Max Hadlett1, Sanjay C Nagi2, Manas Sarkar3, Mark J I Paine1, David Weetman1. 1. Department of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK. 2. Department of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK. Sanjay.Nagi@lstmed.ac.uk. 3. Research and Development, Global Innovation-Pest Category, Reckitt Benckiser, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122001, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With widespread insecticide resistance in mosquito vectors, there is a pressing need to evaluate alternatives with different modes of action. Blood containing the antihelminthic drug ivermectin has been shown to have lethal and sub-lethal effects on mosquitoes. Almost all work to date has been on Anopheles spp., but impacts on other anthropophagic vectors could provide new options for their control, or additional value to anti-malarial ivermectin programmes. METHODS: Using dose-response assays, we evaluated the effects of ivermectin delivered by membrane feeding on daily mortality (up to 14 days post-blood feed) and fecundity of an Indian strain of Aedes aegypti. RESULTS: The 7-day lethal concentration of ivermectin required to kill 50% of adult mosquitoes was calculated to be 178.6 ng/ml (95% confidence intervals 142.3-218.4) for Ae. aegypti, which is much higher than that recorded for Anopheles spp. in any previous study. In addition, significant effects on fecundity and egg hatch rates were only recorded at high ivermectin concentrations (≥ 250 ng/ul). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that levels of ivermectin present in human blood at current dosing regimes in mass drug administration campaigns, or even those in a recent higher-dose anti-malaria trial, are unlikely to have a substantial impact on Ae. aegypti. Moreover, owing to the strong anthropophagy of Ae. aegypti, delivery of higher levels of ivermectin in livestock blood is also unlikely to be an effective option for its control. However, other potential toxic impacts of ivermectin metabolites, accumulation in tissues, sublethal effects on behaviour, or antiviral action might increase the efficacy of ivermectin against Ae. aegypti and the arboviral diseases it transmits, and require further investigation.
BACKGROUND: With widespread insecticide resistance in mosquito vectors, there is a pressing need to evaluate alternatives with different modes of action. Blood containing the antihelminthic drug ivermectin has been shown to have lethal and sub-lethal effects on mosquitoes. Almost all work to date has been on Anopheles spp., but impacts on other anthropophagic vectors could provide new options for their control, or additional value to anti-malarial ivermectin programmes. METHODS: Using dose-response assays, we evaluated the effects of ivermectin delivered by membrane feeding on daily mortality (up to 14 days post-blood feed) and fecundity of an Indian strain of Aedes aegypti. RESULTS: The 7-day lethal concentration of ivermectin required to kill 50% of adult mosquitoes was calculated to be 178.6 ng/ml (95% confidence intervals 142.3-218.4) for Ae. aegypti, which is much higher than that recorded for Anopheles spp. in any previous study. In addition, significant effects on fecundity and egg hatch rates were only recorded at high ivermectin concentrations (≥ 250 ng/ul). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that levels of ivermectin present in human blood at current dosing regimes in mass drug administration campaigns, or even those in a recent higher-dose anti-malaria trial, are unlikely to have a substantial impact on Ae. aegypti. Moreover, owing to the strong anthropophagy of Ae. aegypti, delivery of higher levels of ivermectin in livestock blood is also unlikely to be an effective option for its control. However, other potential toxic impacts of ivermectin metabolites, accumulation in tissues, sublethal effects on behaviour, or antiviral action might increase the efficacy of ivermectin against Ae. aegypti and the arboviral diseases it transmits, and require further investigation.
Authors: Annelies Wilder-Smith; Duane J Gubler; Scott C Weaver; Thomas P Monath; David L Heymann; Thomas W Scott Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: M J Bockarie; J L Hii; N D Alexander; F Bockarie; H Dagoro; J W Kazura; M P Alpers Journal: Med Vet Entomol Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 2.739
Authors: Janet Hemingway; Hilary Ranson; Alan Magill; Jan Kolaczinski; Christen Fornadel; John Gimnig; Maureen Coetzee; Frederic Simard; Dabiré K Roch; Clément Kerah Hinzoumbe; John Pickett; David Schellenberg; Peter Gething; Mark Hoppé; Nicholas Hamon Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gerry F Killeen; John M Marshall; Samson S Kiware; Andy B South; Lucy S Tusting; Prosper P Chaki; Nicodem J Govella Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2017-04-26
Authors: Samir Bhatt; Peter W Gething; Oliver J Brady; Jane P Messina; Andrew W Farlow; Catherine L Moyes; John M Drake; John S Brownstein; Anne G Hoen; Osman Sankoh; Monica F Myers; Dylan B George; Thomas Jaenisch; G R William Wint; Cameron P Simmons; Thomas W Scott; Jeremy J Farrar; Simon I Hay Journal: Nature Date: 2013-04-07 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Kazuyo Ichimori; Jonathan D King; Dirk Engels; Aya Yajima; Alexei Mikhailov; Patrick Lammie; Eric A Ottesen Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2014-12-11
Authors: Urs Duthaler; Michael Weber; Lorenz Hofer; Carlos Chaccour; Marta Maia; Pie Müller; Stephan Krähenbühl; Felix Hammann Journal: PLoS Pathog Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 6.823