| Literature DB >> 35737833 |
Amy C Morrison1,2, Robert C Reiner3, William H Elson4, Helvio Astete2, Carolina Guevara2, Clara Del Aguila5, Isabel Bazan2, Crystyan Siles2, Patricia Barrera2, Anna B Kawiecki1, Christopher M Barker1, Gissella M Vasquez6, Karin Escobedo-Vargas6, Carmen Flores-Mendoza6, Alfredo A Huaman2, Mariana Leguia7, Maria E Silva2, Sarah A Jenkins2, Wesley R Campbell2, Eugenio J Abente2, Robert D Hontz2, Valerie A Paz-Soldan8, John P Grieco9, Neil F Lobo9, Thomas W Scott4, Nicole L Achee9.
Abstract
Over half the world's population is at risk for viruses transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes, such as dengue and Zika. The primary vector, Aedes aegypti, thrives in urban environments. Despite decades of effort, cases and geographic range of Aedes-borne viruses (ABVs) continue to expand. Rigorously proven vector control interventions that measure protective efficacy against ABV diseases are limited to Wolbachia in a single trial in Indonesia and do not include any chemical intervention. Spatial repellents, a new option for efficient deployment, are designed to decrease human exposure to ABVs by releasing active ingredients into the air that disrupt mosquito-human contact. A parallel, cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in Iquitos, Peru, to quantify the impact of a transfluthrin-based spatial repellent on human ABV infection. From 2,907 households across 26 clusters (13 per arm), 1,578 participants were assessed for seroconversion (primary endpoint) by survival analysis. Incidence of acute disease was calculated among 16,683 participants (secondary endpoint). Adult mosquito collections were conducted to compare Ae. aegypti abundance, blood-fed rate, and parity status through mixed-effect difference-in-difference analyses. The spatial repellent significantly reduced ABV infection by 34.1% (one-sided 95% CI lower limit, 6.9%; one-sided P value = 0.0236, z = 1.98). Aedes aegypti abundance and blood-fed rates were significantly reduced by 28.6 (95% CI 24.1%, ∞); z = -9.11) and 12.4% (95% CI 4.2%, ∞); z = -2.43), respectively. Our trial provides conclusive statistical evidence from an appropriately powered, preplanned cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial of the impact of a chemical intervention, in this case a spatial repellent, to reduce the risk of ABV transmission compared to a placebo.Entities:
Keywords: Aedes aegypti; arbovirus vector; clinical trial; spatial repellent; vector control
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35737833 PMCID: PMC9245620 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2118283119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 12.779
Fig. 1.Location of 26 study clusters in Iquitos and Punchana Districts, Loreto Department, Iquitos, Peru. Each cluster consisted of approximately 140 households with an average distance of 523 m (range 280–879 m) between clusters.
Fig. 2.Study timeline. (Top) Human blood sampling, disease surveillance, and entomological monitoring in relation to deployment of the SR intervention. (Bottom) Intervention rollout between Aug. and Dec. 2016 by cluster. Horizontal numbers correspond to cluster numbers shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 3.Allocation and follow-up of the longitudinal cohort population during three blood collection periods (baseline [B], first [F], and second/final [S]). The majority (62%) of participants provided samples at each collection period, whereas some only participated during year 1 (B-F) or year 2 (F-S). Participants with a single sample were lost to follow-up, and four individuals moved or had two houses located in the SR. Placebo clusters are shown as removed at the baseline period for clarity.
Summary of baseline characteristics, for qualifying participants of the ITT longitudinal cohort population in SR and placebo arms.
| Individual level | ||
|---|---|---|
| Variable | SR | Placebo |
| ( | ( | |
| Age in years (mean ± SD) | 10.88 ± 4.62 | 10.19 ± 4.39 |
| (min, max) | (2, 47) | (2, 22) |
| Sex (% male) | 51.6% | 55.0% |
| Duration in years between samples (mean ± SD) | 1.15 ± 0.42 | 1.16 ± 0.43 |
| (min, max) | (0.02, 2.29) | (0.01, 2.35) |
| No. qualifying participant observations | 1,090 | 1,237 |
| No. arbovirus seroconversions | 196 | 294 |
Qualifying participants were defined as individuals in a participating house that were seronegative or had a monotypic DENV antibody response when they entered the trial.
PE estimates from ITT analyses for the SR intervention against ABV infection in qualifying participants measured by seroconversion (primary endpoint), including covariate effects.
| ITT analysis | HR ratio | PE (%) | One-sided | Covariate | Odds ratio | Two-sided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | ||||
| Survival analysis | 0.659 | 34.1 | 0.024 | |||
| (−∞, 0.931) | (6.9, ∞) | |||||
| Age | 1.046 | 6.8 x 10−6 | ||||
| (1.029 to 1.063) | ||||||
| Male | 0.956 | 0.62 | ||||
| (0.821 to 1.112) | ||||||
Fig. 4.Kaplan-Meier curves of arbovirus infection for 13 SR and 13 placebo clusters in qualifying participants measured by seroconversion (primary endpoint) by cluster. (A) Hazard rates by individual cluster. (B) Aggregated hazard rate.
Rate reduction summary of indoor adult female Aedes aegypti abundance, blood-fed female abundance, and parity rates (secondary endpoints) for primary (ITT) and secondary analyses (PP).
| Indicator | Statistics | 2016 baseline | Cluster-specific baseline | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ITT | PP | ITT | PP | ||
| Indoor adult female | Rate ratio | 0.714 | 0.737 | 0·599 | 0.607 |
| (95% one-sided CI) | (−∞, 0.759) | (−∞, 0.784) | (−∞, 0.633) | (−∞, 0.641) | |
| Rate reduction (%) | 28.6 | 26.3 | 40.1 | 39.3 | |
| (95% one-sided CI) | (24.1, ∞) | (16.2, ∞) | (36.7, ∞) | (35.9, ∞) | |
| Blood-fed female | Rate ratio | 0.876 | 0.876 | 0.908 | 0.929 |
| (95% one-sided CI) | (−∞, 0.958) | (−∞, 0.958) | (−∞, 0.985) | (−∞, 1.06) | |
| Rate reduction (%) | 12.4 | 12.4 | 9.20 | 7.10 | |
| (95% one-sided CI) | (4.2, ∞) | (4.2, ∞) | (1.49, ∞) | (−6, ∞) | |
| Rate ratio | 0.922 | 0.921 | 0.928 | 0.909 | |
| (95% one-sided CI) | (−∞, 1.057) | (−∞, 1.056) | (−∞, 1.058) | (−∞, 0.986) | |
| Rate reduction (%) | 7.75 | 7.87 | 7.24 | 9.10 | |
| (95% one-sided CI) | (−5.70, ∞) | (−5.60, ∞) | (−5.80, ∞) | (−1.2, ∞) | |
No correction for multiple testing was performed for secondary endpoint analyses, and, as such, in accordance with CONSORT guidelines, P values are not presented.
*ITT (primary analysis) and per protocol (PP, secondary analysis) mixed-effects DID Poisson regression specifying measurements made throughout 2016 as “baseline,” with post-2016 measurements as “postbaseline.” PP analysis only considering houses with SR application rates meeting manufactures specifications ≥75% of the days between sequential blood sampling (designated PP-1).
†ITT and PP mixed-effects DID Poisson regression specifying measurements made in 2016 up to the first date of intervention deployed in each cluster as “baseline,” with all measurements following that date as “postbaseline” for that cluster, even for houses that did not enroll until 2017 or later. PP analysis only considering houses with SR application rates meeting manufacturer’s specifications ≥75% of the days between sequential blood sampling (designated PP-1).
Fig. 5.Mean densities of adult female Aedes aegypti collected per household survey in 13 SR and 13 placebo clusters by study month. Shaded areas represent the 95% CI around the mean.