Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Jan 19;15(1):e0009005.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009005. eCollection 2021 Jan.

Insecticide-treated house screening protects against Zika-infected Aedes aegypti in Merida, Mexico

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Insecticide-treated house screening protects against Zika-infected Aedes aegypti in Merida, Mexico

Pablo Manrique-Saide et al. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. .

Abstract

Background: The integration of house-screening and long-lasting insecticidal nets, known as insecticide-treated screening (ITS), can provide simple, safe, and low-tech Aedes aegypti control. Cluster randomised controlled trials in two endemic localities for Ae. aegypti of south Mexico, showed that ITS conferred both, immediate and sustained (~2 yr) impact on indoor-female Ae. aegypti infestations. Such encouraging results require further validation with studies quantifying more epidemiologically-related endpoints, including arbovirus infection in Ae. aegypti. We evaluated the efficacy of protecting houses with ITS on Ae. aegypti infestation and arbovirus infection during a Zika outbreak in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.

Methodology/principal findings: A two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial evaluated the entomological efficacy of ITS compared to the absence of ITS (with both arms able to receive routine arbovirus vector control) in the neighbourhood Juan Pablo II of Merida. Cross-sectional entomological surveys quantified indoor adult mosquito infestation and arbovirus infection at baseline (pre-ITS installation) and throughout two post-intervention (PI) surveys spaced at 6-month intervals corresponding to dry/rainy seasons over one year (2016-2017). Household-surveys assessed the social reception of the intervention. Houses with ITS were 79-85% less infested with Aedes females than control houses up to one-year PI. A similar significant trend was observed for blood-fed Ae. aegypti females (76-82%). Houses with ITS had significantly less infected female Ae. aegypti than controls during the peak of the epidemic (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08-0.29), an effect that was significant up to a year PI (OR = 0.24, 0.15-0.39). Communities strongly accepted the intervention, due to its perceived mode of action, the prevalent risk for Aedes-borne diseases in the area, and the positive feedback from neighbours receiving ITS.

Conclusions/significance: We show evidence of the protective efficacy of ITS against an arboviral disease of major relevance, and discuss the relevance of our findings for intervention adoption.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Study site.
The city of Merida, Yucatan, Mexico and the location of the neighbourhood Juan Pablo II. Intervention clusters are shown in green and control clusters are coloured in red. Photographs show Aedes aegypti proof-houses with insecticide-treated screens mounted on aluminium frames and fixed to external doors and windows of treated houses.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Entomological indicators of impact.
Comparison between treated (black line) and untreated (gray line) arms of Ae. aegypti indoor adult based indicators for Merida, Mexico. The intervention (installation of ITS) was implemented between June-July 2016 (rainy season). Error bars show the standard error of the mean.

References

    1. Lindsay SW, Wilson A, Golding N, Scott TW, Takken W. Improving the built environment in urban areas to control Aedes aegypti-borne diseases. Bull World Health Organ. 2017; 95(8): 607–608. 10.2471/BLT.16.189688 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vazquez-Prokopec G, Lenhart A, Manrique-Saide P. Housing improvement: a renewed paradigm for urban vector-borne disease control? Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2016; 110(10):567–569. 10.1093/trstmh/trw070 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kirby MJ, Ameh D, Bottomley C, Green C, Jawara M, Milligan PJ, et al. 2009. Effect of two different house screening interventions on exposure to malaria vectors and on anaemia in children in The Gambia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009; 374(9694): 998–1009. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60871-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reiter P, Lathrop S, Bunning M, Biggerstaff B, Singer D, Tiwari T, et al. Texas lifestyle limits transmission of dengue virus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003; 9(1):86–89. 10.3201/eid0901.020220 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kirby MJ. House screening. Chapter 7 In: Cameron MM and Lorenz LM, editors. Biological and environmental control of Disease Vectors. London: CAB International; 2013. pp. 117–43.

Publication types

Grants and funding