Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Oct 10;13(10):e0007615.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007615. eCollection 2019 Oct.

Management of insecticide resistance in the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses: Advances and challenges

Isabelle Dusfour  1 , John Vontas  2   3 , Jean-Philippe David  4 , David Weetman  5 , Dina M Fonseca  6 , Vincent Corbel  7 , Kamaraju Raghavendra  8 , Mamadou B Coulibaly  9 , Ademir J Martins  10 , Shinji Kasai  11 , Fabrice Chandre  7
Affiliations
Review

Management of insecticide resistance in the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses: Advances and challenges

Isabelle Dusfour et al. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. .

Abstract

Background: The landscape of mosquito-borne disease risk has changed dramatically in recent decades, due to the emergence and reemergence of urban transmission cycles driven by invasive Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Insecticide resistance is already widespread in the yellow fever mosquito, Ae. Aegypti; is emerging in the Asian tiger mosquito Ae. Albopictus; and is now threatening the global fight against human arboviral diseases such as dengue, yellow fever, chikungunya, and Zika. Because the panel of insecticides available for public health is limited, it is of primary importance to preserve the efficacy of existing and upcoming active ingredients. Timely implementation of insecticide resistance management (IRM) is crucial to maintain the arsenal of effective public health insecticides and sustain arbovirus vector control.

Methodology and principal findings: This Review is one of a series being generated by the Worldwide Insecticide resistance Network (WIN) and aims at defining the principles and concepts underlying IRM, identifying the main factors affecting the evolution of resistance, and evaluating the value of existing tools for resistance monitoring. Based on the lessons taken from resistance strategies used for other vector species and agricultural pests, we propose a framework for the implementation of IRM strategies for Aedes mosquito vectors.

Conclusions and significance: Although IRM should be a fixture of all vector control programs, it is currently often absent from the strategic plans to control mosquito-borne diseases, especially arboviruses. Experiences from other public health disease vectors and agricultural pests underscore the need for urgent action in implementing IRM for invasive Aedes mosquitoes. Based on a plan developed for malaria vectors, here we propose some key activities to establish a global plan for IRM in Aedes spp.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Factors affecting the selection of insecticide resistance in insect populations.
The evolution of the population’s response to an operational dose of insecticide (red dotted line) across multiple generations of insecticide selection is shown. The proportion of individuals surviving insecticide exposure is shown in red. Factors favoring the selection of resistance are shown in red, while factors impairing selection of resistance including IRM are shown in green. IRM, insecticide resistance management.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Flow chart to support decision-making of IRM strategy during implementation of a vector control program.
The first process deals with resistance monitoring within the target insect population. The second process is the monitoring of treatment efficacy that should be run in parallel with process 1. It aims to detect any control failure and whether it is caused by resistance or other external factors. Risk levels are defined according to the results of resistance monitoring and should trigger graduated and appropriate response: (i) level 0 indicates a population fully susceptible to the insecticide, (ii) level 1 designates a population whose susceptibility is maintained but some of whose individuals harbor resistant alleles, (iii) level 2 corresponds to a moderate resistance (e.g., RR below 5 or below 98% mortality using 5 times the WHO DC), (iv) level 3 corresponds to populations clearly resistant to a given insecticide and that require immediate IRM strategy (e.g., RR above 5 or below 98% mortality using 10 times the WHO DC). According to the current knowledge gap, molecular or biochemical assays cannot be straightforwardly used to define IRM levels (except from level 0 to level 1), and basically, these levels are defined using the bioassays. The resistance thresholds for levels 2 and 3 are only indicative and fixed by analogy to the last WHO procedures [33]. They should be refined according to operational-based evidences. For levels 2 and 3, the characterization of resistance mechanisms is requested to guide a decision on alternative insecticides and to follow the impact of IRM on the frequency of resistance alleles. DC, diagnostic concentration; IR, insecticide resistance; IRM, insecticide resistance management; Mort, mortality; RR, resistance ratio.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Overview of the key activities required to devise and implement IRM plan in Aedes spp. in the future.
The global plan is based on 5 pillars including 1 to 3 key activities. Timelines of different key activities are proposed to serve as progress indicators for the different stakeholders (control programs, funding agencies, WHO, research institutes, etc.). IR, insecticide resistance; IRM, insecticide resistance management; IRMo, insecticide resistance monitoring; IVM, integrated vector management.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Weaver SC, Reisen WK. Present and Future Arboviral Threats. Antiviral research. 2010;85(2):328 10.1016/j.antiviral.2009.10.008 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. WHO. Dengue. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control. New edition Geneva: Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2009. - PubMed
    1. Ranson H, Burhani J, Lumjuan N, Black WI. Insecticide Resistance in dengue vectors. TropIKAnet Journal. 2010:1–12. - PubMed
    1. Vontas J, Kioulos E, Pavlidi N, Morou E, della Torre A, Ranson H. Insecticide resistance in the major dengue vectors Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2012;104(2):126–31. 10.1016/j.pestbp.2012.05.008 - DOI
    1. Moyes CL, Vontas J, Martins AJ, Ng LC, Koou SY, Dusfour I, et al. Contemporary status of insecticide resistance in the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses infecting humans. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(7):e0005625 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005625 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding

This work was funded by an award of from the World Health Organization’s Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases WHO-TDR award to VC, JPD, and the WIN network. Authors ID, JV, JPD, DW, DMF, KR, VC, MBC, AJM, SK, FC received salaries from academic or research institutions from their respective countries. This work was also partially supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under ZIKAlliance Grant Agreement no. 734548. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.