Evaluation of spatially targeted strategies to control non-domiciliated Triatoma dimidiata vector of Chagas disease.
BACKGROUND: Chagas disease is a major neglected tropical disease with deep socio-economical effects throughout Central and South America. Vector control programs have consistently reduced domestic populations of triatomine vectors, but non-domiciliated vectors still have to be controlled efficiently...
| Published in: | PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2011
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001045 https://doaj.org/article/5884b1dde6f24d61b427b6293ef2efc9 |
| Summary: | BACKGROUND: Chagas disease is a major neglected tropical disease with deep socio-economical effects throughout Central and South America. Vector control programs have consistently reduced domestic populations of triatomine vectors, but non-domiciliated vectors still have to be controlled efficiently. Designing control strategies targeting these vectors is challenging, as it requires a quantitative description of the spatio-temporal dynamics of village infestation, which can only be gained from combinations of extensive field studies and spatial population dynamic modelling. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A spatially explicit population dynamic model was combined with a two-year field study of T. dimidiata infestation dynamics in the village of Teya, Mexico. The parameterized model fitted and predicted accurately both intra-annual variation and the spatial gradient in vector abundance. Five different control strategies were then applied in concentric rings to mimic spatial design targeting the periphery of the village, where vectors were most abundant. Indoor insecticide spraying and insect screens reduced vector abundance by up to 80% (when applied to the whole village), and half of this effect was obtained when control was applied only to the 33% of households closest to the village periphery. Peri-domicile cleaning was able to eliminate up to 60% of the vectors, but at the periphery of the village it has a low effect, as it is ineffective against sylvatic insects. The use of lethal traps and the management of house attractiveness provided similar levels of control. However this required either house attractiveness to be null, or ≥ 5 lethal traps, at least as attractive as houses, to be installed in each household. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Insecticide and insect screens used in houses at the periphery of the village can contribute to reduce house infestation in more central untreated zones. However, this beneficial effect remains insufficient to allow for a unique spatially targeted strategy to offer ... |
|---|