Division of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, LA1 4YG, Lancashire, UK.
Departamento de Sanidad Animal, Instituto Vasco de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario (NEIKER), Derio, Bizkaia, Spain.
Parasit Vectors. 2020 Nov 7;13(1):549. doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04427-1.
We assessed the impact of two sand fly insecticide interventions (insecticide spraying and insecticide-impregnated dog collars) on the peridomestic abundance and distribution of mosquitoes (Culicidae) and biting midges (Ceratopogonidae) in western São Paulo (Brazil) in a long-term (42-month) evaluation. Both of these dipteran groups are vectors of diseases of medical and veterinary relevance to humans and domestic animals in Brazil.
The interventions in the 3-arm stratified randomised control trial were: pheromone + insecticide (PI) (chicken roosts were sprayed with microencapsulated lambda-cyhalothrin; pheromone lure has no effect on the Diptera pests studied here); dog-collars (DC) (dogs fitted with deltamethrin-impregnated collars); and control (C) (unexposed to pyrethroids) were extended by 12 months. During that time, adult mosquitoes and midges were sampled along 280 households at three household locations (inside human dwellings, dog sleeping sites and chicken roosts).
We collected 3145 culicids (9 genera, 87.6% Culex spp.) distributed relatively uniformly across all 3 arms: 41.9% at chicken roosts; 37.7% inside houses; and 20.3% at dog sleeping sites. We collected 11,464 Culicoides (15 species) found mostly at chicken roosting sites (84.7%) compared with dog sleeping sites (12.9%) or houses (2.4%). Mosquitoes and Culicoides were most abundant during the hot and rainy season. Increased daytime temperature was marginally associated with increased mosquito abundance (Z = 1.97, P = 0.049) and Culicoides abundance (Z = 1.71, P = 0.087). There was no significant association with daily average rainfall for either group. Household-level mosquito and midge numbers were both significantly reduced by the PI intervention 56% [incidence rate ratio, IRR = 0.54 (95% CI: 0.30-0.97), P ≤ 0.05] and 53% [IRR = 0.47 (95% CI: 0.26-0.85), P ≤ 0.05], respectively, compared to the control intervention. The abundance of both dipteran groups at dog sleeping sites was largely unaffected by the PI and DC interventions. The PI intervention significantly reduced abundance of mosquitoes inside houses (41%) and at chicken roosting sites (48%) and reduced midge abundance by 51% in chicken roosting sites.
Sprayed insecticide at chicken roosting sites reduced the abundance of mosquitoes and midges at the peridomestic level while dog collars had no effect on numbers for any group.
我们评估了两种沙蝇杀虫剂干预措施（喷雾杀虫剂和浸渍驱虫项圈）对巴西圣保罗西部（巴西）家周围环境中蚊子（蚊科）和蠓（蠓科）的丰度和分布的影响，这两个双翅目群体都是巴西人与动物医学和兽医相关疾病的媒介。
在这项 3 臂分层随机对照试验中，干预措施为：信息素+杀虫剂（PI）（在鸡舍喷洒微囊化氯氟氰菊酯；信息素诱饵对研究中的双翅目害虫没有影响）；驱虫项圈（DC）（给狗戴上浸渍了氯菊酯的项圈）；和对照（C）（未接触拟除虫菊酯）延长了 12 个月。在此期间，在 280 户家庭的三个家庭地点（室内、狗睡觉地点和鸡舍）采集成年蚊子和蠓。
我们收集了 3145 只库蚊（9 属，87.6% Culex spp.），分布相对均匀，分布在所有 3 个臂上：鸡舍 41.9%；房屋内 37.7%；狗睡觉的地方 20.3%。我们收集了 11464 只伊蚊（15 种），主要分布在鸡舍栖息地点（84.7%），而不是狗睡觉地点（12.9%）或房屋（2.4%）。蚊子和库蠓在炎热多雨的季节最为丰富。白天温度的升高与蚊子数量的增加（Z=1.97，P=0.049）和库蠓数量的增加（Z=1.71，P=0.087）有一定的关联。两组与每日平均降雨量均无显著关联。与对照组相比，PI 干预措施显著降低了 56%的家周围蚊子数量（发病率比，IRR=0.54（95%可信区间：0.30-0.97），P≤0.05）和 53%的家周围伊蚊数量（IRR=0.47（95%可信区间：0.26-0.85），P≤0.05）。PI 和 DC 干预措施对狗睡觉地点的两种双翅目种群的丰度影响不大。PI 干预措施显著降低了鸡舍内（41%）和鸡舍栖息处（48%）的蚊子数量，并使鸡舍栖息处的伊蚊数量减少了 51%。
在鸡舍喷洒杀虫剂可降低家周围环境中蚊子和蠓的丰度，而驱虫项圈对任何一组的数量都没有影响。
