Control methods for Aedes aegypti: Have we lost the battle?

Non-household environments make a major contribution to dengue transmission: Implications for vector control

Aedes-borne pathogens have been increasing in incidence in recent decades despite vector control activities implemented in endemic settings. Vector control for Aedes-transmitted arboviruses typically focuses on households because vectors breed in household containers and bite indoors. Yet, our recent work shows a high abundance of Aedes spp. vectors in public spaces. To investigate the impact of non-household environments on dengue transmission and control, we used field data on the number of water containers and abundance of Aedes mosquitoes in Household (HH) and Non-Household (NH) environments in two Kenyan cities, Kisumu and Ukunda, from 2019-2022. Incorporating information on human activity space, we developed an agent-based model to simulate city-wide conditions considering HH and five types of NH environments in which people move and interact with other humans and vectors during peak biting times. We additionally evaluated the outcome of vector control activities implemented in different environments in preventive (before an epidemic) and reactive (after an epidemic commences) scenarios. We estimated that over half of infections take place in NH environments, where the main spaces for transmission are workplaces, markets, and recreational locations. Accordingly, results highlight the important role of vector control activities at NH locations to reduce dengue. A greater reduction of cases is expected as control activities are implemented earlier, at higher levels of coverage, with greater effectiveness when targeting only NH as opposed to when targeting only HH. Further, local ecological factors such as the differential abundance of water containers within cities are also influential factors to consider for control. This work provides insight into the importance of vector control in both household and non-household environments in endemic settings. It highlights a specific approach to inform evidence-based decision making to target limited vector control resources for optimal control.

The oral repellent - science fiction or common sense? Insects, vector-borne diseases, failing strategies, and a bold proposition

Over the last decades, unimaginable amounts of money have gone into research and development of vector control measures, repellents, treatment, and vaccines for vector borne diseases. Technological progress and scientific breakthroughs allowed for ever more sophisticated and futuristic strategies. Yet, each year, millions of people still die or suffer from potentially serious consequences of malaria or dengue to more recent infections, such as zika or chikungunya, or of debilitating consequences of neglected tropical diseases. This does not seem value for money. In addition, all current vector control strategies and personal protection methods have shortcomings, some serious, that are either destructive to non-target species or unsatisfactory in their effectiveness. On the other hand, the rapid decline in insect populations and their predators reflects decades-long aggressive and indiscriminate vector control. This major disruption of biodiversity has an impact on human life not anticipated by the well-meaning killing of invertebrates. The objective of this paper is to re-examine current control methods, their effectiveness, their impact on biodiversity, human and animal health, and to call for scientific courage in the pursuit of fresh ideas. This paper brings together topics that are usually presented in isolation, thereby missing important links that offer potential solutions to long-standing problems in global health. First, it serves as a reminder of the importance of insects to human life and discusses the few that play a role in transmitting disease. Next, it examines critically the many currently employed vector control strategies and personal protection methods. Finally, based on new insights into insect chemo-sensation and attractants, this perspective makes a case for revisiting a previously abandoned idea, the oral repellent, and its use via currently successful methods of mass-application. The call is out for focused research to provide a powerful tool for public health, tropical medicine, and travel medicine.