Vector-borne diseases (VBDs) such as malaria, dengue, and leishmaniasis exert a huge burden of morbidity and mortality worldwide, particularly affecting the poorest of the poor. The principal method by which these diseases are controlled is through vector control, which has a long and distinguished history. Vector control, to a greater extent than drugs or vaccines, has been responsible for shrinking the map of many VBDs. Here, we describe the history of vector control programmes worldwide from the late 1800s to date. Pre 1940, vector control relied on a thorough understanding of vector ecology and epidemiology, and implementation of environmental management tailored to the ecology and behaviour of local vector species. This complex understanding was replaced by a simplified dependency on a handful of insecticide-based tools, particularly for malaria control, without an adequate understanding of entomology and epidemiology and without proper monitoring and evaluation. With the rising threat from insecticide-resistant vectors, global environmental change, and the need to incorporate more vector control interventions to eliminate these diseases, we advocate for continued investment in evidence-based vector control. There is a need to return to vector control approaches based on a thorough knowledge of the determinants of pathogen transmission, which utilise a range of insecticide and non-insecticide-based approaches in a locally tailored manner for more effective and sustainable vector control. Author summaryVector-borne diseases (VBDs) such as dengue, Chagas disease, human African trypanosomiasis (HAT), leishmaniasis, and malaria exert a huge burden of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The principal method by which these diseases are controlled is through vector control. The authors chart the history of vector control through time from elucidation of the transmission route of VBDs to the present day. Pre-1940 vector control relied heavily PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases | https://doi.

BackgroundDiseases caused by Aedes-borne viruses, such as dengue, Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever, are emerging and reemerging globally. The causes are multifactorial and include global trade, international travel, urbanisation, water storage practices, lack of resources for intervention, and an inadequate evidence base for the public health impact of Aedes control tools. National authorities need comprehensive evidence-based guidance on how and when to implement Aedes control measures tailored to local entomological and epidemiological conditions.Methods and findingsThis review is one of a series being conducted by the Worldwide Insecticide resistance Network (WIN). It describes a framework for implementing Integrated Aedes Management (IAM) to improve control of diseases caused by Aedes-borne viruses based on available evidence. IAM consists of a portfolio of operational actions and priorities for the control of Aedes-borne viruses that are tailored to different epidemiological and entomological risk scenarios. The framework has 4 activity pillars: (i) integrated vector and disease surveillance, (ii) vector control, (iii) community mobilisation, and (iv) intra- and intersectoral collaboration as well as 4 supporting activities: (i) capacity building, (ii) research, (iii) advocacy, and (iv) policies and laws.ConclusionsIAM supports implementation of the World Health Organisation Global Vector Control Response (WHO GVCR) and provides a comprehensive framework for health authorities to devise and deliver sustainable, effective, integrated, community-based, locally adapted vector control strategies in order to reduce the burden of Aedes-transmitted arboviruses. The success of IAM requires strong commitment and leadership from governments to maintain proactive disease prevention programs and preparedness for rapid responses to outbreaks.

Seasonal malaria chemoprevention, previously known as intermittent preventive treatment in children, is highly effective in areas with a short malaria transmission season. Here we assess seasonality in malaria incidence data and define a predictor of seasonality based on rainfall. We then use spatial rainfall, malaria endemicity and population data to identify areas likely to have highly seasonal malaria incidence, and estimate the population at risk and malaria burden in areas where seasonal malaria chemoprevention would be appropriate. We estimate that in areas suitable for seasonal malaria chemoprevention, there are 39 million children under 5 years of age, who experience 33.7 million malaria episodes and 152,000 childhood deaths from malaria each year. The majority of this burden occurs in the Sahelian or sub-Sahelian regions of Africa. Our data suggest that seasonal malaria chemoprevention has the potential to avert several million malaria cases and tens of thousands of childhood deaths each year if successfully delivered to the populations at risk.

Vector-borne diseases (VBDs) such as malaria, dengue, and leishmaniasis cause a high level of morbidity and mortality. Although vector control tools can play a major role in controlling and eliminating these diseases, in many cases the evidence base for assessing the efficacy of vector control interventions is limited or not available. Studies assessing the efficacy of vector control interventions are often poorly conducted, which limits the return on investment of research funding. Here we outline the principal design features of Phase III vector control field studies, highlight major failings and strengths of published studies, and provide guidance on improving the design and conduct of vector control studies. We hope that this critical assessment will increase the impetus for more carefully considered and rigorous design of vector control studies.Evidence-based policy making on vector control VBDs such as malaria, dengue, and leishmaniasis are responsible for considerable morbidity and mortality and fall disproportionately on the poorest communities in the developing world [1-4]. One of the key methods by which VBDs can be controlled and eliminated is through vector control [5-10]; for example, long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) for malaria or indoor residual spraying (IRS) for Chagas disease.Development of vector control interventions follows a multistage process [11] (Figure 1). First, a draft target product profile should be generated. This document guides the development process by outlining the features and performance targets of the intended vector control tool. The next step is demonstrating the proof of concept by conducting Phase I studies (laboratory assays to determine the mode of action) and Phase II (semi-field and small-scale field) studies, which generally have entomological end points. Large-scale Phase III field studies (efficacy studies) (see Glossary) are then conducted, which measure the efficacy of the vector control tool against epidemiological outcomes when implemented under optimal conditions. Based on the results of Phase III trials, the World Health Organization (WHO) will make recommendations for pilot implementation. These Phase IV studies will assess the effectiveness of the vector control tool when it is delivered and used operationally (i.e., under 'real-world' conditions), as well as collecting information on feasibility, distribution mechanisms, acceptability, economics, and safety. Information gathered from the Phase III and IV studies will enable the WHO to draw up policy recommendations and, in parallel, member states will develop country-level policy.Evidence-based policy making on vector control tools is now regarded as essential and is adopted by the WHO [12,13] (Box 1). The quality of evidence on vector control interventions from epidemiological trials or systematic reviews needs to be rated before recommendations and policy can be formulated. Since 2008, the WHO has adopted the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology fo...

BackgroundIntermittent preventive treatment of malaria in children less than five years of age (IPTc) has been investigated as a measure to control the burden of malaria in the Sahel and sub-Sahelian areas of Africa where malaria transmission is markedly seasonal.Methods and FindingsIPTc studies were identified using a systematic literature search. Meta-analysis was used to assess the protective efficacy of IPTc against clinical episodes of falciparum malaria. The impact of IPTc on all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, severe malaria and the prevalence of parasitaemia and anaemia was investigated. Three aspects of safety were also assessed: adverse reactions to study drugs, development of drug resistance and loss of immunity to malaria. Twelve IPTc studies were identified: seven controlled and five non-controlled trials. Controlled studies demonstrated protective efficacies against clinical malaria of between 31% and 93% and meta-analysis gave an overall protective efficacy of monthly administered IPTc of 82% (95%CI 75%–87%) during the malaria transmission season. Pooling results from twelve studies demonstrated a protective effect of IPTc against all-cause mortality of 57% (95%CI 24%–76%) during the malaria transmission season. No serious adverse events attributable to the drugs used for IPTc were observed in any of the studies. Data from three studies that followed children during the malaria transmission season in the year following IPTc administration showed evidence of a slight increase in the incidence of clinical malaria compared to children who had not received IPTc.ConclusionsIPTc is a safe method of malaria control that has the potential to avert a significant proportion of clinical malaria episodes in areas with markedly seasonal malaria transmission and also appears to have a substantial protective effect against all-cause mortality. These findings indicate that IPTc is a potentially valuable tool that can contribute to the control of malaria in areas with markedly seasonal transmission.