The combination of indoor residual spraying with insecticide-treated nets versus insecticide-treated nets alone for preventing malaria

Choi, Leslie; Pryce, Joseph; Garner, Paul

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012688

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did not anticipate in our protocol separating the analyses by whether the insecticide used for IRS had a pyrethroid‐like or non‐pyrethroid‐like target site (Choi 2017). However, because policy makers and specialists in the field considered this to be critical to decision making – to the extent that it would be unusual for anyone to recommend pyrethroid‐like insecticides for use in IRS – we separated the analysis to be policy‐relevant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Indoor residual spraying for preventing malaria in communities using insecticide-treated nets

Choi

Pryce

Garner

2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInsecticide‐treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are used to control malaria vectors. Both strategies use insecticides to kill mosquitoes that bite and rest indoors. For ITNs, the World Health Organization (WHO) only recommended pyrethroids until 2018, but mosquito vectors are becoming resistant to this insecticide. For IRS, a range of insecticides are recommended. Adding IRS to ITNs may improve control, simply because two interventions may be better than one; it may improve malaria control where ITNs are failing due to pyrethroid resistance; and it may slow the emergence and spread of pyrethroid resistance.ObjectivesTo summarize the effect on malaria of additionally implementing IRS, using non‐pyrethroid‐like or pyrethroid‐like insecticides, in communities currently using ITNs.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the ISRCTN registry up to 18 March 2019.Selection criteriaCluster‐randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), interrupted time series (ITS), or controlled before‐and‐after studies (CBAs) comparing IRS plus ITNs with ITNs alone.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, analyzed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We stratified by type of insecticide, ‘pyrethroid‐like’ and ‘non‐pyrethroid‐like’; the latter could improve malaria control better than adding IRS insecticides that have the same way of working as the insecticide on ITNs (‘pyrethroid‐like'). We used subgroup analysis of ITN usage in the trials to explore heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsSix cRCTs (eight comparisons) met our inclusion criteria conducted since 2008 in sub‐Saharan Africa. Malaria transmission in all sites was from mosquitoes belonging to the Anopheles gambiae s.l. complex species; two trials in Benin and Tanzania also reported the vector Anopheles funestus. Three trials used insecticide with targets different to pyrethroids (two used bendiocarb and one used pirimiphos‐methyl); two trials used dichloro‐diphenyl‐trichlorethane (DDT), an insecticide with the same target as pyrethroids; and one trial used both types of insecticide (pyrethroid deltamethrin in the first year, switching to bendiocarb for the second‐year). ITN usage was greater than 50% in three trials, and less than 50% in the remainder.Indoor residual spraying using ‘non‐pyrethroid‐like' insecticidesAdding IRS with a non‐pyrethroid‐like insecticide had mixed results. Overall, we do not know if the addition of IRS impacted on malaria incidence (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.86; 2 cRCTs, 566 child‐years; very low‐certainty evidence); it may have reduced malaria parasite prevalence (0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.28; 5 comparisons from 4 cRCTs, 10,440 participants; low‐certainty e...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the protocol, we initially limited the outcome of insecticide resistance to the specific insecticide used for IRS (Choi 2017). However, during the extraction process, it became apparent that resistance to pyrethroid insecticides was also an important outcome in trials using non‐pyrethroid‐like insecticides for IRS.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Indoor residual spraying for preventing malaria in communities using insecticide-treated nets

Choi

Pryce

Garner

2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adding to standing water microbial or chemical substances that kill or inhibit the development of aquatic immature mosquito stages (Choi 2017b; Lacey 1990; Tusting 2013). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In one study from The Gambia, where mosquito larval habitats were large swamps and rice paddies, spraying of swamps with larvicide by ground teams did not lead to any benefit. A separate Cochrane Review, which focuses on larviciding alone, is in preparation (Choi 2017b). In this review, we evaluated the most common strategy for biological control: the use of fish that attack mosquito larvae and pupae.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Larvivorous fish for preventing malaria transmission

Walshe

Garner

Adeel

et al. 2017

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Adult female Anopheles mosquitoes can transmit Plasmodium parasites that cause malaria. Some fish species eat mosquito larvae and pupae. In disease control policy documents, the World Health Organization (WHO) includes biological control of malaria vectors by stocking ponds, rivers, and water collections near where people live with larvivorous fish to reduce Plasmodium parasite transmission. In the past, the Global Fund has financed larvivorous fish programmes in some countries, and, with increasing efforts in eradication of malaria, policymakers may return to this option. Therefore, we assessed the evidence base for larvivorous fish programmes in malaria control. Objectives To evaluate whether introducing larvivorous fish to anopheline larval habitats impacts Plasmodium parasite transmission. We also sought to summarize studies that evaluated whether introducing larvivorous fish influences the density and presence of Anopheles larvae and pupae in water sources. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (Ovid); CABS Abstracts; LILACS; and the meta Register of Controlled Trials ( m RCT) up to 6 July 2017. We checked the reference lists of all studies identified by the search. We examined references listed in review articles and previously compiled bibliographies to look for eligible studies. Also we contacted researchers in the field and the authors of studies that met the inclusion criteria for additional information regarding potential studies for inclusion and ongoing studies. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non‐RCTs, including controlled before‐and‐after studies, controlled time series, and controlled interrupted time series studies from malaria‐endemic regions that introduced fish as a larvicide and reported on malaria in the community or the density of the adult anopheline population. In the absence of direct evidence of an effect on transmission, we performed a secondary analysis on studies that evaluated the effect of introducing larvivorous fish on the density or presence of immature anopheline mosquitoes (larvae and pupae forms) in water sources to determine whether this intervention has any potential that may justify further research in the control of malaria vectors. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened each article by title and abstract, and examined potentially relevant studies for inclusion using an eligibility form. At least two review authors independently extracted dat...

show abstract

“…In terms of "integrated approach" as a pillar of IVM, LLINs and IRS are the primary vector control interventions in use. Each of the two interventions solely has proved its effectiveness to reduce malaria disease (Choi et al, 2017, WHO, 2014b. In the framework to accelerate the reduction of malaria transmission, some countries including Rwanda have implemented IRS in combination with universal coverage of LLINs (WHO, 2014c).…”

Section: Linking Key Findings To the Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated vector management (IVM) as a tool for community empowerment towards malaria elimination in Rwanda

Hakizimana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The combination of indoor residual spraying with insecticide-treated nets versus insecticide-treated nets alone for preventing malaria

Abstract: The combination of indoor residual spraying with insecticide-treated nets versus insecticide-treated nets alone for preventing malaria.

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

Indoor residual spraying for preventing malaria in communities using insecticide-treated nets

Indoor residual spraying for preventing malaria in communities using insecticide-treated nets

Larvivorous fish for preventing malaria transmission

Integrated vector management (IVM) as a tool for community empowerment towards malaria elimination in Rwanda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About