Lepore Luciana, Vanlerberghe Veerle, Verdonck Kristien, Metelo Emery, Diallo Mawlouth, Van Bortel Wim
Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Entomology Department, National Institute of Biomedical Research, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2025 Jul 9;19(7):e0013203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013203. eCollection 2025 Jul.
Aedes-borne diseases are increasingly reported in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where evidence on Aedes control remains scarce. This study reviews Aedes vector control (VC) interventions evaluated in field settings in SSA, to aid future VC strategies.
Literature was searched via PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge, using a broad search strategy based on Aedes species and SSA countries. Two reviewers independently screened all records by title/abstract and full text. The evidence was described, discerning between integrated VC strategies during outbreaks and single interventions in non-outbreak settings. A critical assessment of the quality of evidence was provided.
We included 8 studies evaluating 7 interventions (2 studies referred to the same intervention). The studies were heterogeneous in study design, VC methods, and outcome measurement. Four studies were from West Africa. The studies reported on integrated (2/8) and single (6/8) interventions, including three cluster randomized controlled trials. Non-chemical methods targeting immature stages were frequently reported (5/7), followed by chemical methods against adult (4/7) and immature stages (2/7). Community-based environmental management for source reduction (4/7) showed improved knowledge, but did not lead to a change in practical behavior and/or reduction in entomological indices. Chemical methods were reported to have a temporary impact on entomological indices. Most studies (7/8) used entomological indices, only one in combination with epidemiological outcomes. The assessment of quality of evidence revealed some shortcomings in study designs and issues related to epidemiological outcomes, post-intervention follow-up duration, entomological sampling procedures.
Compared with Latin America and Asia, the studies evaluating Aedes VC interventions in SSA are limited. A temporary impact of chemical interventions was reported on entomological parameters, but evidence for reduced transmission was lacking. Environmental management strategies involving communities deserve further study, particularly when integrated with other VC measures tailored to vector bionomics.
在撒哈拉以南非洲（SSA），经伊蚊传播的疾病报告日益增多，而关于伊蚊控制的证据仍然匮乏。本研究回顾了在SSA实地环境中评估的伊蚊病媒控制（VC）干预措施，以辅助未来的VC策略。
通过PubMed和ISI Web of Knowledge检索文献，采用基于伊蚊种类和SSA国家的广泛检索策略。两名评审员独立通过标题/摘要和全文筛选所有记录。描述了证据，区分了疫情期间的综合VC策略和非疫情环境中的单一干预措施。对证据质量进行了批判性评估。
我们纳入了8项评估7种干预措施的研究（2项研究涉及相同干预措施）。这些研究在研究设计、VC方法和结果测量方面存在异质性。4项研究来自西非。这些研究报告了综合（2/8）和单一（6/8）干预措施，包括三项整群随机对照试验。经常报告针对未成熟阶段的非化学方法（5/7），其次是针对成虫（4/7）和未成熟阶段（2/7）的化学方法。基于社区的环境管理以减少源头（4/7）显示知识有所改善，但未导致实际行为改变和/或昆虫学指标降低。据报告，化学方法对昆虫学指标有暂时影响。大多数研究（7/8）使用昆虫学指标，只有一项结合了流行病学结果。证据质量评估揭示了研究设计中的一些缺陷以及与流行病学结果、干预后随访持续时间、昆虫学采样程序相关的问题。
与拉丁美洲和亚洲相比，评估SSA伊蚊VC干预措施的研究有限。据报告，化学干预对昆虫学参数有暂时影响，但缺乏传播减少的证据。涉及社区的环境管理策略值得进一步研究，特别是与根据病媒生物学特性量身定制的其他VC措施相结合时。
