Dataset Information

Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Although a vaccine could be available as early as 2016, vector control remains the primary approach used to prevent dengue, the most common and widespread arbovirus of humans worldwide. We reviewed the evidence for effectiveness of vector control methods in reducing its transmission. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Studies of any design published since 1980 were included if they evaluated method(s) targeting Aedes aegypti or Ae. albopictus for at least 3 months. Primary outcome was dengue incidence. Following Cochrane and PRISMA Group guidelines, database searches yielded 960 reports, and 41 were eligible for inclusion, with 19 providing data for meta-analysis. Study duration ranged from 5 months to 10 years. Studies evaluating multiple tools/approaches (23 records) were more common than single methods, while environmental management was the most common method (19 studies). Only 9/41 reports were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two out of 19 studies evaluating dengue incidence were RCTs, and neither reported any statistically significant impact. No RCTs evaluated effectiveness of insecticide space-spraying (fogging) against dengue. Based on meta-analyses, house screening significantly reduced dengue risk, OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.05-0.93, p = 0.04), as did combining community-based environmental management and water container covers, OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.15-0.32, p<0.0001). Indoor residual spraying (IRS) did not impact significantly on infection risk (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.22-2.11; p = 0.50). Skin repellents, insecticide-treated bed nets or traps had no effect (p>0.5), but insecticide aerosols (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.44-2.86) and mosquito coils (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.09-1.91) were associated with higher dengue risk (p = 0.01). Although 23/41 studies examined the impact of insecticide-based tools, only 9 evaluated the insecticide susceptibility status of the target vector population during the study. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:This review and meta-analysis demonstrate the remarkable paucity of reliable evidence for the effectiveness of any dengue vector control method. Standardised studies of higher quality to evaluate and compare methods must be prioritised to optimise cost-effective dengue prevention.

SUBMITTER: Bowman LR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4795802 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Bowman Leigh R LR Donegan Sarah S McCall Philip J PJ

PLoS neglected tropical diseases 20160317 3

<h4>Background</h4>Although a vaccine could be available as early as 2016, vector control remains the primary approach used to prevent dengue, the most common and widespread arbovirus of humans worldwide. We reviewed the evidence for effectiveness of vector control methods in reducing its transmission.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>Studies of any design published since 1980 were included if they evaluated method(s) targeting Aedes aegypti or Ae. albopictus for at least 3 months. Primary ...[more]

PMID: 26986468

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVector control remains the primary method to prevent dengue infections. Environmental interventions represent sustainable and safe methods as there are limited risks of environmental contamination and toxicity. The objective of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the following environmental methods for dengue vector control.Methodology/principal findingsFollowing the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Quality assessment was done using the CONSORT 2010 checklist. For the meta-analysis the difference-in-differences (DID) and the difference-of-endlines (DOE) were calculated according to the Schmidt-Hunter method for the Breteau index (BI) and the pupae per person index (PPI). Nineteen studies were eligible for the systematic review, sixteen contributed data to the meta-analysis. The following methods were evaluated: (a) container covers with and without insecticides, (b) waste management and clean-up campaigns, and (c) elimination of breeding sites by rendering potential mosquito breeding sites unusable or by eliminating them. Study quality was highest for container covers with insecticides, followed by waste management without direct garbage collection and elimination of breeding places. Both, systematic review and meta-analysis, showed a weak effect of the interventions on larval populations, with no obvious differences between the results of each individual method. For the meta-analysis, both, container covers without insecticides (BI: DID -7.9, DOE -5) and waste management with direct garbage collection (BI: DID -8.83, DOE -6.2) achieved the strongest reductions for the BI, whereas for the PPI results were almost opposite, with container covers with insecticides (PPI: DID -0.83, DOE 0.09) and elimination of breeding places (PPI: DID -0.95, DOE -0.83) showing the strongest effects.ConclusionsEach of the investigated environmental methods showed some effectiveness in reducing larval and pupal densities of Aedes sp. mosquitoes. However, there is a need for more comparable high-quality studies at an adequate standard to strengthen this evidence.

Project description:The application of the organophosphate larvicide temephos to water storage containers is one of the most commonly employed dengue vector control methods. This systematic literature review is to the knowledge of the authors the first that aims to assess the community-effectiveness of temephos in controlling both vectors and dengue transmission when delivered either as a single intervention or in combination with other interventions. A comprehensive literature search of 6 databases was performed (PubMed, WHOLIS, GIFT, CDSR, EMBASE, Wiley), grey literature and cross references were also screened for relevant studies. Data were extracted and methodological quality of the studies was assessed independently by two reviewers. 27 studies were included in this systematic review (11 single intervention studies and 16 combined intervention studies). All 11 single intervention studies showed consistently that using temephos led to a reduction in entomological indices. Although 11 of the 16 combined intervention studies showed that temephos application together with other chemical vector control methods also reduced entomological indices, this was either not sustained over time or-as in the five remaining studies--failed to reduce the immature stages. The community-effectiveness of temephos was found to be dependent on factors such as quality of delivery, water turnover rate, type of water, and environmental factors such as organic debris, temperature and exposure to sunlight. Timing of temephos deployment and its need for reapplication, along with behavioural factors such as the reluctance of its application to drinking water, and operational aspects such as cost, supplies, time and labour were further limitations identified in this review. In conclusion, when applied as a single intervention, temephos was found to be effective at suppressing entomological indices, however, the same effect has not been observed when temephos was applied in combination with other interventions. There is no evidence to suggest that temephos use is associated with reductions in dengue transmission.

Project description:BackgroundVector control is the only widely utilised method for primary prevention and control of dengue. The use of pyriproxyfen may be promising, and autodissemination approach may reach hard to reach breeding places. It offers a unique mode of action (juvenile hormone mimic) and as an additional tool for the management of insecticide resistance among Aedes vectors. However, evidence of efficacy and community effectiveness (CE) remains limited.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to compile and analyse the existing literature for evidence on the CE of pyriproxyfen as a vector control method for reducing Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus populations and thereby human dengue transmission.MethodsSystematic search of PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane library, WHOLIS, Web of Science, Google Scholar as well as reference lists of all identified studies. Removal of duplicates, screening of abstracts and assessment for eligibility of the remaining studies followed. Relevant data were extracted, and a quality assessment conducted. Results were classified into four main categories of how pyriproxyfen was applied: - 1) container treatment, 2) fumigation, 3) auto-dissemination or 4) combination treatments,-and analysed with a view to their public health implication.ResultsOut of 745 studies 17 studies were identified that fulfilled all eligibility criteria. The results show that pyriproxyfen can be effective in reducing the numbers of Aedes spp. immatures with different methods of application when targeting their main breeding sites. However, the combination of pyriproxyfen with a second product increases efficacy and/or persistence of the intervention and may also slow down the development of insecticide resistance. Open questions concern concentration and frequency of application in the various treatments. Area-wide ultra-low volume treatment with pyriproxyfen currently lacks evidence and cannot be recommended. Community participation and acceptance has not consistently been successful and needs to be further assessed. While all studies measured entomological endpoints, only two studies measured the reduction in human dengue cases, with inconclusive results.ConclusionsAlthough pyriproxyfen is highly effective in controlling the immature stages of dengue transmitting mosquitoes, and-to a smaller degree-adult mosquitoes, there is weak evidence for a reduction of human dengue cases. More well designed larger studies with appropriate standardised outcome measures are needed before pyriproxyfen is incorporated in routine vector control programmes. Additionally, resistance to pyriproxyfen has been reported and needs investigation.

Project description:IntroductionHumanitarian emergencies, of either natural or anthropogenic origins, are equivalent to major disasters, which can lead to population displacement, food insecurity and health system disruptions. Almost two-thirds of people affected by humanitarian emergencies inhabit malaria endemic regions, particularly the WHO African Region, which currently accounts for 93% and 94% of malaria cases and deaths, respectively. As of late 2020, the United Nations Refugee Agency estimates that there are globally 79.5 million forcibly displaced people, including 45.7 million internally displaced people, 26 million refugees, 4.2 million asylum-seekers and 3.6 million Venezuelans displaced abroad.Methods and analysesA systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted to evaluate the impact of different vector control interventions on malaria disease burden during humanitarian emergencies. Published and grey literatures will be systematically retrieved from 10 electronic databases and 3 clinical trials registries. A systematic approach to screening, reviewing and data extraction will be applied based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Two review authors will independently assess full-text copies of potentially relevant articles based on inclusion criteria. Included studies will be assessed for risk of bias according to Cochrane and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Eligible studies with reported or measurable risk ratios or ORs with 95% CIs will be included in a meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses, including per study design, emergency phase and primary mode of intervention, may be performed if substantial heterogeneity is encountered.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to perform secondary analyses of existing anonymous data. Study findings will be disseminated via open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations to stakeholders and international policy makers, and will contribute to the latest WHO guidelines for malaria control during humanitarian emergencies.Prospero registration numberCRD42020214961.

Dataset Information

Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Publications

Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets