c/b\u003e \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e35.1\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e40.7\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% Conf. limits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(4.95\u0026ndash;7.58)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(21.88\u0026ndash;26.72)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(30.99\u0026ndash;36.42)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(32.41\u0026ndash;37.77)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(37.80\u0026ndash;43.59)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eSCH\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003estandard untreated Control House (with untreated eave tubes open 1/4);\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eITS_op\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eInsecticide Treated window Screening (with untreated eave tubes open 1/4);\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eET\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eTreated Eave Tubes;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eITS_blq\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eInsecticide treated window screen with blocked untreated eaves tubes;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eSET\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003euntreated window screen and treated eave tubes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll Overnight mortality rates were better than the control SCH (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and similar across ITS blq and ET (33.7% and 35.1%) (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). SET induced the highest mortality rate (40.7%) although similar to that induced by ITS blq (P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.7076) and ET (P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.9653).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEffectiveness of holed ITS blq in housing protection.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelative to control, there was a significant reduction in blood feeding up to two holes made in the intact ITS blq (47.4% inhibition rate) (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) but the effect disappeared after four holes (7.4% inhibition) (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0. 2665). Two months after the first release recapture, mortality rate with the intact ITS blq was 23.3% compared to 33.7% in the first experiment (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). There was no significant difference in mortality between two holes, four holes and the intact ITS blq.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSummary of the release-recapture experiment with the resistant strain of Anopheles gambiae from Bouake in experimental houses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUTS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eITS blq\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eITS blq 2X\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eITS blq 4X\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal recaptured\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1125\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e914\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1009\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e966\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo. within room\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e419\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e227\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e280\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e327\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo. within enclosure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e706\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e687\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e729\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e639\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBlood fed (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e32.1\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e25.9\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e17.0\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e29.9\u003c/b\u003e \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea, b\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% Conf. limits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(29.3\u0026ndash;34.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(23.11\u0026ndash;28.90)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(14.77\u0026ndash;19.51)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(27.04\u0026ndash;32.91)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBlood feed inh. (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e19.8\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e47.4\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7.4\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e24h mortality (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.2\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e23.3\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e18.23\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eb, c\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e16.46\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% Conf. limits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(2.33\u0026ndash;4.50)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(20.59\u0026ndash;26.18)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(15.89\u0026ndash;20.76)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(14.17\u0026ndash;18.95)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eUTS\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003euntreated window screening without holes;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eITS blq\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003einsecticide treated window screening without holes;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eITS blq2X\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003einsecticide treated window screening with 2 holes;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eITS blq4X\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003einsecticide treated window screening with 4\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eHouse-based interventions such as window screening, are among the oldest methods against vector-borne diseases [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. However, their impact on malaria transmission and factors affecting their effectiveness remain unclear. The aim of this study was to assess at household level within a village, the entomological impact of Insecticide-Treated screening (ITS) of windows on the behaviour of insecticide resistant \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e and how such effect compared with IN2CARE eave tubes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study demonstrated a significant reduction in indoor mosquito density within houses equipped with ITS with eaves of the house closed (ITS blq) compared to standard control house with small openings at eave level (SCH). Similar reductions were observed with houses equipped with eave tubes alone (ET) or SET (insecticide treated eave tubes\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;untreated screening of windows). In the release-recapture experiment, ITS blq, SET and ET were equally effective in reducing mosquito entry. Screening houses to prevent mosquito entry has proven effective in different settings. For example, a study in Ethiopia showed that screening doors and windows and closing eaves with mud reduced indoor \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e density by 40% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, a study in the Gambia found that screening windows and doors plus closing eaves reduced indoor density by 59% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Other studies reported higher malaria vector densities in poorly constructed houses compared to improved structures [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR22\" citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the current study, optimum protection against mosquito bites was reached after midnight when most residents had closed their doors and gone to bed. These findings under real-life condition highlight the influence of human behaviour on the effectiveness of malaria control interventions, which may differ from results obtained under controlled experimental conditions. For example, experimental hut trials evaluating product efficacy often do not account for human behaviour, such as residents staying awake late at night with doors or windows open during dry and hot seasons [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Further research is needed to assess the impact of opened and closed doors/windows at different time points from the evening on the effectiveness of vector control tools.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to reducing indoor densities of \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e, ITS of windows also impacted mosquito mortality and blood-feeding rates against pyrethroid-resistant populations. Results from the second experiment showed higher mosquito mortality in all ITS-treated houses relative to control. Only ITS blq and SET reduced in similar proportion blood-feeding rates of \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e. The efficacy of SET in decreasing blood-feeding rates and increasing mosquito mortality has been previously reported in malaria vectors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Interestingly, ITS blq was as effective as SET in preventing mosquito blood feeding while maintaining insecticidal effects. Similar findings were reported in Mexico, where ITS installation reduced \u003cem\u003eAedes aegypti\u003c/em\u003e blood-feeding rates, even a year later [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Randomized controlled trials also showed ITS to reduce prevalence of anemia in children, suggesting its impact on mosquito blood feeding and mortality in affected regions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. With potential for preventive measure, ITS of windows with long lasting product and material may provide long-term benefits to households, as it is less invasive and easy to implement strategy compared to eave tubes which involves drilling of homes in addition to maintenance. High levels of satisfaction and acceptance of ITS as a protective method against mosquito bites have been observed in Mexico [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. However, operational challenges, such as the long-term physical degradation of the material in ITS as well as resistance of Active Ingredients (AIs) in ITS to UV light may affect its durability in the field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe intensive use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) in field conditions has often been associated with a decline in their long-term effectiveness. In this study, the top surface of a new generation LLIN (PermaNet 3.0 LN) was used as screening material in the ITS. Important to note is that the aim was to provide a proof of concept and not to advocate for repurposing LLINs in this way. Hopefully the encouraging results provide motivation for further product development research to develop a robust screening material with appropriate, easy to use fitting and fastening. A related study demonstrated that PermaNet 3.0 LN used in EaveTubes achieved over 50% mortality in pyrethroid-resistant \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e, reinforcing the potential of LLIN-derived materials in lethal house lure strategies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. However, their study also highlighted rapid loss of efficacy under environmental exposure, and our own findings showed that holes in the screening material significantly compromised its protective effect. These insights suggest that future ITS development should prioritize purpose-designed, weather-resistant materials with sustained insecticidal activity and improved physical durability. Considering that SET demonstrated significant epidemiological impact in similar area of insecticide resistance in \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e, if we scaled up ITS then we would expect similar epi impact. Also, need to stress that the economic analysis showed SET to cost over \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e200 per house. Although acknowledging the current study was proof of concept, the pieces of LLIN material we used here cost less then \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e3 (or some such). We anticipate that even if this was a more bespoke product, perhaps with simple fastening mechanisms such as heavy duty Velcro or staples, it ought to be possible to do this for a fraction of the cost and hassle of SET. Further large-scale studies incorporating environmental variables would then be warranted to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of insecticide-treated window screening in combination with existing vector control tools, such as LLINs, to optimize malaria prevention strategies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study underscores the potential of innovative strategies, such as insecticide-treated screening (ITS), to enhance malaria vector control in Africa. ITS has shown promise as an effective tool for reducing mosquito entry and blood feeding while simultaneously killing mosquitoes that manage to enter households. However, operational challenges, such as physical and insecticidal degradation in the screen and variation in household behaviour, could compromise its long-term effectiveness. Studies comparing product efficacy under real life conditions in controlled houses with human behaviour involvement and in experimental huts must be conducted to assess differences in impact on mosquito mortality and blood feeding, key indicators for malaria transmission.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eAIs\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eActive Ingredients\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eLLINs\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLong Last Insecticide Nets\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIRS\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndoor Residual Spraying\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eITNs\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndoor Residual Spraying (IRS) and Insecticide-Treated Nets\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eITS\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInsecticide Treated Screening\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eITS op\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eITS of windows with small openings in the eaves\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eITS blq\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eITS of windows with eaves blocked to prevent mosquito entry via eaves\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eET\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInsecticide treatment applied to the eaves using In2Care eave tubes, without window screening\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSCH\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandard control house with small openings in the eaves and no window screens\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSET\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUntreated window screening together with insecticide treated eave tubes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe thank the community members of Kolongonouan village for their cooperation and participation in the study. We are grateful to the technical team at VCPEC/IPR for their assistance in fieldwork and logistics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eFunding\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Vector Control Product Evaluation Centre/Institut Pierre Richet, Bouak\u0026eacute;, Cote d\u0026rsquo;Ivoire.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMBT, RN, MGZ, AB conceived the study and designed the experiments. MGZ, AB, AAK and LPA coordinated fieldwork and data collection. MGZ, SC, NB and SYK conducted the entomological experiments. MGZ, AB and ED analyzed the data. MGZ drafted the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;RN, MBT, AB critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from all field volunteer workers following a detailed explanation of the study objectives and procedures. Field workers received financial compensation for their participation and were administered a yellow fever vaccine as a preventive measure. Additionally, they were provided with free medical treatment for any malaria cases occurring during the study period. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health of C\u0026ocirc;te d\u0026rsquo;Ivoire.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eAuthor details\u0026nbsp;\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eCentre d\u0026rsquo;Entomologie M\u0026eacute;dicale et V\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute;rinaire, Universit\u0026eacute; Alassane Ouattara (CEMV-UAO), Bouak\u0026eacute;, C\u0026ocirc;te d\u0026rsquo;Ivoire. \u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003eVector Control Product Evaluation Centre (VCPEC-IPR/INSP), Bouak\u0026eacute;, C\u0026ocirc;te d\u0026rsquo;Ivoire. \u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003eInstitut Pierre Richet (IPR)/Institut National de Sant\u0026eacute; Publique (INSP), Bouak\u0026eacute;, C\u0026ocirc;te d\u0026apos;Ivoire. \u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003eCirad, UMR INTERTRYP, Nairobi, Kenya 2. \u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003eINTERTRYP, Univ Montpellier, Cirad, IRD, Montpellier, France.\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003eAnimal Health Theme, ICIPE, Nairobi, Kenya. \u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003eDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, United States. \u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003eDepartment of Biology, University of York, United Kingdom. \u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003eLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld malaria report 2020 20 years of global progress and challenges. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015791\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015791\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 3 Aug 2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRanson H, Lissenden N. Insecticide Resistance in African Anopheles Mosquitoes: A Worsening Situation that Needs Urgent Action to Maintain Malaria Control. Trends Parasitol. 2016;32:187\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindsay SW, Snow RW. The trouble with eaves; house entry by vectors of malaria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1988;82:645\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKnols BGJ, Farenhorst M, Andriessen R, Snetselaar J, Suer RA, Osinga AJ, et al. Eave tubes for malaria control in Africa: an introduction. Malar J. 2016;15:404.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSternberg ED, Ng\u0026rsquo;habi KR, Lyimo IN, Kessy ST, Farenhorst M, Thomas MB, et al. Eave tubes for malaria control in Africa: initial development and semi-field evaluations in Tanzania. Malar J. 2016;15:447.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSternberg ED, Cook J, Ahoua Alou LP, Aoura CJ, Assi SB, Doudou DT, et al. Evaluating the impact of screening plus eave tubes on malaria transmission compared to current best practice in central C\u0026ocirc;te d\u0026rsquo;Ivoire: a two armed cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:894.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndriessen R, Snetselaar J, Suer RA, Osinga AJ, Deschietere J, Lyimo IN, et al. Electrostatic coating enhances bioavailability of insecticides and breaks pyrethroid resistance in mosquitoes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:12081\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKilleen GF, Masalu JP, Chinula D, Fotakis EA, Kavishe DR, Malone D, et al. Control of Malaria Vector Mosquitoes by Insecticide-Treated Combinations of Window Screens and Eave Baffles. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23:782\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOxborough RM, Kitau J, Mosha FW, Rowland MW. Modified veranda-trap hut for improved evaluation of vector control interventions. Med Vet Entomol. 2015;29:371\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirby MJ, Ameh D, Bottomley C, Green C, Jawara M, Milligan PJ, et al. Effect of two different house screening interventions on exposure to malaria vectors and on anaemia in children in The Gambia: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2009;374:998\u0026ndash;1009.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindsay SW, Emerson PM, Charlwood JD. Reducing malaria by mosquito-proofing houses. Trends Parasitol. 2002;18:510\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSternberg ED, Cook J, Alou LPA, Assi SB, Koffi AA, Doudou DT, et al. Impact and cost-effectiveness of a lethal house lure against malaria transmission in central C\u0026ocirc;te d\u0026rsquo;Ivoire: a two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2021;397:805\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChe-Mendoza A, Medina-Barreiro A, Koyoc-Carde\u0026ntilde;a E, Uc-Puc V, Contreras-Perera Y, Herrera-Boj\u0026oacute;rquez J, et al. House screening with insecticide-treated netting provides sustained reductions in domestic populations of Aedes aegypti in Merida, Mexico. Apperson C, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12:e0006283.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarreaux AMG, Oumbouke WA, Brou N, Tia IZ, Ahoua Alou LP, Doudou DT, et al. The role of human and mosquito behaviour in the efficacy of a house-based intervention. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2021;376:20190815.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOumbouke WA, Pignatelli P, Barreaux AMG, Tia IZ, Koffi AA, Ahoua Alou LP, et al. Fine scale spatial investigation of multiple insecticide resistance and underlying target-site and metabolic mechanisms in Anopheles gambiae in central C\u0026ocirc;te d\u0026rsquo;Ivoire. Sci Rep. 2020;10:15066.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOumbouke WA, Tia IZ, Barreaux AMG, Koffi AA, Sternberg ED, Thomas MB, et al. Screening and field performance of powder-formulated insecticides on eave tube inserts against pyrethroid resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l.: an investigation into \u0026lsquo;actives\u0026rsquo; prior to a randomized controlled trial in C\u0026ocirc;te d\u0026rsquo;Ivoire. Malar J. 2018;17:374.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarreaux AMG, Brou N, Koffi AA, N\u0026rsquo;Guessan R, Oumbouke WA, Tia IZ, et al. Semi-field studies to better understand the impact of eave tubes on mosquito mortality and behaviour. Malar J. 2018;17:306.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKweka EJ, Lyaruu LJ, Mahande AM. Efficacy of PermaNet\u0026reg; 3.0 and PermaNet\u0026reg; 2.0 nets against laboratory-reared and wild Anopheles gambiae sensu lato populations in northern Tanzania. Infect Dis Poverty. 2017; doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s40249-016-0220-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40249-016-0220-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFurnival-Adams J, Olanga EA, Napier M, Garner P. House modifications for preventing malaria. Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/14651858.CD013398\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/14651858.CD013398\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMassebo F, Lindtj\u0026oslash;rn B. The effect of screening doors and windows on indoor density of Anopheles arabiensis in south-west Ethiopia: a randomized trial. Malar J. 2013;12:319.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGetawen SK, Ashine T, Massebo F, Woldeyes D, Lindtj\u0026oslash;rn B. Exploring the impact of house screening intervention on entomological indices and incidence of malaria in Arba Minch town, southwest Ethiopia: A randomized control trial. Acta Trop. 2018;181:84\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTusting LS, Bottomley C, Gibson H, Kleinschmidt I, Tatem AJ, Lindsay SW, et al. Housing Improvements and Malaria Risk in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Multi-Country Analysis of Survey Data. von Seidlein L, editor. PLOS Med. 2017;14:e1002234.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnimut A, Balkew M, Lindtj\u0026oslash;rn B. Impact of housing condition on indoor-biting and indoor-resting Anopheles arabiensis density in a highland area, central Ethiopia. Malar J. 2013;12:393.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManrique-Saide P, Herrera-Boj\u0026oacute;rquez J, Medina-Barreiro A, Trujillo-Pe\u0026ntilde;a E, Villegas-Chim J, Valadez-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez N, et al. Insecticide-treated house screening protects against Zika-infected \u003cem\u003eAedes aegypti\u003c/em\u003e in Merida, Mexico. Kittayapong P, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15:e0009005.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKua KP, Lee SWH. Randomized trials of housing interventions to prevent malaria and Aedes-transmitted diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Von Seidlein L, editor. PLOS ONE. 2021;16:e0244284.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOumbouke WA, Barreaux AMG, Zran IT, Koffi AA, N\u0026rsquo;Guessan Y, Alou LPA, et al. Exploring alternative insecticide delivery options in a \u0026ldquo;lethal house lure\u0026rdquo; for malaria vector control. 2023; doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1038/s41598-023-31116-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-023-31116-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"parasites-and-vectors","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"parv","sideBox":"Learn more about [Parasites \u0026 Vectors](http://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13071","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13071/3","title":"Parasites \u0026 Vectors","twitterHandle":"@bugbittentweets","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Vector control, house modification, screening, Anopheles gambiae, malaria","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7319100/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7319100/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the significant impact of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) on malaria, 597,000 deaths from malaria were still recorded in 2023. Additional measures are clearly needed to complement current tools. This study assessed the efficacy of various household modifications comprising different combinations of insecticide treated and untreated screening on the eaves and windows, to protect households against malaria vectors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethod\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe following interventions were evaluated in experimental houses in the village of Kolongonouan, within central Cote d\u0026rsquo;Ivoire: \u003cem\u003e(i)\u003c/em\u003e Standard control house with small openings in the eaves and no window screens (SCH); (\u003cem\u003eii)\u003c/em\u003e Insecticide Treated Screening \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e(ITS)\u003c/span\u003e of windows with small openings in the eaves (ITS op); \u003cem\u003e(iii)\u003c/em\u003e ITS of windows with eaves blocked to prevent mosquito entry via eaves (ITS blq); (i\u003cem\u003ev)\u003c/em\u003e Insecticide treatment applied to the eaves using In2Care eave tubes, without window screening (ET); (\u003cem\u003ev)\u003c/em\u003e Untreated window screening together with insecticide treated eave tubes (SET). The efficacy of these treatments on indoor and outdoor density of naturally recruiting \u003cem\u003eAnopheles gambiae\u003c/em\u003e mosquitoes was assessed using human landing catches. These impact of these treatments on mortality and blood feeding rate was further assessed using release-recapture experiments in which large enclosures were built around individual houses and a known number of mosquitoes released per night. In addition, for the ITS blq treatment, the importance of physical integrity was assessed by evaluating the effect of damaging the screening with two or four 4x4cm holes in each screened window.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdding treated window screening and blocking eaves (ITS blq) reduced the number of naturally recruiting \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e entering houses overnight by 31.8% relative to standard control houses (SCH). The use of untreated screening\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;eave tubes (SET) produced a significantly similar reduction (27.0%). Eave tubes alone (ET) reduced indoor populations by 23.5% (significantly less impact than ITS blq or SET, but still a significant reduction relative to controls), while insecticide treated window screening with open eaves (ITS op) resulted in a marginally non-significant reduction of 18.1%. There was no significant difference in house entry between ET and ITS blq or ITS op. Maximum capture rates occurred between 11pm and 3am. There were no significant impacts of the treatments on the numbers of mosquitoes captured adjacent to the houses outdoors. In the release-recapture experiments, all treatments significantly reduced blood feeding rate and increased 24h mortality of \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e, with again similar impact for ITS blq and SET. Damaging the ITS with two holes still led to a significant reduction in blood feeding rate, but with more extensive damage of four holes, the protective effect was lost. Mortality rate also declined with increasing levels of damage, although remained significantly higher relative to untreated window screening.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrated that adding insecticide treated screening to windows and blocking access points in the eaves reduced mosquito entry, mortality and blood-feeding rate at household level to similar levels as insecticide treated eaves tubes combined with untreated window screening (SET). A previous cluster randomised controlled trial in this location demonstrated a significant reduction in malaria incidence and prevalence when SET was implemented at village scale. Insecticide-treated window screens could, therefore, yield similar epidemiological impact, while potentially being simpler and less expensive to implement. Larger-scale epidemiogical trials involving communities are needed to test this assumption and further optimize the approach.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Insecticide-Treated Screening (ITS) of windows for household protection against insecticide resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l.: a semi-field trial at Kolongonouan village, central Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-21 14:06:14","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7319100/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-09-16T12:58:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-15T15:09:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-08T05:39:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"39733753249895164263232065520677722655","date":"2025-09-01T06:21:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"140929015805147187108168246335770872995","date":"2025-08-15T01:36:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-14T00:01:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-08T15:05:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-08T14:24:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Parasites \u0026 Vectors","date":"2025-08-07T12:58:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"parasites-and-vectors","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"parv","sideBox":"Learn more about [Parasites \u0026 Vectors](http://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13071","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13071/3","title":"Parasites \u0026 Vectors","twitterHandle":"@bugbittentweets","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"31c84e78-f6b4-453b-8840-2c7830177cdd","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 21st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-05T15:59:14+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7319100","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-025-07194-z","journal":{"identity":"parasites-and-vectors","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Parasites \u0026 Vectors"},"publishedOn":"2025-12-30 15:57:06","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 30th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-21 14:06:14","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s13071-025-07194-z","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-025-07194-z","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7319100","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7319100","identity":"rs-7319100","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}