Efficacy of novel indoor residual spraying methods targeting pyrethroid-resistant Aedes aegypti within experimental houses
Efficacy of novel indoor residual spraying methods targeting pyrethroid-resistant Aedes aegypti within experimental houses
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pntd.0007203
复制
发表时间：
2019-02-01
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Vazquez-Prokopec, Gonzalo M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dunbar, Mike W.;Correa-Morales, Fabian;Vazquez-Prokopec, Gonzalo M.
在城市地区保持传统媒介控制的高效性的挑战重新引起了人们对室内滞留喷洒(IRS)作为一种有前途的伊蚊传播疾病预防方法的兴趣。虽然IRS有很多好处，但应用时间和侵入性的室内应用使其在城市地区的可扩展性变得困难。修改美国国税局以计算Ae。埃及埃及人的休息行为，被称为靶向IRS(TIR，在1.5米以下的墙壁和家具下喷洒)可以减少使用时间；然而，一个未经检验的假设是，对IRS的修改不会对昆虫学效果产生负面影响。我们进行了一项对比实验研究，评估了经典应用的IRS(为控制疟疾而开发的)与使用氨基甲酸酯杀虫剂的两种TIR应用方法对抗拟除虫菊酯、田间衍生的Ae的残留效果。埃及伊蚊菌株。我们在墨西哥梅里达的一个新的实验房屋环境(n=9个房屋)中进行了我们的研究，布局相似，内容标准化。将经典的IRS应用(杀虫剂应用于整面墙和家具下)与：a)TIRS：杀虫剂应用于1.5米以下的墙壁和家具下，以及b)休息地TIR(RS-TIR)：仅在家具下使用杀虫剂。通过释放100Ae，在喷药后8次(从喷药后6个月到6个月)测量蚊子死亡率。埃及伊蚊雌虫/间，24小时后收集活体和死体。与经典IRS相比，TIR和RS-TIR的施药时间更短(分别减少31%和82%)，杀虫剂使用量也更少(分别减少38%和85%)。拟除虫菊酯抗性Ae.在涂药后两个月，埃及伊蚊在三种IRS涂抹方法之间没有显著差异，在涂药后四个月，Classic IRS和TIRS之间也没有显著差异。这些数据表明，优化IRS以更有效地瞄准Ae。埃及伊蚊在不降低昆虫学药效的情况下，可以缩短使用时间和杀虫剂用量，控制媒介媒介是控制埃及伊蚊和减少伊蚊传播疾病的主要策略，但伊蚊的室内休眠行为不明显。埃及伊蚊和杀虫剂抗药性的演变降低了许多媒介控制策略的有效性。室内滞留喷洒(IRS)是防治Ae的有效方法。埃及，但漫长的应用时间使IRS难以在城市环境中推广。在使用氨基甲酸酯杀虫剂的实验房屋中，我们比较了经典IRS和两种新的针对伊蚊的IRS应用方法(靶向IRS[TRS]-杀虫剂应用于1.5米以下的墙壁和家具下方以及休息场所TIR[RS-TIR]-仅在家具下使用)的应用和昆虫学效果。与经典IRS相比，TIR和RS-TRS使用时间更短，使用的杀虫剂更少。拟除虫菊酯抗性Ae.埃及伊蚊在治疗后两个月内没有差异，经典IRS和TIR之间的死亡率在治疗后四个月内也没有差异。这些数据提供了证据，证明IRS的应用方法可以改进，以减少时间和杀虫剂，而不会失去昆虫学效果，使TIR在城市环境中更具可扩展性。然而，需要对流行病学终点进行更大规模的现场研究，以进一步评估这些改良的TRS技术的有效性。
Challenges in maintaining high effectiveness of classic vector control in urban areas has renewed the interest in indoor residual spraying (IRS) as a promising approach for Aedes-borne disease prevention. While IRS has many benefits, application time and intrusive indoor applications make its scalability in urban areas difficult. Modifying IRS to account for Ae. aegypti resting behavior, named targeted IRS (TIRS, spraying walls below 1.5 m and under furniture) can reduce application time; however, an untested assumption is that modifications to IRS will not negatively impact entomological efficacy. We conducted a comparative experimental study evaluating the residual efficacy of classically-applied IRS (as developed for malaria control) compared to two TIRS application methods using a carbamate insecticide against a pyrethroid-resistant, field-derived Ae. aegypti strain. We performed our study within a novel experimental house setting (n = 9 houses) located in Merida (Mexico), with similar layouts and standardized contents. Classic IRS application (insecticide applied to full walls and under furniture) was compared to: a) TIRS: insecticide applied to walls below 1.5 m and under furniture, and b) Resting Site TIRS (RS-TIRS): insecticide applied only under furniture. Mosquito mortality was measured eight times post-application (out to six months post-application) by releasing 100 Ae. aegypti females /house and collecting live and dead individuals after 24 hrs exposure. Compared to Classic IRS, TIRS and RS-TIRS took less time to apply (31% and 82% reduction, respectively) and used less insecticide (38% and 85% reduction, respectively). Mortality of pyrethroid-resistant Ae. aegypti did not significantly differ among the three IRS application methods up to two months post application, and did not significantly differ between Classic IRS and TIRS up to four months post application. These data illustrate that optimizing IRS to more efficiently target Ae. aegypti can both reduce application time and insecticide volume with no apparent reduction in entomological efficacy.Author summary Vector control is the primary strategy for managing Aedes aegypti and reducing transmission of Aedes-borne diseases; however, the indoor resting behavior of Ae. aegypti and the evolution of insecticide resistance reduces the effectiveness of many vector control tactics. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is effective against Ae. aegypti, but lengthy application time makes IRS difficult to scale within urban environments. We compared the application and entomological efficacy of Classic IRS against two novel Aedes-targeting IRS application methods (Targeted IRS [TIRS]- insecticide applied to walls below 1.5 m and under furniture and Resting Site TIRS [RS-TIRS]- insecticide applied only under furniture) within experimental houses using a carbamate insecticide. Both TIRS and RS-TIRS took less time to apply and used less insecticide compared to Classic IRS. Mortality of pyrethroid-resistant Ae. aegypti did not differ among treatments out to two months post-application, and there was no difference in mortality between Classic IRS and TIRS out to four months post-application. These data provide evidence that IRS application methods can be improved to take less time and insecticide yet not lose entomological efficacy, making TIRS more scalable within urban environments. However, larger field studies with epidemiologic endpoints are needed to further assess the efficacy of these modified TIRS techniques.