Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of the intervention effects (IRR (95% CIs)) on Culicidae and Culicoides at the household level and at the three trap positions (house, dog and chicken) compared to control (placebo)

From: Significant reduction in abundance of peridomestic mosquitoes (Culicidae) and Culicoides midges (Ceratopogonidae) after chemical intervention in western São Paulo, Brazil

  Variable   Trap position
   Household Total House Dog Chicken
Culicidae Arm PI 0.54 (0.30–0.97)* 0.39 (0.20–0.74)* 0.88 (0.42–1.85) 0.52 (0.25–1.07)¥
DC 0.94 (0.55–1.59) 1.19 (0.60–2.33) 0.81 (0.43–1.5) 0.86 (0.42–1.79)
Round 15 0.67 (0.38–1.15) 0.74 (0.37–1.49) 0.39 (0.2–0.78)* 0.74 (0.35–1.56)
16 2.67 (1.4–5.09)* 2.47 (1.05–5.78)* 1.21 (0.54–2.69) 4.88 (2.2–10.84)***
17 2.22 (0.91–5.41)¥ 2.38 (0.85–6.64)¥ 1.10 (0.51–2.41) 3.68 (1.24–10.93)*
Host H 1.0 (0.90–1.12) 0.96 (0.84–1.11) 1.02 (0.93–1.12) 1.03 (0.92–1.16)
D 0.98 (0.89–1.08) 1.05 (0.93–1.2) 0.94 (0.85–1.04) 0.98 (0.86–1.11)
C 1.01 (1–1.02)¥ 1.01 (0.99–1.02) 1.01 (0.99–1.03) 1.01 (0.99–1.02)
Culicoides Arm PI 0.47 (0.26–0.85)* 0.54 (0.2–1.47) 0.64 (0.33–1.24) 0.48 (0.27–0.84)*
DC 0.74 (0.40–1.37) 0.94 (0.27–3.32) 1.29 (0.72–2.3) 0.78 (0.43–1.4)
Round 15 3.15 (1.8–5.51)*** 2.04 (0.49–8.59) 3.40 (1.72–6.75)*** 3.48 (1.48–8.19)*
16 31.6 (19.4–51.6)*** 4.16 (1.02–17.02)* 42.37 (21.56–83.23)*** 37.8 (20.2–70.4)***
17 13.32 (6.9–25.3)*** 1.59 (0.38–6.64) 20.18 (9.06–44.92)*** 15.6 (7.39–32.9)***
Host H 0.95 (0.86–1.05) 0.88 (0.78–0.98)* 1.02 (0.94–1.1) 0.94 (0.83–1.06)
D 1.13 (1.03–1.25)* 0.97 (0.83–1.13) 1.07 (0.97–1.18) 1.16 (1.04–1.29)*
C 1.01 (1.0–1.02)* 1.01 (1.0–1.02)* 1.01 (1.0–1.03)¥ 1.01 (1.0–1.02)*
  1. Abbreviations: Arm, treatment arm; PI, pheromone + lambda-cyhalothrin insecticide; DC, deltamethrin dog-collar. Hosts; H = human, D = dog, C = chicken. Categorical variables (control arm and round 14) were used as references for the comparisons. ¥P ≤ 0.1, *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001. Intervention effects were estimated from negative binomial regression outcome of total capture rates (females + males) for each Dipteran group. This analysis takes into account the effect of a priori predictors, factor change in capture rate [IRR (95% CIs)] and clustering on municipality