Evaluation of Spatially Targeted Strategies to Control Non-Domiciliated Triatoma dimidiata Vector of Chagas Disease
Evaluation of Spatially Targeted Strategies to Control Non-Domiciliated Triatoma dimidiata Vector of Chagas Disease
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pntd.0001045
复制
发表时间：
2011-05-01
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Gourbiere, Sebastien
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barbu, Corentin;Dumonteil, Eric;Gourbiere, Sebastien
背景：恰加斯病是一种被忽视的主要热带疾病，对整个中美洲和南美洲产生深刻的社会经济影响。病媒控制方案一直在减少国内锥蝽病媒的数量，但仍然必须有效控制非寄生病媒。设计控制策略，针对这些载体是具有挑战性的，因为它需要一个定量描述的时空动态的村庄侵扰，这只能从广泛的实地研究和空间人口动态modeling.Methodology/主要调查结果的组合获得：一个空间明确的人口动态模型相结合，一个为期两年的实地研究T。墨西哥Teya村的dimidiata感染动态。参数化模型对病媒丰度的年内变化和空间梯度都有较好的拟合和预测。五种不同的控制策略，然后应用在同心环，以模仿空间设计，针对周边的村庄，其中载体最丰富。室内杀虫剂喷洒和昆虫屏障将病媒丰度减少了80%（适用于整个村庄时），而仅对最靠近村庄周边的33%的家庭进行控制时，所取得的效果只有一半。住所周围的清洁能够消除高达60%的病媒，但在村庄的外围，效果很低，因为它对森林昆虫无效。使用致命陷阱和管理房子的吸引力提供了类似的控制水平。然而，这需要要么房子的吸引力是空的，或>= 5致命的陷阱，至少有吸引力的房子，安装在每个households.Conclusion/Significance：Inadrade和昆虫屏幕中使用的房屋在周边的村庄，可以有助于减少房屋虫害在更中心的未经处理的区域。然而，这一有利影响仍然不足以使我们能够采取一项独特的针对空间的战略，为所有家庭提供保护。最有效的防治措施应结合联合收割机和在外围地区使用防虫网，以减少森林病媒和森林周围病媒的侵扰，并在没有森林病媒的村庄中心清理住所周围的环境。这种空间混合控制策略的设计提供了一个有前途的途径，以减少与非线性矢量控制相关的经济成本。
Background: Chagas disease is a major neglected tropical disease with deep socio-economical effects throughout Central and South America. Vector control programs have consistently reduced domestic populations of triatomine vectors, but non-domiciliated vectors still have to be controlled efficiently. Designing control strategies targeting these vectors is challenging, as it requires a quantitative description of the spatio-temporal dynamics of village infestation, which can only be gained from combinations of extensive field studies and spatial population dynamic modelling.Methodology/Principal Findings: A spatially explicit population dynamic model was combined with a two-year field study of T. dimidiata infestation dynamics in the village of Teya, Mexico. The parameterized model fitted and predicted accurately both intra-annual variation and the spatial gradient in vector abundance. Five different control strategies were then applied in concentric rings to mimic spatial design targeting the periphery of the village, where vectors were most abundant. Indoor insecticide spraying and insect screens reduced vector abundance by up to 80% (when applied to the whole village), and half of this effect was obtained when control was applied only to the 33% of households closest to the village periphery. Peri-domicile cleaning was able to eliminate up to 60% of the vectors, but at the periphery of the village it has a low effect, as it is ineffective against sylvatic insects. The use of lethal traps and the management of house attractiveness provided similar levels of control. However this required either house attractiveness to be null, or >= 5 lethal traps, at least as attractive as houses, to be installed in each household.Conclusion/Significance: Insecticide and insect screens used in houses at the periphery of the village can contribute to reduce house infestation in more central untreated zones. However, this beneficial effect remains insufficient to allow for a unique spatially targeted strategy to offer protection to all households. Most efficiently, control should combine the use of insect screens in outer zones to reduce infestation by both sylvatic and peri-domiciliated vectors, and cleaning of peri-domicile in the centre of the village where sylvatic vectors are absent. The design of such spatially mixed strategies of control offers a promising avenue to reduce the economic cost associated with the control of non-domiciliated vectors.