Ost Katarina, Norman Michala, Dumas Ariane, Corrin Tricia, Waddell Lisa, Schryer Renee, Duguay Claudia, Facchin Olivia, Zinszer Kate, Rocheleau Jean-Phillipe, Bouchard Catherine, Aenishaenslin Cécile, Krentel Alison, Feng Cindy, Kulkarni Manisha A
School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Public Health Risk Sciences Division | Division Sciences des risques pour la santé Publique, National Microbiology Laboratory | Laboratoire National de Microbiologie, Public Health Agency of Canada | Agence de la santé Publique du Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
BMC Infect Dis. 2025 Jul 2;25(1):889. doi: 10.1186/s12879-025-11183-z.
This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of interventions which reduce human-tick encounters, prevent tick bites, and reduce the risk of Borrelia burgdorferi transmission, and to evaluate knowledge on the cost, environmental impact, social impact and acceptability, and public health impact of these interventions.
The search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Global Health, CAB Abstracts, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Econlit for relevant literature in March 2022 and was updated in November 2024 and followed PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Inclusion was applied at citation and full text, after which articles were assessed for risk of bias and data was extracted by two independent reviewers. Studies were summarized by intervention type (landscape management, host animal parasitism and movement, chemical/natural/botanical applications, personal protection) and a multi-study synthesis of tick suppression effects was conducted for interventions that reported the density of infected nymphs as the primary outcome.
One hundred and twenty-seven studies published between 1977 and 2024 were included in this systematic review. Most studies (n = 62) were classified as host-targeted interventions. Twenty-five studies were included in the multi-study synthesis of tick suppression effects, which suggested that chemical tick control methods are the most effective and consistent intervention type with 93.8% mean suppression of questing nymphs.
While some strategies such as chemical acaricides were shown to have greater effectiveness, factors such as social acceptability and resistance, environmental impact, cost, and feasibility should be considered when selecting the most appropriate intervention to maximize the utility of the intervention.
本系统评价旨在评估减少人与蜱虫接触、预防蜱虫叮咬以及降低伯氏疏螺旋体传播风险的干预措施的有效性,并评估这些干预措施在成本、环境影响、社会影响、可接受性和公共卫生影响方面的相关知识。
于2022年3月在Medline、Embase、Global Health、CAB Abstracts、Cochrane CENTRAL、Scopus和Econlit中检索相关文献,并于2024年11月更新,遵循PRISMA系统评价指南。在文献引用和全文阶段进行纳入筛选,之后由两名独立评审员评估文章的偏倚风险并提取数据。研究按干预类型(景观管理、宿主动物寄生与移动、化学/天然/植物应用、个人防护)进行总结,并对以感染若虫密度为主要结局的干预措施进行蜱虫抑制效果的多研究综合分析。
本系统评价纳入了1977年至2024年发表的127项研究。大多数研究(n = 62)被归类为针对宿主的干预措施。25项研究纳入了蜱虫抑制效果的多研究综合分析,结果表明化学蜱虫控制方法是最有效且一致的干预类型,对搜寻若虫的平均抑制率为93.8%。
虽然化学杀螨剂等一些策略显示出更高的有效性,但在选择最合适的干预措施以最大化干预效用时,应考虑社会可接受性、抗药性、环境影响、成本和可行性等因素。