{"doi":"10.64898/2026.02.19.26346635","title":"Efficacy of Mosquito Shield\n                  <sup>TM</sup>\n                  , a transfluthrin spatial emanator against wild, free-flying pyrethroid-resistant\n                  <i>Anopheles gambiae</i>\n                  s.l.; an experimental hut evaluation in Benin, West Africa","abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>\n                <jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Background</jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    Spatial emanators disrupt mosquito behaviour by inducing movement away from chemical stimuli and interfering with host detection and feeding. These tools were recently endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for malaria control, based largely on clinical evidence from East Africa. Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    is a passive, transfluthrin-based emanator designed to provide month-long protection in enclosed or semi-enclosed spaces. This study evaluated its entomological efficacy under experimental hut conditions in Benin, West Africa to generate evidence in support of WHO prequalification.\n                  </jats:p>\n                </jats:sec>\n                <jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Methods</jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    An experimental hut trial was conducted against wild free-flying pyrethroid-resistant\n                    <jats:italic>Anopheles gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. at the Covè field station in southern Benin over two 32-day product life cycles of Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    . Sixteen West African–style experimental huts were assigned to Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    or a placebo control. Efficacy was measured using human landing catches (HLC) and mosquito aspirations following standard hut testing methods. Primary endpoints included protective efficacy against mosquito landing (HLC) and personal protection against blood-feeding (mosquito aspiration). Secondary endpoints included deterrence, exophily, mortality, and blood-feeding inhibition. WHO susceptibility bioassays were conducted on the local\n                    <jats:italic>An gambiae s.l.</jats:italic>\n                    population to investigate susceptibility to public health insecticides during the trial.\n                  </jats:p>\n                </jats:sec>\n                <jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Results</jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    WHO susceptibility bioassays confirmed high levels of resistance to pyrethroids, including transfluthrin, in the local\n                    <jats:italic>Anopheles gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. population. A total of 5,682\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. and 6,158\n                    <jats:italic>Mansonia africana</jats:italic>\n                    were collected through HLCs, and 1,436\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. by mosquito aspirations. Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    significantly reduced mosquito landing, providing 43.0% protective efficacy (95% CI: 24.0–57.0;\n                    <jats:italic>p</jats:italic>\n                    &lt; 0.001) against\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. and 38.0% protective efficacy (95% CI: 12.0–57.0;\n                    <jats:italic>p</jats:italic>\n                    = 0.008) against\n                    <jats:italic>Mansonia africana</jats:italic>\n                    . Mosquito aspiration data showed 48.5% deterrence, 29.9% blood-feeding inhibition, and 64% personal protection (95% CI: 21.9–81.8;\n                    <jats:italic>p</jats:italic>\n                    &lt; 0.001) against\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. No mosquito mortality was observed in the control huts, whereas mortality of\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. reached 49.0% in HLC collections and 22.7% in aspiration collections. Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    also induced &gt;96% mortality in\n                    <jats:italic>Mansonia africana</jats:italic>\n                    , demonstrating both lethal and behavioural effects against both vector species.\n                  </jats:p>\n                </jats:sec>\n                <jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    significantly reduced mosquito entry, landing, blood-feeding, and survival of pyrethroid-resistant\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. under semi-field experimental hut conditions in West Africa, with additional effects against\n                    <jats:italic>Mansonia africana</jats:italic>\n                    . These results support its WHO prequalification and highlight its potential as a complementary vector control tool to strengthen malaria prevention and provide additional benefits for integrated control of other vector-borne diseases.\n                  </jats:p>\n                </jats:sec>","journal":null,"year":null,"id":614978,"datarank":0.10397207708399181,"base_score":0.6931471805599453,"endowment":0.6931471805599453,"self_citation_contribution":0.10397207708399181,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.10397207708399181,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":1,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":2,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":null,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":false,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":null,"fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":1584877,"name":"Thomas Syme","orcid":null,"position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1584878,"name":"Juniace Ahoga","orcid":null,"position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1584879,"name":"Benjamin Pearce","orcid":null,"position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1584880,"name":"Ange Yadouleton","orcid":null,"position":4,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1584881,"name":"Melis Yamadjako","orcid":null,"position":5,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":986631,"name":"Corine Ngufor","orcid":"0000-0002-7755-9609","position":6,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1584876,"name":"Boris N’dombidjé","orcid":null,"position":0,"is_corresponding":false}],"reference_count":0,"raw_metadata":{"has_enrichment":true,"resolved":true,"title":"Efficacy of Mosquito Shield\n                  <sup>TM</sup>\n                  , a transfluthrin spatial emanator against wild, free-flying pyrethroid-resistant\n                  <i>Anopheles gambiae</i>\n                  s.l.; an experimental hut evaluation in Benin, West Africa","abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>\n                <jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Background</jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    Spatial emanators disrupt mosquito behaviour by inducing movement away from chemical stimuli and interfering with host detection and feeding. These tools were recently endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for malaria control, based largely on clinical evidence from East Africa. Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    is a passive, transfluthrin-based emanator designed to provide month-long protection in enclosed or semi-enclosed spaces. This study evaluated its entomological efficacy under experimental hut conditions in Benin, West Africa to generate evidence in support of WHO prequalification.\n                  </jats:p>\n                </jats:sec>\n                <jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Methods</jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    An experimental hut trial was conducted against wild free-flying pyrethroid-resistant\n                    <jats:italic>Anopheles gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. at the Covè field station in southern Benin over two 32-day product life cycles of Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    . Sixteen West African–style experimental huts were assigned to Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    or a placebo control. Efficacy was measured using human landing catches (HLC) and mosquito aspirations following standard hut testing methods. Primary endpoints included protective efficacy against mosquito landing (HLC) and personal protection against blood-feeding (mosquito aspiration). Secondary endpoints included deterrence, exophily, mortality, and blood-feeding inhibition. WHO susceptibility bioassays were conducted on the local\n                    <jats:italic>An gambiae s.l.</jats:italic>\n                    population to investigate susceptibility to public health insecticides during the trial.\n                  </jats:p>\n                </jats:sec>\n                <jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Results</jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    WHO susceptibility bioassays confirmed high levels of resistance to pyrethroids, including transfluthrin, in the local\n                    <jats:italic>Anopheles gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. population. A total of 5,682\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. and 6,158\n                    <jats:italic>Mansonia africana</jats:italic>\n                    were collected through HLCs, and 1,436\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. by mosquito aspirations. Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    significantly reduced mosquito landing, providing 43.0% protective efficacy (95% CI: 24.0–57.0;\n                    <jats:italic>p</jats:italic>\n                    &lt; 0.001) against\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. and 38.0% protective efficacy (95% CI: 12.0–57.0;\n                    <jats:italic>p</jats:italic>\n                    = 0.008) against\n                    <jats:italic>Mansonia africana</jats:italic>\n                    . Mosquito aspiration data showed 48.5% deterrence, 29.9% blood-feeding inhibition, and 64% personal protection (95% CI: 21.9–81.8;\n                    <jats:italic>p</jats:italic>\n                    &lt; 0.001) against\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. No mosquito mortality was observed in the control huts, whereas mortality of\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. reached 49.0% in HLC collections and 22.7% in aspiration collections. Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    also induced &gt;96% mortality in\n                    <jats:italic>Mansonia africana</jats:italic>\n                    , demonstrating both lethal and behavioural effects against both vector species.\n                  </jats:p>\n                </jats:sec>\n                <jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    Mosquito Shield\n                    <jats:sup>TM</jats:sup>\n                    significantly reduced mosquito entry, landing, blood-feeding, and survival of pyrethroid-resistant\n                    <jats:italic>An. gambiae</jats:italic>\n                    s.l. under semi-field experimental hut conditions in West Africa, with additional effects against\n                    <jats:italic>Mansonia africana</jats:italic>\n                    . These results support its WHO prequalification and highlight its potential as a complementary vector control tool to strengthen malaria prevention and provide additional benefits for integrated control of other vector-borne diseases.\n                  </jats:p>\n                </jats:sec>","is_dataset_classified":null,"base_score":0.6931471805599453,"endowment":0.6931471805599453,"datacite_reuse_total":2,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"views":0,"has_version_chain":false,"is_dataset":false,"is_oa":false,"pmid":"21097893","pmcid":null,"openalex_id":"https://openalex.org/W7130927562","authors":[],"funders":[],"total_grants":0,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"citation_trend":[{"year":2026,"count":1}],"oa_status":"green","license":"cc-by","oa_locations":[{"url":"https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2026/02/22/2026.02.19.26346635.full.pdf","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2026/02/22/2026.02.19.26346635.full.pdf","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://syndication.highwire.org/content/doi/10.64898/2026.02.19.26346635","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.02.19.26346635","host_type":"repository"}],"fields_of_study":["Malaria Research and Control","Mosquito-borne diseases and control","Insect Pest Control Strategies"],"mesh_terms":[],"keywords":["Anopheles gambiae","Malaria","Mosquito control","Population","Shield","Insecticide resistance","Field trial"],"sdg_mappings":[{"sdg_number":0,"sdg_label":"Responsible consumption and production"}],"linked_datasets":[{"doi":"10.5281/zenodo.19580934","title":"PREreview of \"Efficacy of Mosquito Shield TM , a transfluthrin spatial emanator against wild, free-flying pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l.; an experimental hut evaluation in Benin, West Africa\"","publisher":"Zenodo","resource_type":"PeerReview"},{"doi":"10.5281/zenodo.19580933","title":"PREreview of \"Efficacy of Mosquito Shield TM , a transfluthrin spatial emanator against wild, free-flying pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae s.l.; an experimental hut evaluation in Benin, West Africa\"","publisher":"Zenodo","resource_type":"PeerReview"}],"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"database_accessions":[],"source":"live","citation_network_status":"fetched"},"created_at":"2026-08-02T18:21:04.290383Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}