Cargando…

Field Evaluation of Picaridin Repellents Reveals Differences in Repellent Sensitivity between Southeast Asian Vectors of Malaria and Arboviruses

Scaling up of insecticide treated nets has contributed to a substantial malaria decline. However, some malaria vectors, and most arbovirus vectors, bite outdoors and in the early evening. Therefore, topically applied insect repellents may provide crucial additional protection against mosquito-borne...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van Roey, Karel, Sokny, Mao, Denis, Leen, Van den Broeck, Nick, Heng, Somony, Siv, Sovannaroth, Sluydts, Vincent, Sochantha, Tho, Coosemans, Marc, Durnez, Lies
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270489/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25522134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003326
_version_ 1782349507050078208
author Van Roey, Karel
Sokny, Mao
Denis, Leen
Van den Broeck, Nick
Heng, Somony
Siv, Sovannaroth
Sluydts, Vincent
Sochantha, Tho
Coosemans, Marc
Durnez, Lies
author_facet Van Roey, Karel
Sokny, Mao
Denis, Leen
Van den Broeck, Nick
Heng, Somony
Siv, Sovannaroth
Sluydts, Vincent
Sochantha, Tho
Coosemans, Marc
Durnez, Lies
author_sort Van Roey, Karel
collection PubMed
description Scaling up of insecticide treated nets has contributed to a substantial malaria decline. However, some malaria vectors, and most arbovirus vectors, bite outdoors and in the early evening. Therefore, topically applied insect repellents may provide crucial additional protection against mosquito-borne pathogens. Among topical repellents, DEET is the most commonly used, followed by others such as picaridin. The protective efficacy of two formulated picaridin repellents against mosquito bites, including arbovirus and malaria vectors, was evaluated in a field study in Cambodia. Over a period of two years, human landing collections were performed on repellent treated persons, with rotation to account for the effect of collection place, time and individual collector. Based on a total of 4996 mosquitoes collected on negative control persons, the overall five hour protection rate was 97.4% [95%CI: 97.1–97.8%], not decreasing over time. Picaridin 20% performed equally well as DEET 20% and better than picaridin 10%. Repellents performed better against Mansonia and Culex spp. as compared to aedines and anophelines. A lower performance was observed against Aedes albopictus as compared to Aedes aegypti, and against Anopheles barbirostris as compared to several vector species. Parity rates were higher in vectors collected on repellent treated person as compared to control persons. As such, field evaluation shows that repellents can provide additional personal protection against early and outdoor biting malaria and arbovirus vectors, with excellent protection up to five hours after application. The heterogeneity in repellent sensitivity between mosquito genera and vector species could however impact the efficacy of repellents in public health programs. Considering its excellent performance and potential to protect against early and outdoor biting vectors, as well as its higher acceptability as compared to DEET, picaridin is an appropriate product to evaluate the epidemiological impact of large scale use of topical repellents on arthropod borne diseases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4270489
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42704892014-12-26 Field Evaluation of Picaridin Repellents Reveals Differences in Repellent Sensitivity between Southeast Asian Vectors of Malaria and Arboviruses Van Roey, Karel Sokny, Mao Denis, Leen Van den Broeck, Nick Heng, Somony Siv, Sovannaroth Sluydts, Vincent Sochantha, Tho Coosemans, Marc Durnez, Lies PLoS Negl Trop Dis Research Article Scaling up of insecticide treated nets has contributed to a substantial malaria decline. However, some malaria vectors, and most arbovirus vectors, bite outdoors and in the early evening. Therefore, topically applied insect repellents may provide crucial additional protection against mosquito-borne pathogens. Among topical repellents, DEET is the most commonly used, followed by others such as picaridin. The protective efficacy of two formulated picaridin repellents against mosquito bites, including arbovirus and malaria vectors, was evaluated in a field study in Cambodia. Over a period of two years, human landing collections were performed on repellent treated persons, with rotation to account for the effect of collection place, time and individual collector. Based on a total of 4996 mosquitoes collected on negative control persons, the overall five hour protection rate was 97.4% [95%CI: 97.1–97.8%], not decreasing over time. Picaridin 20% performed equally well as DEET 20% and better than picaridin 10%. Repellents performed better against Mansonia and Culex spp. as compared to aedines and anophelines. A lower performance was observed against Aedes albopictus as compared to Aedes aegypti, and against Anopheles barbirostris as compared to several vector species. Parity rates were higher in vectors collected on repellent treated person as compared to control persons. As such, field evaluation shows that repellents can provide additional personal protection against early and outdoor biting malaria and arbovirus vectors, with excellent protection up to five hours after application. The heterogeneity in repellent sensitivity between mosquito genera and vector species could however impact the efficacy of repellents in public health programs. Considering its excellent performance and potential to protect against early and outdoor biting vectors, as well as its higher acceptability as compared to DEET, picaridin is an appropriate product to evaluate the epidemiological impact of large scale use of topical repellents on arthropod borne diseases. Public Library of Science 2014-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4270489/ /pubmed/25522134 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003326 Text en © 2014 Van Roey et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Van Roey, Karel
Sokny, Mao
Denis, Leen
Van den Broeck, Nick
Heng, Somony
Siv, Sovannaroth
Sluydts, Vincent
Sochantha, Tho
Coosemans, Marc
Durnez, Lies
Field Evaluation of Picaridin Repellents Reveals Differences in Repellent Sensitivity between Southeast Asian Vectors of Malaria and Arboviruses
title Field Evaluation of Picaridin Repellents Reveals Differences in Repellent Sensitivity between Southeast Asian Vectors of Malaria and Arboviruses
title_full Field Evaluation of Picaridin Repellents Reveals Differences in Repellent Sensitivity between Southeast Asian Vectors of Malaria and Arboviruses
title_fullStr Field Evaluation of Picaridin Repellents Reveals Differences in Repellent Sensitivity between Southeast Asian Vectors of Malaria and Arboviruses
title_full_unstemmed Field Evaluation of Picaridin Repellents Reveals Differences in Repellent Sensitivity between Southeast Asian Vectors of Malaria and Arboviruses
title_short Field Evaluation of Picaridin Repellents Reveals Differences in Repellent Sensitivity between Southeast Asian Vectors of Malaria and Arboviruses
title_sort field evaluation of picaridin repellents reveals differences in repellent sensitivity between southeast asian vectors of malaria and arboviruses
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270489/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25522134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003326
work_keys_str_mv AT vanroeykarel fieldevaluationofpicaridinrepellentsrevealsdifferencesinrepellentsensitivitybetweensoutheastasianvectorsofmalariaandarboviruses
AT soknymao fieldevaluationofpicaridinrepellentsrevealsdifferencesinrepellentsensitivitybetweensoutheastasianvectorsofmalariaandarboviruses
AT denisleen fieldevaluationofpicaridinrepellentsrevealsdifferencesinrepellentsensitivitybetweensoutheastasianvectorsofmalariaandarboviruses
AT vandenbroecknick fieldevaluationofpicaridinrepellentsrevealsdifferencesinrepellentsensitivitybetweensoutheastasianvectorsofmalariaandarboviruses
AT hengsomony fieldevaluationofpicaridinrepellentsrevealsdifferencesinrepellentsensitivitybetweensoutheastasianvectorsofmalariaandarboviruses
AT sivsovannaroth fieldevaluationofpicaridinrepellentsrevealsdifferencesinrepellentsensitivitybetweensoutheastasianvectorsofmalariaandarboviruses
AT sluydtsvincent fieldevaluationofpicaridinrepellentsrevealsdifferencesinrepellentsensitivitybetweensoutheastasianvectorsofmalariaandarboviruses
AT sochanthatho fieldevaluationofpicaridinrepellentsrevealsdifferencesinrepellentsensitivitybetweensoutheastasianvectorsofmalariaandarboviruses
AT coosemansmarc fieldevaluationofpicaridinrepellentsrevealsdifferencesinrepellentsensitivitybetweensoutheastasianvectorsofmalariaandarboviruses
AT durnezlies fieldevaluationofpicaridinrepellentsrevealsdifferencesinrepellentsensitivitybetweensoutheastasianvectorsofmalariaandarboviruses