Koppula Divya Teja, Shriram Ananganallur Nagarajan, Ramasamy Amala, Kumar Ashwani, Rahi Manju
ICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.
Centre for Global Health Research, Saveetha (SIMATS) University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
PLoS One. 2025 Mar 12;20(3):e0318673. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318673. eCollection 2025.
Malaria control in highly endemic regions relies heavily on vector control tools, particularly LLINs. The effectiveness of LLINs varies by eco-epidemiological conditions and brands. A comprehensive review of WHO interim-approved LLIN brands is necessary to address this variability. This systematic review screened 145 articles, refining them to 27 eligible publications, to assess the efficacy of WHO-recommended LLINs, focusing on synthetic pyrethroids and synergists like Piperonyl Butoxide or Pyriproxyfen. The review demonstrated that LLINs impregnated with synthetic pyrethroids, especially when used with synergists, are more effective than regular LLINs. However, adherence to WHO PQT/VCP (World Health Organization Prequalification Unit/Vector Control Product) checklists was inconsistent. Several LLIN pairs which includes candidate and comparator nets showed equal efficacy (100% in both arms), including Olyset Plus vs. Olyset Net, DuraNet vs. PermaNet 3.0, Interceptor G2 vs. Interceptor, MagNet vs. DuraNet, Dawa Plus 3.0 vs. Dawa Plus 2.0, and Veerralin vs. PermaNet 3.0 in terms of mosquito mortality. Significant efficacy differences were noted between various bed net pairs: Interceptor vs CTN (RR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.28-1.66); Olyset Net Duo vs Olyset Net (RR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.01-1.18); ICON Maxx vs CTN polyester (RR: 7.7, 95% CI: 3.6-16.31); Dawa Plus 3.0 vs Dawa Plus 2.0 (RR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.34-3.15); Interceptor G2 vs Interceptor G1 (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.77-0.96). These findings inform the development of improved net designs and ensure alignment with WHO guidelines, enhancing vector control measures. The review supports improved malaria control strategies and sustained LLIN utilization, highlighting the need for LLIN manufacturers to align with WHO guidelines.
疟疾高度流行地区的疟疾防控严重依赖病媒控制工具,特别是长效驱虫蚊帐(LLINs)。长效驱虫蚊帐的有效性因生态流行病学条件和品牌而异。有必要对世界卫生组织临时批准的长效驱虫蚊帐品牌进行全面审查,以应对这种差异。这项系统评价筛选了145篇文章,将其精简为27篇符合条件的出版物,以评估世界卫生组织推荐的长效驱虫蚊帐的功效,重点关注拟除虫菊酯和增效剂,如胡椒基丁醚或吡丙醚。该评价表明,用拟除虫菊酯浸渍的长效驱虫蚊帐,特别是与增效剂一起使用时,比普通长效驱虫蚊帐更有效。然而,对世界卫生组织预认证单位/病媒控制产品(PQT/VCP)清单的遵守情况并不一致。几对长效驱虫蚊帐,包括候选蚊帐和对照蚊帐,显示出相同的功效(两组均为100%),在蚊虫死亡率方面,包括奥力赛加(Olyset Plus)与奥力赛网(Olyset Net)、杜拉网(DuraNet)与派玛网3.0(PermaNet 3.0)、拦截者G2(Interceptor G2)与拦截者(Interceptor)、磁网(MagNet)与杜拉网、达瓦加3.0(Dawa Plus 3.0)与达瓦加2.0(Dawa Plus 2.0)以及维拉尔林(Veerralin)与派玛网3.0。不同蚊帐对之间存在显著的功效差异:拦截者与传统棉质蚊帐(CTN)(相对风险:1.5,95%置信区间:1.28 - 1.66);奥力赛网二重奏(Olyset Net Duo)与奥力赛网(相对风险:1.1,95%置信区间:1.01 - 1.18);爱康玛克斯(ICON Maxx)与传统棉质聚酯蚊帐(CTN聚酯)(相对风险:7.7,95%置信区间:3.6 - 16.31);达瓦加3.0与达瓦加2.0(相对风险:2.1,95%置信区间:1.34 - 3.15);拦截者G2与拦截者G1(相对风险:0.9,95%置信区间:0.77 - 0.96)。这些发现为改进蚊帐设计提供了信息,并确保与世界卫生组织的指南保持一致,加强病媒控制措施。该评价支持改进疟疾防控策略和持续使用长效驱虫蚊帐,强调长效驱虫蚊帐制造商需要与世界卫生组织的指南保持一致。