Bowman Leigh R, Donegan Sarah, McCall Philip J
Department of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Mar 17;10(3):e0004551. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004551. eCollection 2016 Mar.
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.
尽管最早在2016年可能会有疫苗可用,但病媒控制仍然是预防登革热的主要方法,登革热是全球人类最常见且分布最广的虫媒病毒。我们回顾了病媒控制方法在减少其传播方面有效性的证据。
方法/主要发现:自1980年以来发表的任何设计的研究,若评估针对埃及伊蚊或白纹伊蚊的方法至少3个月,则纳入研究。主要结局是登革热发病率。按照Cochrane和PRISMA小组指南,数据库检索得到960篇报告,41篇符合纳入标准,其中19篇提供了用于荟萃分析的数据。研究持续时间从5个月到10年不等。评估多种工具/方法的研究(23条记录)比单一方法更为常见,而环境管理是最常见的方法(19项研究)。41份报告中只有9份是随机对照试验(RCT)。评估登革热发病率的19项研究中有2项是RCT,但均未报告有任何统计学上的显著影响。没有RCT评估杀虫剂空间喷洒(喷雾)对登革热的有效性。基于荟萃分析,房屋筛查显著降低了登革热风险,比值比(OR)为0.22(95%置信区间0.05 - 0.93,p = 0.04),基于社区的环境管理与水容器覆盖相结合也有同样效果,OR为0.22(95%置信区间0.15 - 0.32,p<0.0001)。室内滞留喷洒(IRS)对感染风险没有显著影响(OR 0.67;95%置信区间0.22 - 2.11;p = 0.50)。皮肤驱避剂、经杀虫剂处理的蚊帐或诱捕器没有效果(p>0.5),但杀虫剂气雾剂(OR 2.03;95%置信区间1.44 - 2.86)和蚊香(OR 1.44;95%置信区间1.09 - 1.91)与较高的登革热风险相关(p = 0.01)。尽管41项研究中有23项考察了基于杀虫剂的工具的影响,但在研究期间只有9项评估了目标病媒种群的杀虫剂敏感性状况。
结论/意义:本综述和荟萃分析表明,关于任何登革热病媒控制方法有效性的可靠证据极为匮乏。必须优先开展更高质量的标准化研究来评估和比较各种方法,以优化具有成本效益的登革热预防措施。