BACKGROUND: Insecticide-based interventions, such as long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), remain the backbone of malaria vector control. These interventions target mosquitoes that prefer to feed and rest indoors, but have limited capacity to prevent transmission that occurs outdoors or outside regular sleeping hours. In low-endemicity areas, malaria elimination will require that these control gaps are addressed, and complementary tools are found. The use of topical repellents may be particularly useful for populations who may not benefit from programmatic malaria control measures, such as refugees, the military, or forest goers. This Cochrane Review aims to measure the effectiveness of topical repellents to prevent malaria infection among high- and non-high-risk populations living in malaria-endemic regions.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of topical repellents alone or in combination with other background interventions (long-lasting insecticide-treated nets, or indoor residual spraying, or both) for reducing the incidence of malaria in high- and non-high-risk populations living in endemic areas.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 11 January 2023: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register; CENTRAL (in the Cochrane Library); MEDLINE; Embase; CAB Abstracts; and LILACS. We also searched trial registration platforms and conference proceedings; and contacted organizations and companies for ongoing and unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) of topical repellents proven to repel mosquitoes. We also included non-randomized studies that complied with pre-specified inclusion criteria: controlled before-after studies (CBA), controlled interrupted time series (ITS), and controlled cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, and extracted the data. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. A fifth review author resolved any disagreements. We analysed data by conducting a meta-analysis, stratified by whether studies included populations considered to be at high-risk of developing malaria infection (for example, refugees, forest goers, or deployed military troops). We combined results from cRCTs with RCTs by adjusting for clustering and presented results using forest plots. We used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of the evidence. We only included data on Plasmodium falciparum infections in the meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen articles relating to eight trials met the inclusion criteria and were qualitatively described. We included six trials in the meta-analysis (five cRCTs and one RCT). Effect on malaria incidence Topical repellents may slightly reduce P falciparum infection and clinical incidence when both outcomes are considered together (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.98; 3 cRCTs and 1 RCT, 61,651 participants; low-certainty evidence); but not when these two outcomes were considered independently. Two cRCTs and one RCT (12,813 participants) evaluated the effect of topical repellents on infection incidence (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.02; low-certainty evidence). One cRCT (48,838 participants) evaluated their effect on clinical case incidence (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36; low-certainty evidence). Three studies (2 cRCTs and 1 RCT) included participants belonging to groups considered at high-risk of being infected, while only one cRCT did not include participants at high risk. Adverse events Topical repellents are considered safe. The prevalence of adverse events among participants who used topical repellents was very low (0.6%, 283/47,515) and limited to mild skin reactions. Effect on malaria prevalence Topical repellents may slightly reduce P falciparum prevalence (odds ratio (OR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; 3 cRCTs and 1 RCT; 55,366 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two of these studies (1 cRCT and 1 RCT) were carried out in refugee camps, and included exclusively high-risk populations that were not receiving any other background vector control intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that topical repellents can prevent malaria in settings where other vector control interventions are in place. We found the certainty of evidence for all outcomes to be low, primarily due to the risk of bias. A protective effect was suggested among high-risk populations, specially refugees, who might not have access to other standard vector control measures. More adequately powered clinical trials carried out in refugee camps could provide further information on the potential benefit of topical repellents in this setting. Individually randomized studies are also likely necessary to understand whether topical repellents have an effect on personal protection, and the degree to which diversion to non-protected participants affects overall transmission dynamics. Despite this, the potential additional benefits of topical repellents are most likely limited in contexts where other interventions are available.
BACKGROUND: Larval source management (LSM) may help reduce Plasmodium parasite transmission in malaria-endemic areas. LSM approaches include habitat modification (permanently or temporarily reducing mosquito breeding aquatic habitats); habitat manipulation (temporary or recurrent change to environment); or use of chemical (e.g. larviciding) or biological agents (e.g. natural predators) to breeding sites. We examined the effectiveness of habitat modification or manipulation (or both), with and without larviciding. This is an update of a review published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES: 1. To describe and summarize the interventions on mosquito aquatic habitat modification or mosquito aquatic habitat manipulation, or both, on malaria control. 2. To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of mosquito aquatic habitat modification or mosquito aquatic habitat manipulation, or both, on malaria control.
SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was from January 2012 to 30 November 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized intervention studies comparing mosquito aquatic habitat modification or manipulation (or both) to no treatment or another active intervention. We also included uncontrolled before-after (BA) studies, but only described and summarized the interventions from studies with these designs. Primary outcomes were clinical malaria incidence, malaria parasite prevalence, and malaria parasitaemia incidence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized intervention studies. We used a narrative synthesis approach to systematically describe and summarize all the interventions included within the review, categorized by the type of intervention (habitat modification, habitat manipulation, combination of habitat modification and manipulation). Our primary outcomes were 1. clinical malaria incidence; 2. malaria parasite prevalence; and 3. malaria parasitaemia incidence. Our secondary outcomes were 1. incidence of severe malaria; 2. anaemia prevalence; 3. mean haemoglobin levels; 4. mortality rate due to malaria; 5. hospital admissions for malaria; 6. density of immature mosquitoes; 7. density of adult mosquitoes; 8. sporozoite rate; 9. entomological inoculation rate; and 10.
HARMS: We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each type of intervention.
MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Six used an RCT design, six used a controlled before-after (CBA) study design, three used a non-randomized controlled design, and one used an uncontrolled BA study design. Eleven studies were conducted in Africa and five in Asia. Five studies reported epidemiological outcomes and 15 studies reported entomological outcomes. None of the included studies reported on the environmental impacts associated with the intervention. For risk of bias, all trials had some concerns and other designs ranging from moderate to critical. Ten studies assessed habitat manipulation (temporary change to the environment). This included water management (spillways across streams; floodgates; intermittent flooding; different drawdown rates of water; different flooding and draining regimens), shading management (shading of drainage channels with different plants), other/combined management approaches (minimal tillage; disturbance of aquatic habitats with grass clearing and water replenishment), which showed mixed results for entomological outcomes. Spillways across streams, faster drawdown rates of water, shading drainage canals with Napier grass, and using minimal tillage may reduce the density of immature mosquitoes (range of effects from 95% reduction to 1.7 times increase; low-certainty evidence), and spillways across streams may reduce densities of adult mosquitoes compared to no intervention (low-certainty evidence). However, the effect of habitat manipulation on malaria parasite prevalence and clinical malaria incidence is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessed habitat manipulation with larviciding. This included reducing or removal of habitat sites; and drain cleaning, grass cutting, and minor repairs. It is uncertain whether drain cleaning, grass cutting, and minor repairs reduces malaria parasite prevalence compared to no intervention (odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.83; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessed combination of habitat manipulation and permanent change (habitat modification). This included drainage canals, filling, and planting of papyrus and other reeds for shading near dams; and drainage of canals, removal of debris, land levelling, and filling ditches. Studies did not report on epidemiological outcomes, but entomological outcomes suggest that such activities may reduce the density of adult mosquitoes compared to no intervention (relative risk reduction 0.49, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.50; low-certainty evidence), and preventing water stagnating using drainage of canals, removal of debris, land levelling, and filling ditches may reduce the density of immature mosquitoes compared to no intervention (ranged from 10% to 55% reductions; low-certainty evidence). Three studies assessed combining manipulation and modification with larviciding. This included filling or drainage of water bodies; filling, draining, or elimination of rain pools and puddles at water supply points and stream bed pools; and shoreline work, improvement and maintenance to drainage, clearing vegetation and undergrowth, and filling pools. There were mixed effect sizes for the reduction of entomological outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence). However, filling or draining water bodies probably makes little or no difference to malaria parasite prevalence, haemoglobin levels, or entomological inoculation rate when delivered with larviciding compared to no intervention (moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Habitat modification and manipulation interventions for preventing malaria has some indication of benefit in both epidemiological and entomological outcomes. While the data are quite mixed and further studies could help improve the knowledge base, these varied approaches may be useful in some circumstances.
BACKGROUND: Mosquito control interventions are widely used to reduce mosquito-borne diseases. It is unclear what combination of interventions are most effective in reducing human disease. A novel intervention study for Buruli ulcer targeting mosquito vectors was proposed for a Buruli ulcer-endemic area of Victoria, Australia. The local community expressed a preference for avoiding widespread residual spraying of pyrethroids. To inform the design of a future cluster randomised control study (cRCT) for Buruli ulcer prevention in Victoria, we conducted a systematic literature review.
AIMS: The aim was to describe cRCT designs which investigated interventions other than non-targeted insecticide for reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission, and comment on the strengths and weaknesses of these study designs.
METHODS: Five medical research databases were searched for eligible literature from the earliest available sources up to 5 July 2019 (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, EBM Reviews, CAB Direct). Reference lists of identified studies were hand searched. Eligible studies were cRCTs using targeted chemical or biological mosquito control interventions, or mosquito breeding source reduction, with the occurrence of mosquito-borne disease as an outcome.
RESULTS: Eight eligible cRCTs, conducted between 1994-2013 were identified in a variety of settings in the Americas and Asia. Interventions to reduce dengue transmission were mass adult trapping and source reduction. Interventions to reduce malaria transmission were largescale larvicide administration and (topical and spatial) repellent use. Three studies showed the intervention was associated with statistically significant reductions in the disease of interest and entomological indicators. High community engagement with the intervention were common to all three. In two studies, large buffer zones reduced contamination between study arms. Heterogeneity was reduced through increasing study cluster numbers, cluster matching and randomisation.
CONCLUSION: High community engagement is vital for a cRCT reducing mosquito-borne disease with a mosquito control intervention. These findings support a mosquito breeding source reduction intervention for Aedes control in a future study of Buruli ulcer prevention if local communities are supportive and very engaged. Regular administration of larvicide to sites unsuited to source reduction may supplement the intervention.
Background: Vector control remains the primary method to prevent dengue infections. Environmental interventions represent sustainable and safe methods as there are limited risks of environmental contamination and toxicity. The objective of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the following environmental methods for dengue vector control. Methodology/Principal findings: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Quality assessment was done using the CONSORT 2010 checklist. For the meta-analysis the difference-in-differences (DID) and the difference-of-endlines (DOE) were calculated according to the Schmidt-Hunter method for the Breteau index (BI) and the pupae per person index (PPI). Nineteen studies were eligible for the systematic review, sixteen contributed data to the meta-analysis. The following methods were evaluated: (a) container covers with and without insecticides, (b) waste management and clean-up campaigns, and (c) elimination of breeding sites by rendering potential mosquito breeding sites unusable or by eliminating them. Study quality was highest for container covers with insecticides, followed by waste management without direct garbage collection and elimination of breeding places. Both, systematic review and meta-analysis, showed a weak effect of the interventions on larval populations, with no obvious differences between the results of each individual method. For the meta-analysis, both, container covers without insecticides (BI: DID-7.9, DOE-5) and waste management with direct garbage collection (BI: DID-8.83, DOE-6.2) achieved the strongest reductions for the BI, whereas for the PPI results were almost opposite, with container covers with insecticides (PPI: DID-0.83, DOE 0.09) and elimination of breeding places (PPI: DID-0.95, DOE-0.83) showing the strongest effects. Conclusions: Each of the investigated environmental methods showed some effectiveness in reducing larval and pupal densities of Aedes sp. mosquitoes. However, there is a need for more comparable high-quality studies at an adequate standard to strengthen this evidence.
BACKGROUND: The Aedes aegypti mosquito is the vector for dengue fever, yellow fever, chikungunya, and zika viruses. Inadequate vector control has contributed to persistence and increase of these diseases. This review assesses the evidence of effectiveness of different control measures in reducing Aedes aegypti proliferation, using standard entomological indices.
METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Ovid, BVS, LILACS, ARTEMISA, IMBIOMED and MEDIGRAPHIC databases identified cluster randomised controlled trials (CRCTs) of interventions to control Aedes aegypti published between January 2003 and October 2016. Eligible studies were CRCTs of chemical or biological control measures, or community mobilization, with entomological indices as an endpoint. A meta-analysis of eligible studies, using a random effects model, assessed the impact on household index (HI), container index (CI), and Breteau index (BI).
RESULTS: From 848 papers identified by the search, eighteen met the inclusion criteria: eight for chemical control, one for biological control and nine for community mobilisation. Seven of the nine CRCTs of community mobilisation reported significantly lower entomological indices in intervention than control clusters; findings from the eight CRCTs of chemical control were more mixed. The CRCT of biological control reported a significant impact on the pupae per person index only. Ten papers provided enough detail for meta-analysis. Community mobilisation (four studies) was consistently effective, with an overall intervention effectiveness estimate of -0.10 (95%CI -0.20 - 0.00) for HI, -0.03 (95%CI -0.05 - -0.01) for CI, and -0.13 (95%CI -0.22 - -0.05) for BI. The single CRCT of biological control had effectiveness of -0.02 (95%CI -0.07- 0.03) for HI, -0.02 (95%CI -0.04- -0.01) for CI and -0.08 (95%CI -0.15- -0.01) for BI. The five studies of chemical control did not show a significant impact on indices: the overall effectiveness was -0.01 (95%CI -0.05- 0.03) for HI, 0.01 (95% CI -0.01- 0.02) for CI, and 0.01 (95%CI -0.03 - 0.05) for BI.
CONCLUSION: Governments that rely on chemical control of Aedes aegypti should consider adding community mobilization to their prevention efforts. More well-conducted CRCTs of complex interventions, including those with biological control, are needed to provide evidence of real life impact. Trials of all interventions should measure impact on dengue risk.
ANTECEDENTES: Recomendado herramientas de control de vectores de la malaria, tales como las redes insecticidas de larga duración (MILD) y la pulverización residual (IRS), se dirigen principalmente a los mosquitos que descansan y se alimentan de los ejércitos humanos en el interior. Sin embargo, en algunas zonas donde la malaria es endémica, como el sudeste de Asia y América del Sur, los vectores del paludismo pican principalmente al aire libre lo que significa que los mosquiteros y el IRS puede ser menos efectiva. En estas situaciones, el uso de repelentes de insectos de uso tópico puede reducir morder al aire libre y la morbilidad por malaria. Se realizó una revisión sistemática y meta-análisis para evaluar la eficacia de los repelentes de insectos de uso tópico contra la malaria.
MÉTODOS: Los estudios se identificaron mediante búsquedas de bases de datos (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science y registros de ensayos clínicos), así como la lista de búsquedas de referencias y el contacto con los investigadores. Aleatorios y se incluyeron los ensayos controlados no aleatorios que evaluaron el efecto de repelentes tópicos (todos los ingredientes activos y concentraciones) sobre Plasmodium falciparum o Plasmodium vivax malaria o infección en las poblaciones donde la malaria es endémica. Meta-análisis de los datos clínicos se realizó con el fin de generar relaciones de riesgo de resumen.
RESULTADOS: Diez ensayos cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Los estudios variaron en términos de repelente de ingrediente activo y formulación, co-intervenciones, población de estudio, el cumplimiento y el período de seguimiento. Repelentes tópicos mostraron una eficacia protectora del 18% contra la malaria por P. falciparum, aunque esto no fue significativo (IC del 95%: 8%, 38%). Del mismo modo, la eficacia protectora promedio de repelentes tópicos contra la malaria por P. vivax no alcanzó significación (eficacia protectora: 20%; IC del 95%: -37%, 53%). Exclusión de los ensayos no aleatorios del metanálisis no alteró los resultados.
CONCLUSIONES: Aunque los repelentes tópicos pueden proporcionar protección individual contra los mosquitos, los resultados de este meta-análisis indican que los repelentes tópicos son poco probable que proporcione una protección eficaz contra la malaria. Sin embargo, hubo heterogeneidad significativa entre los estudios incluidos y el número relativamente pequeño de estudios hicieron que esta heterogeneidad no se podría explorar plenamente en el análisis. Además ensayos de repelentes tópicos bien diseñado en las dosis apropiadas y modos alternativos de prestación de repelente, como repelentes espaciales y duradera ropa tratada con insecticida, son obligatorios.
Insecticide-based interventions, such as long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), remain the backbone of malaria vector control. These interventions target mosquitoes that prefer to feed and rest indoors, but have limited capacity to prevent transmission that occurs outdoors or outside regular sleeping hours. In low-endemicity areas, malaria elimination will require that these control gaps are addressed, and complementary tools are found. The use of topical repellents may be particularly useful for populations who may not benefit from programmatic malaria control measures, such as refugees, the military, or forest goers. This Cochrane Review aims to measure the effectiveness of topical repellents to prevent malaria infection among high- and non-high-risk populations living in malaria-endemic regions.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effect of topical repellents alone or in combination with other background interventions (long-lasting insecticide-treated nets, or indoor residual spraying, or both) for reducing the incidence of malaria in high- and non-high-risk populations living in endemic areas.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the following databases up to 11 January 2023: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register; CENTRAL (in the Cochrane Library); MEDLINE; Embase; CAB Abstracts; and LILACS. We also searched trial registration platforms and conference proceedings; and contacted organizations and companies for ongoing and unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) of topical repellents proven to repel mosquitoes. We also included non-randomized studies that complied with pre-specified inclusion criteria: controlled before-after studies (CBA), controlled interrupted time series (ITS), and controlled cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Four review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, and extracted the data. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. A fifth review author resolved any disagreements. We analysed data by conducting a meta-analysis, stratified by whether studies included populations considered to be at high-risk of developing malaria infection (for example, refugees, forest goers, or deployed military troops). We combined results from cRCTs with RCTs by adjusting for clustering and presented results using forest plots. We used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of the evidence. We only included data on Plasmodium falciparum infections in the meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS:
Thirteen articles relating to eight trials met the inclusion criteria and were qualitatively described. We included six trials in the meta-analysis (five cRCTs and one RCT). Effect on malaria incidence Topical repellents may slightly reduce P falciparum infection and clinical incidence when both outcomes are considered together (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.98; 3 cRCTs and 1 RCT, 61,651 participants; low-certainty evidence); but not when these two outcomes were considered independently. Two cRCTs and one RCT (12,813 participants) evaluated the effect of topical repellents on infection incidence (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.02; low-certainty evidence). One cRCT (48,838 participants) evaluated their effect on clinical case incidence (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36; low-certainty evidence). Three studies (2 cRCTs and 1 RCT) included participants belonging to groups considered at high-risk of being infected, while only one cRCT did not include participants at high risk. Adverse events Topical repellents are considered safe. The prevalence of adverse events among participants who used topical repellents was very low (0.6%, 283/47,515) and limited to mild skin reactions. Effect on malaria prevalence Topical repellents may slightly reduce P falciparum prevalence (odds ratio (OR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; 3 cRCTs and 1 RCT; 55,366 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two of these studies (1 cRCT and 1 RCT) were carried out in refugee camps, and included exclusively high-risk populations that were not receiving any other background vector control intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that topical repellents can prevent malaria in settings where other vector control interventions are in place. We found the certainty of evidence for all outcomes to be low, primarily due to the risk of bias. A protective effect was suggested among high-risk populations, specially refugees, who might not have access to other standard vector control measures. More adequately powered clinical trials carried out in refugee camps could provide further information on the potential benefit of topical repellents in this setting. Individually randomized studies are also likely necessary to understand whether topical repellents have an effect on personal protection, and the degree to which diversion to non-protected participants affects overall transmission dynamics. Despite this, the potential additional benefits of topical repellents are most likely limited in contexts where other interventions are available.
