Impact of different mosquito collection methods on indicators of Anopheles malaria vectors in Uganda

Abstract Background: Methods used to sample mosquitoes are important to consider when estimating entomologic metrics. Human landing catches (HLCs) are considered the gold standard for collecting malaria vectors. However, HLCs are labor intensive, can expose collectors to transmission risk, and are difficult to implement at scale. This study compared alternative methods to HLCs for collecting Anopheles mosquitoes in eastern Uganda. Methods: Between June and November 2021, mosquitoes were collected from randomly selected households in three parishes in Tororo and Busia districts. Mosquitoes were collected indoors and outdoors using HLCs in 16 households every 4 weeks. Additional collections were done indoors with prokopack aspirators, and outdoors with pit traps, in these 16 households every 2 weeks. CDC light trap collections were done indoors in 80 households every 4 weeks. Female Anopheles mosquitoes were identified morphologically and An. gambiae s.l. were speciated using PCR. Plasmodium falciparumsporozoite testing was done with ELISA. Results: Overall, 4,891 female Anopheles were collected, including 3,318 indoors and 1,573 outdoors. Compared to indoor HLCs, vector density (mosquitoes per unit collection) was lower using CDC light traps (4.24 vs 2.96, density ratio [DR] 0.70, 95% CIs 0.63 – 0.77, p<0.001) and prokopacks (4.24 vs 1.82, DR 0.43, 95% CIs 0.37 – 0.49, p<0.001). Sporozoite rates were similar between indoor methods, although precision was limited. Compared to outdoor HLCs, vector density was higher using pit trap collections (3.53 vs 6.43, DR 1.82, 95% CIs 1.61 – 2.05, p<0.001), while the sporozoite rate was lower (0.018 vs 0.004, rate ratio [RR] 0.23, 95% CIs 0.07 – 0.75, p=0.008). The main differences between collection methods were: (1) An. funestus were over-represented in the prokopack collections (75.0%) compared to the indoor HLCs (25.8%), and (2) An. arabiensis were over-represented in the pit trap collections (84.3%) compared to the outdoor HLCs (36.9%). Conclusion: In this setting, CDC light traps and prokopack aspirators are alternative methods for sampling mosquitoes indoors, each with advantages, but prokopacks may not provide an accurate sampling of mosquitoes responsible for malaria transmission. Pit traps could be a useful alternative for sampling outdoor resting mosquitoes, but accuracy of measures of transmission intensity may be limited.