Review and Meta-Analysis of the Evidence for Choosing between Specific Pyrethroids for Programmatic Purposes
1
Department of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK
2
MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK
3
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Entomology Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA
4
Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Brian T. Forschler
Insects 2021, 12(9), 826; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12090826
Received: 5 August 2021
/
Revised: 24 August 2021
/
Accepted: 11 September 2021
/
Published: 14 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Insecticides for Mosquito Control: Strengthening the Evidence Base)
Simple Summary
A group of insecticides, called pyrethroids, are the main strategy for controlling the mosquito vectors of malaria. Pyrethroids are used in all insecticide-treated bednets, and many indoor residual spray programmes (in which insecticides are sprayed on the interior walls of houses). There are different types of pyrethroids within the class (e.g., deltamethrin and permethrin). Across the world, mosquitoes are showing signs of resistance to the pyrethroids, such as reduced mortality following contact. However, it is unclear if this resistance is uniform across the pyrethroid class (i.e., if a mosquito is resistant to deltamethrin, whether it is resistant to permethrin at the same level). In addition, it is not known if switching between different pyrethroids can be used to effectively maintain mosquito control when resistance to a single pyrethroid has been detected. This review examined the evidence from molecular studies, resistance testing from laboratory and field data, and mosquito behavioural assays to answer these questions. The evidence suggested that in areas where pyrethroid resistance exists, different mortality seen between the pyrethroids is not necessarily indicative of an operationally relevant difference in control performance, and there is no reason to rotate between common pyrethroids (i.e., deltamethrin, permethrin, and alpha-cypermethrin) as an insecticide resistance management strategy.
Pyrethroid resistance is widespread in malaria vectors. However, differential mortality in discriminating dose assays to different pyrethroids is often observed in wild populations. When this occurs, it is unclear if this differential mortality should be interpreted as an indication of differential levels of susceptibility within the pyrethroid class, and if so, if countries should consider selecting one specific pyrethroid for programmatic use over another. A review of evidence from molecular studies, resistance testing with laboratory colonies and wild populations, and mosquito behavioural assays were conducted to answer these questions. Evidence suggested that in areas where pyrethroid resistance exists, different results in insecticide susceptibility assays with specific pyrethroids currently in common use (deltamethrin, permethrin, α-cypermethrin, and λ-cyhalothrin) are not necessarily indicative of an operationally relevant difference in potential performance. Consequently, it is not advisable to use rotation between these pyrethroids as an insecticide-resistance management strategy. Less commonly used pyrethroids (bifenthrin and etofenprox) may have sufficiently different modes of action, though further work is needed to examine how this may apply to insecticide resistance management.
View Full-Text
Keywords:
pyrethroid; pyrethroid resistance; insecticide resistance; insecticide resistance management; vector control; malaria; malaria control; mosquito; Anopheles
▼
Show Figures
Figure 1
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- Supplementary File 1:
ZIP-Document (ZIP, 2128 KiB)
-
Externally hosted supplementary file 1
Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5162824
Link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5162824
Description: Review and meta-analysis of the evidence for choosing between specific pyrethroids for programmatic purposes - Supplementary tables and figures
MDPI and ACS Style
Lissenden, N.; Kont, M.D.; Essandoh, J.; Ismail, H.M.; Churcher, T.S.; Lambert, B.; Lenhart, A.; McCall, P.J.; Moyes, C.L.; Paine, M.J.I.; Praulins, G.; Weetman, D.; Lees, R.S. Review and Meta-Analysis of the Evidence for Choosing between Specific Pyrethroids for Programmatic Purposes. Insects 2021, 12, 826. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12090826
AMA Style
Lissenden N, Kont MD, Essandoh J, Ismail HM, Churcher TS, Lambert B, Lenhart A, McCall PJ, Moyes CL, Paine MJI, Praulins G, Weetman D, Lees RS. Review and Meta-Analysis of the Evidence for Choosing between Specific Pyrethroids for Programmatic Purposes. Insects. 2021; 12(9):826. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12090826
Chicago/Turabian StyleLissenden, Natalie, Mara D. Kont, John Essandoh, Hanafy M. Ismail, Thomas S. Churcher, Ben Lambert, Audrey Lenhart, Philip J. McCall, Catherine L. Moyes, Mark J. I. Paine, Giorgio Praulins, David Weetman, and Rosemary S. Lees. 2021. "Review and Meta-Analysis of the Evidence for Choosing between Specific Pyrethroids for Programmatic Purposes" Insects 12, no. 9: 826. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12090826
Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
