University of Zürich Centre for Travel Medicine, WHO Collaborating Centre for Travellers' Health, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Hirschengraben 84, 8001 Zürich, Switzerland.
Travel Med Infect Dis. 2013 Nov-Dec;11(6):374-411. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2013.10.005. Epub 2013 Oct 25.
Travellers are confronted with a variety of vector-borne threats. Is one type of repellent effective against all biting vectors? The aim of this review is to examine the literature, up to December 31st, 2012, regarding repellent efficacy.
We searched PubMed for relevant papers. Repellents of interest were DEET, Icaridin as well as other piperidine-derived products (SS220), Insect Repellent (IR) 3535 (ethyl-butylacetyl-amino-propionat, EBAAP) and plant-derived products, including Citriodora (para-menthane-3,8-diol). As vectors, we considered the mosquito species Anopheles, Aedes and Culex as well as the tick species Ixodes. We selected only studies evaluating the protective efficacy of repellents on human skin.
We reviewed a total of 102 publications. Repellents were evaluated regarding complete protection time or as percentage efficacy [%] in a time interval. We found no standardized study for tick bite prevention.
Regarding Aedes, DEET at concentration of 20% or more, showed the best efficacy providing up to 10 h protection. Citriodora repellency against this mosquito genus was lower compared to the other products. Also between subspecies a difference could be observed: Ae. aegypti proved more difficult to repel than Ae. Albopictus. Fewer studies have been conducted on mosquito species Anopheles and Culex. The repellency profile against Anopheles species was similar for the four principal repellents of interest, providing on average 4-10 h of protection. Culex mosquitoes are easier to repel and all four repellents provided good protection. Few studies have been conducted on the tick species Ixodes. According to our results, the longest protection against Ixodes scapularis was provided by repellents containing IR3535, while DEET and commercial products containing Icaridin or PMD showed a better response than IR3535 against Ixodes ricinus. Many plant-based repellents provide only short duration protection. Adding vanillin 5% to plant-based repellents and to DEET repellents increased the protection by about 2 h.
旅行者面临着各种媒介传播的威胁。有一种驱避剂是否对所有叮咬媒介都有效？本综述的目的是检查截至 2012 年 12 月 31 日的相关文献，评估驱避剂的效果。
我们在 PubMed 上搜索了相关文献。感兴趣的驱避剂包括避蚊胺（DEET）、羟哌酯（Icaridin）和其他派啶衍生产品（SS220）、昆虫驱避剂（IR）3535（乙基-丁基乙酰氨基丙酸盐，EBAAP）和植物衍生产品，包括香茅（对-薄荷烷-3,8-二醇）。作为媒介，我们考虑了疟蚊属、伊蚊属和库蚊属的蚊子以及纹股硬蜱属的蜱。我们只选择了评估驱避剂对人体皮肤的保护效果的研究。
我们总共回顾了 102 篇文献。驱避剂的评估指标是完全保护时间或在一定时间间隔内的有效率 [%]。我们没有发现关于预防蜱虫叮咬的标准化研究。
在驱避伊蚊方面，浓度为 20%或更高的避蚊胺提供了长达 10 小时的最佳保护效果。香茅的驱避效果比其他产品差。此外，在亚种之间也存在差异：埃及伊蚊比白纹伊蚊更难驱避。对疟蚊属和库蚊属的蚊子进行的研究较少。四种主要驱避剂对疟蚊属的驱避效果相似，平均提供 4-10 小时的保护。库蚊更容易驱避，四种驱避剂都能提供很好的保护。关于纹股硬蜱的研究较少。根据我们的结果，含有 IR3535 的驱避剂对肩突硬蜱提供了最长的保护时间，而避蚊胺和含有羟哌酯或 PMD 的商业产品对硬蜱的反应比 IR3535 更好。许多植物源驱避剂只能提供短时间的保护。向植物源驱避剂和避蚊胺驱避剂中添加 5%的香草醛可将保护时间延长约 2 小时。
