Walshe Deirdre P, Garner Paul, Abdel-Hameed Adeel Ahmed A, Pyke Graham H, Burkot Tom
Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, UK, L3 5QA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 10(12):CD008090. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008090.pub2.
Adult anopheline mosquitoes transmit Plasmodium parasites that cause malaria. Some fish species eat mosquito larvae and pupae. In disease control policy documents, the World Health Organization includes biological control of malaria vectors by stocking ponds, rivers, and water collections near where people live with larvivorous fish to reduce Plasmodium parasite transmission. The Global Fund finances larvivorous fish programmes in some countries, and, with increasing efforts in eradication of malaria, policy makers may return to this option. We therefore assessed the evidence base for larvivorous fish programmes in malaria control.
Our main objective was to evaluate whether introducing larvivorous fish to anopheline breeding sites impacts Plasmodium parasite transmission. Our secondary objective was to summarize studies evaluating whether introducing larvivorous fish influences the density and presence of Anopheles larvae and pupae in water sources, to understand whether fish can possibly have an effect.
We attempted to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, or ongoing). We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CABS Abstracts; LILACS; and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) until 18 June 2013. We checked the reference lists of all studies identified by the above methods. We also examined references listed in review articles and previously compiled bibliographies to look for eligible studies.
Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled time series and controlled interrupted time series studies from malaria-endemic regions that introduced fish as a larvicide and reported on malaria in the community or the density of the adult anopheline population. In the absence of direct evidence of an effect on transmission, we carried out a secondary analysis on studies that evaluated the effect of introducing larvivorous fish on the density or presence of immature anopheline mosquitoes (larvae and pupae forms) in community water sources to determine whether this intervention has any potential in further research on control of malaria vectors.
Three review authors screened abstracts and examined potentially relevant studies by using an eligibility form. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. If relevant data were unclear or were not reported, we wrote to the trial authors for clarification. We presented data in tables, and we summarized studies that evaluated the effects of fish introduction on anopheline immature density or presence, or both. We used GRADE to summarize evidence quality. We also examined whether the authors of included studies reported on any possible adverse impact of larvivorous fish introduction on non-target native species.
We found no reliable studies that reported the effects of introducing larvivorous fish on malaria infection in nearby communities, on entomological inoculation rate, or on adult Anopheles density.For the secondary analysis, we examined the effects of introducing larvivorous fish on the density and presence of anopheline larvae and pupae in community water sources. We included 12 small studies, with follow-up from 22 days to five years. Studies were conducted in a variety of settings, including localized water bodies (such as wells, domestic water containers, fishponds, and pools; six studies), riverbed pools below dams (two studies), rice field plots (three studies), and water canals (two studies). All studies were at high risk of bias.The research was insufficient to determine whether larvivorous fish reduce the density of Anopheles larvae and pupae (nine studies, unpooled data, very low quality evidence). Some studies with high stocking levels of fish seemed to arrest the increase in immature anopheline populations, or to reduce the number of immature anopheline mosquitoes, compared with controls. However, this finding was not consistent, and in studies that showed a decrease in immature anopheline populations, the effect was not consistently sustained. Larvivorous fish may reduce the number of water sources with Anopheles larvae and pupae (five studies, unpooled data, low quality evidence).None of the included studies reported effects of larvivorous fish on local native fish populations or other species.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Reliable research is insufficient to show whether introducing larvivorous fish reduces malaria transmission or the density of adult anopheline mosquito populations.In research examining the effects on immature anopheline stages of introducing fish to potential malaria vector breeding sites (localized water bodies such as wells and domestic water sources, rice field plots, and water canals) weak evidence suggests an effect on the density or presence of immature anopheline mosquitoes with high stocking levels of fish, but this finding is by no means consistent. We do not know whether this translates into health benefits, either with fish alone or with fish combined with other vector control measures. Our interpretation of the current evidence is that countries should not invest in fish stocking as a larval control measure in any malaria transmission areas outside the context of carefully controlled field studies or quasi-experimental designs. Research could also usefully examine the effects on native fish and other non-target species.
成年按蚊传播导致疟疾的疟原虫。一些鱼类会捕食蚊虫幼虫和蛹。在疾病控制政策文件中,世界卫生组织将在人们居住地点附近的池塘、河流和集水区投放食蚊鱼以进行疟疾媒介的生物防治纳入其中,目的是减少疟原虫的传播。全球基金为一些国家的食蚊鱼项目提供资金,并且随着疟疾根除工作力度的加大,政策制定者可能会重新考虑这一选择。因此,我们评估了食蚊鱼项目在疟疾控制方面的证据基础。
我们的主要目标是评估在按蚊繁殖地引入食蚊鱼是否会影响疟原虫的传播。我们的次要目标是总结评估引入食蚊鱼是否会影响水源中按蚊幼虫和蛹的密度及存在情况的研究,以了解鱼类是否可能产生影响。
我们试图识别所有相关研究,无论其语言或发表状态(已发表、未发表、即将发表或正在进行)。我们检索了以下数据库:Cochrane传染病小组专业注册库;发表于《Cochrane图书馆》的Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL);MEDLINE;EMBASE;CABS文摘;LILACS;以及截至2013年6月18日的对照试验元注册库(mRCT)。我们检查了通过上述方法识别出的所有研究的参考文献列表。我们还查阅了综述文章中列出的参考文献以及先前编制的书目,以寻找符合条件的研究。
随机对照试验和非随机对照试验,包括来自疟疾流行地区的对照前后研究、对照时间序列和对照中断时间序列研究,这些研究将鱼类作为杀幼虫剂引入,并报告了社区中的疟疾情况或成年按蚊种群的密度。在缺乏对传播有影响的直接证据的情况下,我们对评估引入食蚊鱼对社区水源中未成熟按蚊(幼虫和蛹形态)的密度或存在情况的影响的研究进行了二次分析,以确定这种干预措施在疟疾媒介控制的进一步研究中是否具有任何潜力。
三位综述作者筛选摘要,并使用合格标准表格检查潜在相关研究。两位综述作者独立提取数据并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。如果相关数据不清楚或未报告,我们会写信给试验作者进行澄清。我们以表格形式呈现数据,并总结了评估引入鱼类对按蚊未成熟密度或存在情况或两者的影响的研究。我们使用GRADE来总结证据质量。我们还检查了纳入研究的作者是否报告了引入食蚊鱼对非目标本地物种的任何可能的不利影响。
我们未找到可靠的研究报告引入食蚊鱼对附近社区疟疾感染、昆虫接种率或成年按蚊密度的影响。对于二次分析,我们研究了引入食蚊鱼对社区水源中按蚊幼虫和蛹的密度及存在情况的影响。我们纳入了12项小型研究,随访时间从22天到5年不等。研究在各种环境中进行,包括局部水体(如井、家庭用水容器、鱼塘和水池;6项研究)、水坝下游的河床水池(2项研究)、稻田地块(3项研究)和水渠(2项研究)。所有研究都存在较高的偏倚风险。研究不足以确定食蚊鱼是否会降低按蚊幼虫和蛹的密度(9项研究,未合并数据,证据质量极低)。与对照组相比,一些鱼类投放量高的研究似乎阻止了未成熟按蚊种群数量的增加,或减少了未成熟按蚊的数量。然而,这一发现并不一致,在显示未成熟按蚊种群数量减少的研究中,这种效果也并非始终持续。食蚊鱼可能会减少有按蚊幼虫和蛹的水源数量(5项研究,未合并数据,证据质量低)。纳入的研究均未报告食蚊鱼对当地本地鱼类种群或其他物种的影响。
可靠的研究不足以表明引入食蚊鱼是否会降低疟疾传播或成年按蚊种群的密度。在研究将鱼类引入潜在疟疾媒介繁殖地(如井和家庭水源等局部水体、稻田地块和水渠)对按蚊未成熟阶段的影响时,证据薄弱,表明鱼类投放量高时对未成熟按蚊的密度或存在情况有影响,但这一发现绝非一致。我们不知道这是否会转化为健康益处,无论是单独使用鱼类还是与其他媒介控制措施结合使用。我们对当前证据的解读是,在精心控制的实地研究或准实验设计之外的任何疟疾传播地区,各国不应将投放鱼类作为幼虫控制措施进行投资。研究还可以有益地考察对本地鱼类和其他非目标物种的影响。