Suppr超能文献

用于预防疟疾的驱蚊剂。

Mosquito repellents for malaria prevention.

作者信息

Maia Marta F, Kliner Merav, Richardson Marty, Lengeler Christian, Moore Sarah J

机构信息

Public Health and Epidemiology, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, Basel, Switzerland, CH-4051.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011595. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011595.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Malaria is an important cause of illness and death across endemic regions. Considerable success against malaria has been achieved within the past decade mainly through long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs). However, elimination of the disease is proving difficult as current control methods do not protect against mosquitoes biting outdoors and when people are active. Repellents may provide a personal protection solution during these times.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of topical repellents, insecticide-treated clothing, and spatial repellents on malaria transmission.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 26 June 2017: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; US AFPMB; CAB Abstracts; and LILACS. We also searched trial registration platforms and conference proceedings; and contacted organizations and companies for ongoing and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomized controlled trials of topical repellents proven to repel mosquitoes; permethrin-treated clothing; and spatial repellents such as mosquito coils. We included trials that investigated the use of repellents with or without LLINs, referred to as insecticide-treated nets.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed trials for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. A third review author resolved any discrepancies. We analysed data by conducting meta-analysis and stratified by whether the trials had included LLINs. We combined results from cRCTs with individually RCTs by adjusting for clustering and presented results using forest plots. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight cRCTs and two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Six trials investigated topical repellents, two trials investigated insecticide-treated clothing, and two trials investigated spatial repellents.Topical repellentsSix RCTS, five of them cluster-randomized, investigated topical repellents involving residents of malaria-endemic regions. Four trials used topical repellents in combination with nets, but two trials undertaken in displaced populations used topical repellents alone. It is unclear if topical repellents can prevent clinical malaria (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.07, very low certainty evidence) or malaria infection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.12, low-certainty evidence) caused by P. falciparum. It is also unclear if there is any protection against clinical cases of P. vivax (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.76, low-certainty evidence) or incidence of infections (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.41, low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of trials including insecticide-treated nets did not show a protective effect of topical repellents against malaria. Only two studies did not include insecticide-treated nets, and they measured different outcomes; one reported a protective effect against clinical cases of P. falciparum (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71); but the other study measured no protective effect against malaria infection incidence caused by either P. falciparum or P. vivax.Insecticide-treated clothingInsecticide-treated clothing were investigated in trials conducted in refugee camps in Pakistan and amongst military based in the Colombian Amazon. Neither study provided participants with insecticide-treated nets. In the absence of nets, treated clothing may reduce the incidence of clinical malaria caused by P. falciparum by approximately 50% (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.83, low-certainty evidence) and P. vivax (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.01, low-certainty evidence).Spatial repellentsTwo cluster-randomized RCTs investigated mosquito coils for malaria prevention. We do not know the effect of spatial repellents on malaria prevention (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.72, very low certainty evidence). There was large heterogeneity between studies and one study had high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to conclude topical or spatial repellents can prevent malaria. There is a need for better designed trials to generate higher certainty of evidence before well-informed recommendations can be made. Adherence to daily compliance remains a major limitation. Insecticide-treated clothing may reduce risk of malaria infection in the absence of insecticide-treated nets; further studies on insecticide-treated clothing in the general population should be done to broaden the applicability of the results.

摘要

背景

疟疾是流行地区疾病和死亡的重要原因。在过去十年中,主要通过长效驱虫蚊帐(LLINs)在抗击疟疾方面取得了相当大的成功。然而,由于目前的控制方法无法防止蚊子在户外叮咬以及人们活动时叮咬,消除该疾病正变得困难。驱虫剂可能在这些时候提供个人防护解决方案。

目的

评估局部用驱虫剂、经杀虫剂处理的衣物和空间驱避剂对疟疾传播的影响。

检索方法

我们检索了截至2017年6月26日的以下数据库:Cochrane传染病专业注册库;Cochrane图书馆中发表的对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL);医学索引(MEDLINE);荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase);美国武装部队医学图书馆数据库(US AFPMB);国际农业与生物科学中心数据库(CAB Abstracts);以及拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学数据库(LILACS)。我们还检索了试验注册平台和会议论文集;并联系了组织和公司以获取正在进行和未发表的试验。

选择标准

我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCTs)和整群随机对照试验,这些试验涉及已证实能驱避蚊子的局部用驱虫剂;氯菊酯处理的衣物;以及空间驱避剂如蚊香。我们纳入了调查使用驱虫剂时是否搭配LLINs(即经杀虫剂处理的蚊帐)的试验。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立审查试验以确定是否纳入,提取数据,并评估偏倚风险。第三位综述作者解决任何分歧。我们通过进行荟萃分析来分析数据,并根据试验是否纳入LLINs进行分层。我们通过调整聚类将整群随机对照试验(cRCTs)的结果与个体随机对照试验的结果合并,并使用森林图呈现结果。我们使用GRADE来评估证据的确定性。

主要结果

八项cRCTs和两项RCTs符合纳入标准。六项试验研究了局部用驱虫剂,两项试验研究了经杀虫剂处理的衣物,两项试验研究了空间驱避剂。

局部用驱虫剂

六项RCTs(其中五项为整群随机)研究了涉及疟疾流行地区居民的局部用驱虫剂。四项试验将局部用驱虫剂与蚊帐联合使用,但在流离失所人群中进行的两项试验单独使用了局部用驱虫剂。尚不清楚局部用驱虫剂是否能预防由恶性疟原虫引起的临床疟疾(风险比[RR]0.65,95%置信区间[CI]0.4至1.07,极低确定性证据)或疟疾感染(RR0.84,95%CI0.64至1.12,低确定性证据)。也不清楚对间日疟原虫的临床病例(RR1.32,95%CI0.99至1.76,低确定性证据)或感染发生率(RR1.07,95%CI0.80至1.41,低确定性证据)是否有任何保护作用。对纳入经杀虫剂处理蚊帐的试验进行亚组分析未显示局部用驱虫剂对疟疾有保护作用。只有两项研究未纳入经杀虫剂处理蚊帐,且它们测量的结果不同;一项报告了对恶性疟原虫临床病例的保护作用(RR0.40,95%CI0.23至0.71);但另一项研究未测量到对由恶性疟原虫或间日疟原虫引起的疟疾感染发生率的保护作用。

经杀虫剂处理的衣物

在巴基斯坦难民营和哥伦比亚亚马逊地区的军事人员中进行的试验研究了经杀虫剂处理的衣物。两项研究均未为参与者提供经杀虫剂处理的蚊帐。在没有蚊帐时,经处理的衣物可能使由恶性疟原虫引起的临床疟疾发病率降低约50%(RR0.49,95%CI0.29至0.83,低确定性证据),对间日疟原虫引起的临床疟疾发病率降低约50%(RR0.64,95%CI0.40至1.01,低确定性证据)。

空间驱避剂

两项整群随机RCTs研究了蚊香预防疟疾的效果。我们不清楚空间驱避剂对疟疾预防的效果(RR0.24,95%CI0.03至1.72,极低确定性证据)。研究之间存在很大异质性,且一项研究存在高偏倚风险。

作者结论

没有足够证据得出局部或空间驱避剂可预防疟疾的结论。在能够做出明智建议之前,需要设计更好的试验以产生更高确定性证据。坚持每日依从性仍然是一个主要限制因素。经杀虫剂处理的衣物在没有经杀虫剂处理蚊帐的情况下可能降低疟疾感染风险;应在一般人群中对经杀虫剂处理的衣物进行进一步研究以扩大结果的适用性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9987/6491141/54fc78b2eadf/nCD011595-AFig-FIG01.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验