Search

Background: After the unprecedented Zika virus (ZIKV) outbreak in the western hemisphere from 2015-2018, Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus are now well established primary and secondary ZIKV vectors, respectively. Consensus about identification and importance of other secondary ZIKV vectors remain. This systematic review aims to provide a list of vector species capable of transmitting ZIKV by reviewing evidence from laboratory vector competence (VC) studies and to identify key knowledge gaps and issues within the ZIKV VC literature., Methods: A search was performed until 15th March 2022 on the Cochrane Library, Lilacs, PubMed, Web of Science, WHOLIS and Google Scholar. The search strings included three general categories: 1) "ZIKA"; 2) "vector"; 3) "competence", "transmission", "isolation", or "feeding behavior" and their combinations. Inclusion and exclusion criteria has been predefined and quality of included articles was assessed by STROBE and STROME-ID criteria., Findings: From 8,986 articles retrieved, 2,349 non-duplicates were screened by title and abstracts,103 evaluated using the full text, and 45 included in this analysis. Main findings are 1) secondary vectors of interest include Ae. japonicus, Ae. detritus, and Ae. vexans at higher temperature 2) Culex quinquefasciatus was not found to be a competent vector of ZIKV, 3) considerable heterogeneity in VC, depending on the local mosquito strain and virus used in testing was observed. Critical issues or gaps identified included 1) inconsistent definitions of VC parameters across the literature; 2) equivalency of using different mosquito body parts to evaluate VC parameters for infection (mosquito bodies versus midguts), dissemination (heads, legs or wings versus salivary glands), and transmission (detection or virus amplification in saliva, FTA cards, transmission to neonatal mice); 3) articles that fail to use infectious virus assays to confirm the presence of live virus; 4) need for more studies using murine models with immunocompromised mice to infect mosquitoes., Conclusion: Recent, large collaborative multi-country projects to conduct large scale evaluations of specific mosquito species represent the most appropriate approach to establish VC of mosquito species., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Bisia et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Because the evidence for the role of structural housing and combinations of interventions (domestic or peri-domestic) against Aedes mosquitoes or dengue is still lacking, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyse and synthesize research focusing on the household as the unit of allocation., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, LILACS, and Web of Science databases until February 2023 using three general keyword categories: (1) "Aedes" or "dengue"; (2) structural housing interventions including "house", "water", or "drainage"; and (3) vector control interventions of potential relevance and their combinations. We performed a qualitative content analysis and a meta-analysis for 13 entries on dengue seroconversion data., Findings: 14,272 articles were screened by titles, 615 by abstracts, 79 by full-text. 61 were selected. Satisfactory data quality allowed for detailed content analysis. Interventions at the household level against the immature mosquito stages (21 studies, 34%) showed positive or mixed results in entomological and epidemiological outcomes (86% and 75% respectively). Combined interventions against immature and adult stages (11 studies, 18%) performed similarly (91% and 67%) while those against the adult mosquitoes (29 studies, 48%) performed less well (79%, 22%). A meta-analysis on seroconversion outcomes showed a not-statistically significant reduction for interventions (log odds-ratio: -0.18 [-0.51, 0.14 95% CI])., Interpretation: No basic research on housing structure or modification was eligible for this systematic review but many interventions with clear impact on vector indices and, to a lesser extent, on dengue were described. The small and not-statistically significant effect size of the meta-analysis highlights the difficulty of proving effectiveness against this highly-clustered disease and of overcoming practical implementation obstacles (e.g. efficacy loss, compliance). The long-term success of interventions depends on suitability, community commitment and official support and promotion. The choice of a specific vector control package needs to take all these context-specific aspects into consideration., Funding: This work was funded by a grant from the World Health Organization (2021/1121668-0, PO 202678425, NTD/VVE)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This review discusses biological and chemical methods for dengue vector control, using recently emerging summary evidence, meta-analyses and systematic reviews to conclude on practical public health recommendations for Aedes control, which is increasingly relevant in an era of widespread Chikungunya, yellow feer and Zika outbreaks. The analysis follows an a priori framework of systematic reviews by the authors on vector control methods, distinguishing vector control methods into biological, chemical and environmental methods. Findings of each published systematic review by the authors, following each individual vector control method, are summarised and compared in the discussion against the findings of existing meta-analyses covering all vector control methods. Analysing nine systematic reviews and comparing to two existing meta-analyses provided low-to-moderate evidence that the control of Aedes mosquitoes can be achieved using 1) chemical methods, particularly indoor residual spraying and insecticide treated materials, and 2) biological methods, where appropriate. The level of efficacy and community effectiveness of the methods in most studies analysed is low, as was the overall assessment of study quality. Furthermore, the results show that too optimise results, larvae and adults should be targeted simultaneously. The quality of service delivery is probably one of the most important features of this analysis - and including high coverage. The analysis also highlights the urgent need for standards to guide the design and reporting of vector control studies, ensuring the validity and comparability of results. These studies should aim to include measurements of human transmission data - where and when possible.

Background: Vector control is the only widely utilised method for primary prevention and control of dengue. The use of pyriproxyfen may be promising, and autodissemination approach may reach hard to reach breeding places. It offers a unique mode of action (juvenile hormone mimic) and as an additional tool for the management of insecticide resistance among Aedes vectors. However, evidence of efficacy and community effectiveness (CE) remains limited., Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to compile and analyse the existing literature for evidence on the CE of pyriproxyfen as a vector control method for reducing Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus populations and thereby human dengue transmission., Methods: Systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane library, WHOLIS, Web of Science, Google Scholar as well as reference lists of all identified studies. Removal of duplicates, screening of abstracts and assessment for eligibility of the remaining studies followed. Relevant data were extracted, and a quality assessment conducted. Results were classified into four main categories of how pyriproxyfen was applied: - 1) container treatment, 2) fumigation, 3) auto-dissemination or 4) combination treatments,-and analysed with a view to their public health implication., Results: Out of 745 studies 17 studies were identified that fulfilled all eligibility criteria. The results show that pyriproxyfen can be effective in reducing the numbers of Aedes spp. immatures with different methods of application when targeting their main breeding sites. However, the combination of pyriproxyfen with a second product increases efficacy and/or persistence of the intervention and may also slow down the development of insecticide resistance. Open questions concern concentration and frequency of application in the various treatments. Area-wide ultra-low volume treatment with pyriproxyfen currently lacks evidence and cannot be recommended. Community participation and acceptance has not consistently been successful and needs to be further assessed. While all studies measured entomological endpoints, only two studies measured the reduction in human dengue cases, with inconclusive results., Conclusions: Although pyriproxyfen is highly effective in controlling the immature stages of dengue transmitting mosquitoes, and-to a smaller degree-adult mosquitoes, there is weak evidence for a reduction of human dengue cases. More well designed larger studies with appropriate standardised outcome measures are needed before pyriproxyfen is incorporated in routine vector control programmes. Additionally, resistance to pyriproxyfen has been reported and needs investigation.

Objective: Vector control remains the only available method for primary prevention of dengue. Several interventions exist for dengue vector control, with limited evidence of their efficacy and community effectiveness. This systematic review compiles and analyses the existing global evidence for community effectiveness of copepods for dengue vector control., Methods: The systematic review follows the PRISMA statement, searching six relevant databases. Applying all inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 articles were included., Results: There is evidence that cyclopoid copepods (Mesocyclops spp.) could potentially be an effective vector control option, as shown in five community effectiveness studies in Vietnam. This includes long-term effectiveness for larval and adult control of Ae. aegypti, as well as dengue incidence. However, this success has so far not been replicated elsewhere (six studies, three community effectiveness studies--Costa Rica, Mexico and USA, and three studies analysing both efficacy and community effectiveness--Honduras, Laos and USA), probably due to community participation, environmental and/or biological factors. Judging by the quality of existing studies, there is a lack of good study design, data quality and appropriate statistics., Conclusion: There is limited evidence for the use of cyclopoid copepods as a single intervention. There are very few studies, and more are needed in other communities and environments. Clear best practice guidelines for the methodology of entomological studies should be developed., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)