Search

Vector‐borne pathogens pose risks for animal and human health, underlining the importance of surveillance activities and mapping efforts to support risk assessments. As part of a living risk assessment project, EFSA‐Animal disease profiles were developed to visualize the current knowledge on vector status of 36 selected pathogens of relevance for EFSA. To keep these profiles up‐to‐date, the current report aimed to review the vector status of species of mosquitoes, ticks, sand flies and biting midges. To this end, two systematic literature reviews were conducted, both focusing on the different criteria that determine the vector status of a species. For the first review, data were collected on the detection of the 36 selected pathogens in field collected mosquitoes, sand flies, biting midges and ticks. The second review looked for vector competence and host infection studies under laboratory conditions. Publications were collected from Web of Science using an extended search term with a temporal delineation from 2016‐2022. Publications from 1950‐2016 were extracted from an earlier review, handling a similar research question. Of the first systematic literature review, a total of 5727 records were included from 447 publications. Of the second literature review, 591 records from 122 publications were included. While combining these two data sets allowed to determine the vector status of species occurring on a global scale. In total, 187 individual species‐pathogen combinations were found and estimates of the vector status were made. In the end, this review not only discloses potential risks, but also highlights the gaps in the current knowledge regarding this topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To guide implementation of vector control interventions in Europe, a stronger evidence base of their efficacy and effectiveness is needed. Currently, epidemiological endpoints are used to demonstrate the public health value of a vector control intervention. This systematic literature review aimed to help assess whether entomological endpoints (such as mosquito abundance, infection rates, inoculation rates, parity rate as proxy for longevity, or others) can be used on their own as evidence of efficacy of vector control interventions against vector‐borne diseases. We searched electronic bibliographic databases (The Cochrane Library, CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE and Web of Science) for intervention trials where vector control interventions were evaluated and extracted epidemiological and entomological effect size estimates. The selection process resulted in 31 studies (extracted from 35 publications) for which both types of endpoints were available. The final database included studies on malaria (n=16), dengue (n=9), leishmaniasis (n=5) and tick‐borne diseases (n=1). Epidemiological and entomological effect sizes often pointed in the same direction (i.e. both favouring intervention or favouring control). However, based on the statistical inference (whether the effect size estimate is significantly different from no‐effect) of the results, we observed some disagreement between endpoints, though we rarely saw complete disagreement in effect estimates. This review illustrates the complex relation between entomological and epidemiological endpoints. Based on this review, it is concluded that evaluating interventions on entomological endpoints only is insufficient to understand their potential epidemiological impact. To better asses the value of entomological endpoints for the assessment of efficacy of vector control intervention, there is a need for studies to be powered for both epidemiological and entomological endpoints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA has requested the Vextornet consortium to undertake a series of spatial distribution models for seven potential mosquito vectors of Rift Valley fever virus, namely Aedes albopictus, Aedes caspius, Aedes detritus, Aedes japonicus, Aedes vexans, Culex pipiens and Culex theileri. The modelling used the distribution data held within the VectorNet archive (as at September 2018), updated by literature searches to acquire new records available since 2016. The modelling has been implemented in three phases: (i) data collection, collation and standardisation; (ii) spatial modelling for presence and absence, and the calculation of presence metrics at the country level to be compatible with the MintRisk utilities; and (iii) the spatial modelling of vector abundance, dependent on the data available. This document briefly summaries the results of the data collection, and presence and absence modelling due for delivery in December 2020. Sufficient data were amassed to produce statistically reliable spatial models of the probability of presence of all species except Ae. detritus. The models were implemented at 1 km resolution covering the whole of continental Europe, using standard modelling techniques (Boosted Regression Trees and Random Forest) implemented through the VECMAP software suite. The distribution data for the period 2016 onward will be added to the VectorNet archive when its migration to a new data warehouse within ECDC has been completed. All spatial data in the form of an ARCMAP 'package' containing summaries of the vector distribution data collected, and all model outputs have been made available online to Vectornet partners, EFSA and ECDC. This interim report will be followed by a more complete document which also includes the results of the abundance modelling, due in March 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The overall aim of this scientific report is the assessment of the probability of entry of Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV) into the European Union (EU) through active or passive movement of vectors. Two different import pathways were considered in this report, i.e. import through flights and import via cargo on ships. The import through road transport, eggs or immature stages, and wind was not considered in this report as thought to be zero or negligible. In total 39 potential RVFV vectors were identified based on our review. Of the 39 identified potential vectors of RVFV, the five highest ranked based on their distribution in the African at‐risk countries, their potential role as vector, and their behavioural and ecological traits influencing the risk of transportation were: Anopheles pharoensis, Aedes aegypti, Mansonia uniformis, Aedes mcintoshi, and Culex quinquefasciatus. Four of these species were also detected in airports or airplanes in the EU. The estimated probability of entry of RVFV infected mosquito vectors into the EU through the passive movement of mosquito vectors by flights is medium for the Netherlands, France, Germany and Italy. These countries are heavily connected through direct flights from the 14 at‐risk countries in Africa. A low risk of RVFV import was estimated for Spain, Poland, Belgium and Austria and for 16 countries the risk was zero. Overall the risk of RVFV import through ship‐cargo was zero for most of the EU Member States and low for the Netherlands, Spain, Germany and Belgium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Tropical Medicine & International Health is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)