Cargando…

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

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. MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bowman, Leigh R., Donegan, Sarah, McCall, Philip J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26986468
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004551
_version_ 1782421669861654528
author Bowman, Leigh R.
Donegan, Sarah
McCall, Philip J.
author_facet Bowman, Leigh R.
Donegan, Sarah
McCall, Philip J.
author_sort Bowman, Leigh R.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4795802
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47958022016-03-23 Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Bowman, Leigh R. Donegan, Sarah McCall, Philip J. PLoS Negl Trop Dis Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2016-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4795802/ /pubmed/26986468 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004551 Text en © 2016 Bowman 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bowman, Leigh R.
Donegan, Sarah
McCall, Philip J.
Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_fullStr Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_short Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_sort is dengue vector control deficient in effectiveness or evidence?: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26986468
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004551
work_keys_str_mv AT bowmanleighr isdenguevectorcontroldeficientineffectivenessorevidencesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT donegansarah isdenguevectorcontroldeficientineffectivenessorevidencesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mccallphilipj isdenguevectorcontroldeficientineffectivenessorevidencesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis