| dc.description | AUTHORS - Nicole L. AcheeID
1*, John P. Grieco1, Hassan Vatandoost2, Gonçalo Seixas3, Joao Pinto3,
Lee Ching-NG4, Ademir J. Martins5, Waraporn Juntarajumnong6, Vincent Corbel7, Clement Gouagna7, Jean-Philippe David8, James G. Logan9,10, James Orsborne9, Eric Marois11, Gregor J. Devine12, John Vontas13,14 - AFFILIATIONS - 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Eck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of America, 2 Department of Medical Entomology & Vector Control, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran, Iran, 3 Global Health and Tropical Medicine, GHTM, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, IHMT, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, UNL, Lisboa, Portugal, 4 Environmental Health Institute (EHI), National Environment Agency (NEA), Singapore, 5 Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (IOC), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 6 Department of Entomology, Kasetsart University (KU), Bangkok, Thailand, 7 Institut de Recherche pour le De´veloppement (IRD), Maladies Infectieuses et Vecteurs, Ecologie, Genetique, Evolution et Controle, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France, 8 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine (LECA), Université Grenoble-Alpes, Domaine universitaire de Saint Martin d’Hères, Grenoble, France, 9 Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, 10 ARCTEC, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, 11 Université de Strasbourg, CNRS UPR 9022, INSERM U963, Strasbourg, France, 12 QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia, 13 Institute Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (IMBB), Foundation for Research and Technology (FORTH), Crete, Greece, 14 Pesticide Science Lab, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece. | |
| dc.description | Background: Mosquito-borne viruses—such as Zika, chikungunya, dengue fever, and yellow fever, among others—are of global importance. Although vaccine development for prevention of mosquito-borne arbovirus infections has been a focus, mitigation strategies continue to rely on vector control. However, vector control has failed to prevent recent epidemics and arrest
expanding geographic distribution of key arboviruses, such as dengue. As a consequence, there has been increasing necessity to further optimize current strategies within integrated approaches and advance development of alternative, innovative strategies for the control of mosquito-borne arboviruses. Methods and findings: This review, intended as a general overview, is one of a series being generated by the Worldwide Insecticide resistance Network (WIN). The alternative strategies discussed reflect those that are currently under evaluation for public health value by the World Health Organization (WHO) and represent strategies of focus by globally recognized public health stakeholders as potential insecticide resistance (IR)-mitigating strategies. Conditions where these alternative strategies could offer greatest public health value in consideration of mitigating IR will be dependent on the anticipated mechanism of action. Arguably, the most pressing need for endorsement of the strategies described here will be the epidemiological evidence of a public health impact. Conclusions: As the burden of mosquito-borne arboviruses, predominately those transmitted by Aedes aegypti and A. albopictus, continues to grow at a global scale, new vector-control tools and integrated strategies will be required to meet public health demands. Decisions regarding implementation of alternative strategies will depend on key ecoepidemiological parameters that each is intended to optimally impact toward driving down arbovirus transmission. | |
