Successful malaria elimination strategies require interventions that target changing vector behaviours
Successful malaria elimination strategies require interventions that target changing vector behaviours
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1475-2875-12-56
复制
发表时间：
2013-02-07
期刊：
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Burkot, Thomas R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Russell, Tanya L.;Beebe, Nigel W.;Burkot, Thomas R.
背景：根除疟疾的最终长期目标最近被重新列入全球卫生议程。在规划这一目标时，重要的是要记住，为什么最初的全球根除疟疾方案(GMEP)是用滴滴涕室内残留喷洒(IRS)进行的，但没有实现其目标。未能消灭疟疾的技术原因之一是过度依赖单一干预措施，随后蚊子媒介产生了行为抵抗力，因此它们不会与杀虫剂接触。假设和如何测试：目前，仍然完全依赖室内媒介控制。据推测，长期、广泛控制的结果是媒介种群将随着时间的推移而变化，无论是以生理抗性、相对物种组成的变化还是行为抗性的形式。通过回顾有关西南太平洋媒介行为的文献，探讨了行为抗性的可能性和后果。讨论：在这里，两种高度嗜食的主要媒介，斑点按蚊和科利氏按蚊，几乎从喷洒滴滴涕的大片区域消失了。然而，法氏按蚊保持了较高的传播水平，改变了它在傍晚和户外进食血液的行为，从而避免暴露在国税局使用的杀虫剂中。这个例子表明，如果媒介改变它们的行为以避免进入室内，依赖于室内媒介控制的方案(IRS和长效驱虫蚊帐[LLIN])的效果将显著降低。结论：与生理抗性(蚊子接触杀虫剂但没有被杀死)相比，行为抗性较少出现，但对控制方案可能更具挑战性，因为不能通过将杀虫剂轮换为具有不同作用模式的杀虫剂来恢复干预效果。科学界需要紧急制定监测行为抵抗力的系统方法，然后与病媒控制方案合作，在哨所实施监测。在检测到行为抗性的情况下，需要针对幼虫阶段可能存在的其他生物脆弱性，如交配、喂糖或媒介生命周期的另一个方面，以继续驱使消灭。
Background: The ultimate long-term goal of malaria eradication was recently placed back onto the global health agenda. When planning for this goal, it is important to remember why the original Global Malaria Eradication Programme (GMEP), conducted with DDT-based indoor residual spraying (IRS), did not achieve its goals. One of the technical reasons for the failure to eliminate malaria was over reliance on a single intervention and subsequently the mosquito vectors developed behavioural resistance so that they did not come into physical contact with the insecticide.Hypothesis and how to test it: Currently, there remains a monolithic reliance on indoor vector control. It is hypothesized that an outcome of long-term, widespread control is that vector populations will change over time, either in the form of physiological resistance, changes in the relative species composition or behavioural resistance. The potential for, and consequences of, behavioural resistance was explored by reviewing the literature regarding vector behaviour in the southwest Pacific.Discussion: Here, two of the primary vectors that were highly endophagic, Anopheles punctulatus and Anopheles koliensis, virtually disappeared from large areas where DDT was sprayed. However, high levels of transmission have been maintained by Anopheles farauti, which altered its behaviour to blood-feed early in the evening and outdoors and, thereby, avoiding exposure to the insecticides used in IRS. This example indicates that the efficacy of programmes relying on indoor vector control (IRS and long-lasting, insecticide-treated nets [LLINs]) will be significantly reduced if the vectors change their behaviour to avoid entering houses.Conclusions: Behavioural resistance is less frequently seen compared with physiological resistance (where the mosquito contacts the insecticide but is not killed), but is potentially more challenging to control programmes because the intervention effectiveness cannot be restored by rotating the insecticide to one with a different mode of action. The scientific community needs to urgently develop systematic methods for monitoring behavioural resistance and then to work in collaboration with vector control programmes to implement monitoring in sentinel sites. In situations where behavioural resistance is detected, there will be a need to target other bionomic vulnerabilities that may exist in the larval stages, during mating, sugar feeding or another aspect of the life cycle of the vector to continue the drive towards elimination.