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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |