Chowdhury Rajib, Faria Shyla, Huda M Mamun, Chowdhury Vashkar, Maheswary Narayan Prosad, Mondal Dinesh, Akhter Shireen, Akter Sakila, Khan Rajaul Karim, Nabi Shah Golam, Kroeger Axel, Argaw Daniel, Alvar Jorge, Dash Aditya Prasad, Banu Qamar
National Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM), Mohakhali, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
International Centre for Diarrhoea Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Sep 5;11(9):e0005890. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005890. eCollection 2017 Sep.
A number of studies on visceral leishmaniasis (VL) vector control have been conducted during the past decade, sometimes came to very different conclusion. The present study on a large sample investigated different options which are partially unexplored including: (1) indoor residual spraying (IRS) with alpha cypermethrin 5WP; (2) long lasting insecticide impregnated bed-net (LLIN); (3) impregnation of local bed-nets with slow release insecticide K-O TAB 1-2-3 (KOTAB); (4) insecticide spraying in potential breeding sites outside of house using chlorpyrifos 20EC (OUT) and different combinations of the above.
The study was a cluster randomized controlled trial where 3089 houses from 11 villages were divided into 10 sections, each section with 6 clusters and each cluster having approximately 50 houses. Based on vector density (males plus females) during baseline survey, the 60 clusters were categorized into 3 groups: (1) high, (2) medium and (3) low. Each group had 20 clusters. From these three groups, 6 clusters (about 300 households) were randomly selected for each type of intervention and control arms. Vector density was measured before and 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 22 months after intervention using CDC light traps. The impact of interventions was measured by using the difference-in-differences regression model.
A total of 17,434 sand flies were collected at baseline and during the surveys conducted over 9 months following the baseline measurements. At baseline, the average P. argentipes density per household was 10.6 (SD = 11.5) in the control arm and 7.3 (SD = 8.46) to 11.5 (SD = 20.2) in intervention arms. The intervention results presented as the range of percent reductions of sand flies (males plus females) and rate ratios in 9 measurements over 22 months. Among single type interventions, the effect of IRS with 2 rounds of spraying (applied by the research team) ranged from 13% to 75% reduction of P. argentipes density compared to the control arm (rate-ratio [RR] ranged from 0.25 to 0.87). LLINs caused a vector reduction of 9% to 78% (RR, 0.22 to 0.91). KOTAB reduced vectors by 4% to 73% (RR, 0.27 to 0.96). The combination of LLIN and OUT led to a vector reduction of 26% to 86% (RR, 0.14 to 0.74). The reduction for the combination of IRS and OUT was 8% to 88% (RR, 0.12 to 0.92). IRS and LLIN combined resulted in a vector reduction of 13% to 85% (RR, 0.15 to 0.77). The IRS and KOTAB combination reduced vector densities by 16% to 86% (RR, 0.14 to 0.84). Some intermediate measurements for KOTAB alone and for IRS plus LLIN; and IRS plus KOTAB were not statistically significant. The bioassays on sprayed surfaces or netting materials showed favourable results (>80% mortality) for 22 months (IRS tested for 12 months). In the KOTAB, a gradual decline was observed after 6 months.
LLIN and OUT was the best combination to reduce VL vector densities for 22 months or longer. Operationally, this is much easier to apply than IRS. A cost analysis of the preferred tools will follow. The relationship between vector density (males plus females) and leishmaniasis incidence should be investigated, and this will require estimates of the Entomological Inoculation Rate.
在过去十年中,已经开展了多项关于内脏利什曼病(VL)病媒控制的研究,有时得出的结论差异很大。本研究对大量样本进行调查,探讨了一些尚未充分研究的不同方法,包括:(1)使用5%高效氯氰菊酯可湿性粉剂进行室内滞留喷洒(IRS);(2)长效杀虫剂浸渍蚊帐(LLIN);(3)用缓释杀虫剂K-O TAB 1-2-3(KOTAB)浸渍当地蚊帐;(4)使用20%毒死蜱乳油(OUT)对房屋外潜在孳生地进行杀虫剂喷洒以及上述方法的不同组合。
本研究为整群随机对照试验,来自11个村庄的3089所房屋被分为10个区,每个区有6个群组,每个群组约有50所房屋。根据基线调查期间的病媒密度(雄性加雌性),将60个群组分为3组:(1)高密度组,(2)中密度组,(3)低密度组。每组有20个群组。从这三组中,为每种干预措施和对照组随机选择6个群组(约300户家庭)。使用疾控中心诱蚊灯在干预前以及干预后2、4、5、7、11、14、15、18和22个月测量病媒密度。采用双重差分回归模型测量干预措施的效果。
在基线时以及基线测量后的9个月调查期间,共收集到17434只白蛉。在基线时,对照组每户平均银足白蛉密度为10.6(标准差 = 11.5),干预组为7.3(标准差 = 8.46)至11.5(标准差 = 20.2)。干预结果以22个月内9次测量中白蛉(雄性加雌性)减少百分比范围和率比表示。在单一类型干预措施中,研究团队进行两轮喷洒的IRS使银足白蛉密度相比对照组降低了13%至75%(率比范围为0.25至0.87)。LLIN使病媒减少了9%至78%(率比,0.22至0.91)。KOTAB使病媒减少了4%至73%(率比, 0.27至0.96)。LLIN和OUT的组合使病媒减少了26%至86%(率比,0.14至0.74)。IRS和OUT的组合减少了8%至88%(率比,0.12至0.92)。IRS和LLIN联合使用使病媒减少了13%至85%(率比,0.15至0.77)。IRS和KOTAB组合使病媒密度降低了16%至86%(率比,0.14至0.84)。单独使用KOTAB以及IRS加LLIN;和IRS加KOTAB的一些中间测量结果无统计学意义。对喷洒表面或蚊帐材料的生物测定显示,在22个月内效果良好(死亡率>80%)(IRS测试了12个月)。在KOTAB中,6个月后观察到逐渐下降。
LLIN和OUT是在22个月或更长时间内降低VL病媒密度的最佳组合。在实际操作中,这比IRS更容易应用。接下来将对首选工具进行成本分析。应研究病媒密度(雄性加雌性)与利什曼病发病率之间的关系,这将需要对昆虫接种率进行估计。