Peces larvívoros para la prevención de la transmisión del paludismo
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008090.pub3Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 11 diciembre 2017see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Review
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Enfermedades infecciosas
- Clasificada:
-
- Actualizada
All studies incorporated from most recent search
All eligible published studies found in the last search (6 Jul, 2017) were includedEvaluada: 12 April 2019
- Actualizada
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.
- This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐Non‐Commercial Licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
Contributions of authors
TB and PG conceived the review and wrote the protocol, with input from Robert A Wirtz (previous author), Raymond Beach (previous author), GHP, and AAA.
DPW, AAA, GP, PG, and TB screened articles.
TB, AAA, PG, and DPW extracted data from the included studies.
DPW constructed the tables, prepared the GRADE summaries, and wrote the review.
PG helped with determining study inclusion, planning how to construct the review, summarizing the data, GRADE assessments, and editing the review.
All review authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK.
External sources
-
Department for International Development, UK.
Grant: 5242
-
World Health Organization (WHO), Switzerland.
WHO Global Malaria Programme Agreement for Performance of Work (APW) Grant 2017 (number 709319)
Declarations of interest
DPW is supported by the Effective Health Care Research Consortium. This Consortium is funded by UK aid from the UK Government for the benefit of low‐ and middle‐income countries (Grant: 5242). DPW acted as rapporteur between 2011 and 2014 for the Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC) at their External Scientific Advisory Committee (ESAC) meetings.
TB was on the Global Fund Technical Review Panel as well as the Vector Control Advisory Group as a non‐paid advisor and presently serves on the WHO Malaria Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC).
PG is Director of the Evidence Building and Synthesis Research Consortium, which receives money to increase the number of evidence‐informed decisions by intermediary organizations, including World Health Organization (WHO) and national decision makers, that benefit the poor in low‐ and middle‐income countries. PG is the co‐ordinator of a WHO Collaborating Centre for Evidence Synthesis for Infectious and Tropical Diseases (apps.who.int/whocc/default.aspx; UNK234): one of the Centre's aims is to help WHO in its role as an infomediary in communicating reliable summaries of research evidence to policy makers, clinicians, teachers, and the public in low‐ and middle‐income countries.
AAA presently serves on the WHO MPAC.
GP carries out research on frogs, including impacts arising from introduced Gambusia. He is also interested in possible impacts of larvivorous fish on mosquito populations and malaria transmission, and has separately reviewed these issues, but has no relevant vested interests.
Acknowledgements
Hellen Gelband was the academic editor for this review.
We are grateful to David Sinclair for his help with the GRADE assessment in the original review (Walshe 2013).
We are grateful to our affiliated institutions and organizations, and we thank the referees and editors for their constructive comments. In addition, we are grateful to Dr Caroline Jeffery for translating French articles, and to Dr Charles V Hoyle and Dr Lena Lantsova for assistance with the translation of Russian articles.
This work was partly supported through a grant from the Global Malaria Programme, World Health Organization.
DPW is supported by the Effective Health Care Research Consortium. This Consortium and the editorial base of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group is funded by UK aid from the UK Government for the benefit of low‐ and middle‐income countries (Grant: 5242). The views expressed in this review do not necessarily reflect UK government policy.
The findings and conclusions in this report have not been formally disseminated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and should not be construed as representing any agency determination or policy.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2017 Dec 11 | Larvivorous fish for preventing malaria transmission | Review | Deirdre P Walshe, Paul Garner, Ahmed A Adeel, Graham H Pyke, Thomas R Burkot | |
| 2013 Dec 10 | Larvivorous fish for preventing malaria transmission | Review | Deirdre P Walshe, Paul Garner, Ahmed A Abdel‐Hameed Adeel, Graham H Pyke, Tom Burkot | |
| 2009 Oct 07 | Larvivorous fish for malaria prevention | Protocol | Tom Burkot, Ahmed A Abdel‐Hameed Adeel, Graham H Pyke, Raymond Beach, Robert A Wirtz, Paul Garner | |
Differences between protocol and review
DPW was added as author on the review. Robert A Wirtz and Raymond Beach stepped down as authors on the review. We added EIR as an outcome, as an effect demonstrated on this would be an extremely useful indicator of an effect on malaria transmission. We limited inclusion of studies monitoring secondary outcomes to studies with a follow‐up period longer than three weeks after introduction of larvivorous fish.
Differences between review and review update
We amended Ahmed A Abdel‐Hameed Adeel to Ahmed A Adeel, and Tom Burkot to Thomas R Burkot.
Keywords
MeSH
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords
Medical Subject Headings Check Words
Animals;
PICO
Larvivorous fish for preventing malaria transmission: conceptual framework.
Experimental designs that have been used to attempt to evaluate the impact of fish on the larvae of vectors in malaria‐endemic countries. In this figure, we depicted either two or six sample time points (shown by the arrows) as examples. Studies may sample at more time points, or at fewer time points in the case of time series studies.
Study flow diagram
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item presented as percentages across all included studies
| Larvivorous fish for preventing malaria transmission | ||||||
| Patient or population: people living in malaria‐endemic areas Settings: malaria‐endemic areas Intervention: larvivorous fish Control: no larvivorous fish | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | Number of studies | Certainty of the evidence | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Larvivorous fish | |||||
| Effects on malaria transmission | ||||||
| Clinical malaria (incidence) | — | — | — | 0 | — | No studies |
| Entomological inoculation rate | — | — | — | 0 | — | No studies |
| Density of adult malaria vectors | — | — | — | 0 | — | No studies |
| Effects on larvae at potential mosquito larval sites | ||||||
| Density of immature vector stages in water bodies Quasi‐experimental studies | — | — | Not pooled. Variable effects reported. | 12 | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low1‐9 | No clear evidence whether or not larvivorous fish reduce the density of immature anopheline mosquitoes in water bodies. |
| Larval sites positive for immature vector stages Quasi‐experimental studies | — | — | Not pooled Positive effects reported | 5 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1,2,10‐12 | Larvivorous fish may reduce the number of larval sites positive for immature anopheline mosquitoes. |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (for example, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. | ||||||
| 1Downgraded by two: the included studies were non‐randomized controlled trials. | ||||||
| Risk of bias factor | Risk of bias | ||
| High | Low | Unclear | |
| 1. Study design | Non‐RCT | RCT | Not clearly reported or not reported |
| 2. Site selection | Method of selection of sites within study area not described | Method of selection of sites within study area described | Not clearly reported or not reported |
| 3. Site allocation | Allocation of treatment not performed by random allocation | Allocation of treatment performed by random allocation | Not clearly reported or not reported |
| 4. Blinding of assessors | Not blinded | Blinded | Not clearly reported or not reported |
| 5. Baseline values comparable between sites | Not comparable | Comparable | Not clearly reported or not reported |
| 6. Number of sites | May be inadequate (5 to < 20 sites per group) Probably inadequate (< 5 sites per group or number of sites unknown) | Adequate number of sites (≥ 20 sites per group) | Not clearly reported or not reported |
| Abbreviations: RCT: randomized controlled trial. | |||
| Group | Site type | Study | Sites stocked | Unstocked | Site size | |
| Surface area | Depth | |||||
| Localized water bodies1 | Wells | 3402 to 3438 | 317 | Not stated | Not stated | |
| 10 | 4 | 1.5 m² | 1.5 to 2.5 m | |||
| Domestic water containers | 68 | 60 | Not stated | Not stated | ||
| 295 (30 monitored) | 25 monitored | Not stated | Not stated | |||
| 1205 | 20 | Not stated | Not stated | |||
| Fishponds and man‐made pools | 2 | 1 | 72 m² to 128 m² | Not stated | ||
| 25 | 5 | Mean 1 m² | 1 m | |||
| Riverbed pools below dams | 29 | 31 | 0.25 to 1 m² | < 1 m | ||
| 2 areas. Number of sites unknown | 2 areas. Number of sites unknown | Not stated | Not stated | |||
| Rice field plots | 3 | 1 | 300 m² to 600 m² | Not stated | ||
| Not specified | Not specified | 23.9 ha in total | Not stated | |||
| 2 | 2 | Not stated | Not stated | |||
| 4 | 2 | 45 m³ | 0.01 m | |||
| 2 areas, with 6 checks8 in 1 paddy field per area (3 checks treated with Gambusia affinis, 3 checks treated with Poecilia reticulata) | 2 areas. 3 checks in 1 paddy field per area | Each paddy field had 9 checks, and each check was 3 m × 3 m | Not stated | |||
| Water canals | 25 | 5 | Mean 15 m² | 0.3 m | ||
| 20 | 5 | 4 km to 10 km × 2 m wide | 1 m | |||
| 1Included wells, domestic water containers, fishponds and man‐made pools, and riverbed pools below dams. | ||||||
| Study | Fish species introduced | Stocking density | Type of site | Size of site | Size (maturity) of fish | Sex ratio male: female | Time of year fish introduced | Restocked |
| Aphanius dispar | 5 fish per barrel, 10 fish per cistern, 20 fish per well, 60 fish per washbasin; later, 10 fish per barrel and 40 fish per well | Domestic water containers | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated | February | Yes | |
| A. dispar | 10 to 25 fish per tank or container, depending on the container size | Domestic water containers | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated | November to December | No | |
| Oreochromis niloticus | 2 fish per m² pond surface area | Abandoned fishponds | 104 m² (pond A), 128 m² (pond C), 72 m² (pond D) | 1 to 2 months old | Not stated | January | No | |
| G. affinis | Total number based on feeding rate of 4 mosquito fish per 60 mosquito larvae per day | Man‐made pools or water canals | Pools (mean 1 m × 1 m × 1 m deep) or water canals (15 m × 1 m × 0.3 m deep) | 4 cm to 7 cm | Not stated | February | No (treatment arm: ponds fish once). Yes, every 2 weeks (treatment arms: pond fish only or water canal fish only). | |
| (1) A. latipes with T. m. niloticus. (2) Aphyocypris chinensis + T. m. niloticus. | (1) 1 pair T. m. niloticus/10 m² water surface + 0.8 A. latipes/m² water surface. (2) 1 A. chinensis/m² + 2 T. m. niloticus/10 m². | Rice fields. | Rice fields (1) 500 m², (2) 300 m², or 600 m². | Not stated. | Not stated. | June. | No. | |
| P. reticulata. | 5 fish/m² surface area. | Riverbed pools below dams. | 0.25 to 1 m² surface area and < 1 m depth. | Not stated. | 2:3 | May. | No. | |
| P. reticulata | 5 fish/m² surface area | Riverbed pools below dams | Not stated | Not stated | 2:3 | August | Yes | |
| G. holbrooki | Unclear. Authors stated a total of 8000 to 12,000 fish per canal depending on length and 1000 fish | Canals | 1 m depth, 2 m width, 4 to 10 km length | Not stated | Not stated | October | Yes | |
| G. affinis and A. blockii | 20 fish per negative well, 50 fish per positive well | Wells | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated | January | Yes | |
| P. reticulata and C. carpio | 9 C. carpio/10 m² and 2 P. reticulata/m² | Rice fields | 23.9 ha in total, but size of individual ponds not specified | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated | Yes | |
| G. affinis | Not clearly stated; study authors reported from 2 to 3 fish/m² (1st timepoint) up to 15 to 18 fish/m² (Vakhsh, Kirov 2) or 18 to 20 fish/m² (Bokhtarskiy, Sadov 3 districts) | Rice fields | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated | Not clearly indicated | |
| P. reticulata | 3 to 5 fish/m3 | Domestic water containers | Size of domestic water containers (ablution basins and tanks) not clearly indicated | Not stated | Not stated | November | Not clearly indicated | |
| P. reticulata | Either 50 or 100 fish per well | Wells | 1.5 to 2.5 m depth, average square area 1.5 m² | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated | No | |
| A. latipes and T. m. niloticus | 2 A. latipes/m² and 2 T. m. niloticus/10 m² or 2 A. latipes/m² only | Rice fields | Each plot was 10 × 15 × 0.3 m, depth 10 cm | Not stated | Not stated | June | No | |
| G. affinis orP. reticulata | 5 pregnant females/m² (total of 45 females per 3 m × 3 m check) | Rice fields | Each paddy field had 9 checks, and each check was 3 m × 3 m | Only stated as adult and pregnant | Not stated | June to August | Yes, but unclear whether P. reticulata alone or both P. reticulata and G. affinis. Graphs indicated that both species of fish could have been introduced twice, but text stated, "Because of the problem of using guppies as larviphages, related to their much worse survival rate in the native conditions in Tajikistan than the survival rate of gambezi (which can safely be regarded as a representative of the local ichthyofauna), it was necessary to re‐release guppies into the rice checks." |
| Study ID | Pupae numbers reported | Distance between sites | Other larvivorous species present | Vegetation cleared |
| Recorded but not reported | < 1 km | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Only % reduction of L3 to L4 larvae and pupae combined reported | 13 km | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Only larvae and pupae combined reported | < 1 km | Not reported | Three ponds cleared of vegetation on a weekly basis | |
| Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Not reported | < 1 km | Not reported for control site. For treatment site, no other larvivorous fish found. | Herbivorous fish Tilapia mossambicus niloticus used at intervention but not control sites | |
| Recorded but not reported | < 1 km | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Yes | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Not reported | 3 km | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Yes | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | |
| Not reported | < 1 km | Not reported | Herbivorous fish T. m. niloticus used in 1 study arm only | |
| Recorded but only larvae reported | Intervention and control in same paddy field in each site | Assessed, but not reported | Not clearly reported |
| Site type | Study | Intervention | Outcome | Result | |
| Localized water bodies | Wells | Intervention: Gambusia or Aplocheilus fish to 3438 wells; 50 fish per well if anopheline larvae present; 20 fish per well if no larvae present Control: 317 wells | Percentage of sites with An. stephensi larvae up to 4 months' follow‐up | Study appeared to provide evidence of a larvicidal effect of fish in wells using relatively high fish stocking levels. | |
| 100P. reticulata per well Intervention: 10 wells Control: 4 wells 50P. reticulata per well Intervention: 12 wells Control: 5 wells | A. stephensi larval and pupal densities up to 28 days (100 fish per well) or 22 days (50 fish per well) | At high fish stocking levels, larvae were eliminated in the first 4 days in wells but reappeared at lower levels from day 24 onwards. With lower fish stocking levels, there was a partial effect for 2 weeks only, with rebound. | |||
| Wells and domestic water containers | Intervention: Aphanius dispar (60 sites) Control: 51 sites | Percentage of sites with An. culicifacies adanensis larvae up to 11 months' follow‐up | Study provided evidence that fish introduction prevents an increase in the number of domestic water container sites with larvae compared with control up to 11 months' follow‐up. | ||
| Intervention: A. dispar (295 water containers, of which 30 were monitored) Control: 25 containers | Percentage reduction in An. stephensi L3‐L4 larvae and pupae up to 12 months' follow‐up | Study appeared to provide evidence that fish introduction reduces the number of L3‐L4 larvae and pupae in domestic water containers compared with control up to 12 months' follow‐up. | |||
| Intervention: P. reticulata fish (59 sites in November 1987, total number of sites not specified) Control: 20 ablution basins | Percentage of containers positive for An. gambiae larvae for 11 months' follow‐up | Study appeared to show that fish reduce the number of domestic wash basins with larvae when added to these sites for up to 11 months. | |||
| Fishponds and pools | Intervention: Oreochromis niloticus fish (2 ponds) Control: 1 pond | Number of immature An. gambiae and An. funestus mosquitoes for 5 months' follow‐up | Based on trends in the study authors' graph, data that we extracted from the graph, and the study authors' analysis, this study appeared to provide limited evidence of a possible larvicidal effect of fish in ponds. | ||
| See the water canals section below. | |||||
| Riverbed pools below dams | Intervention: P. reticulata (29 riverbed pools) Control: 31 pools | Percentage of pools with Anopheles larvae, mean number of Anopheles larvae per pool, and mean number of Anopheles larvae per 100 dips up to 120 days' follow‐up | At follow‐up, the intervention group had greater reductions than the control group for the outcomes of percentage of pools with Anopheles larvae, mean number of larvae per pool, and mean number of larvae per 100 dips. | ||
| Intervention: P. reticulata to all riverbed pools in Laxapana and Kotmale (1 study site) Control: all riverbed pools in Kotmale 2 and Nilambe | Percentage of pools with Anopheles larvae, mean number of Anopheles larvae per pool, and mean number of Anopheles larvae per 100 dips up to 1 year follow‐up | At follow‐up, riverbed pools stocked with fish had larger reductions in terms of presence and density of larvae. | |||
| Rice field plots | Intervention: Tilapia mossambicus and A. latipes (treatment A, 1 rice field plot) or A. chinensis and Tilapia mossambicus (treatment B and treatment C, 1 rice field plot each) Control: 3 rice field plots of similar size | Number of An. sinensis larvae up to 13 weeks' (treatment A) or 7 weeks' (treatment B and C) follow‐up | In the control group and with treatments B and C, the number of An. sinensis larvae was higher at 2 weeks' pre‐intervention than at 6 weeks' pre‐intervention. At 2 weeks' follow‐up, the An. sinensis larval population in the control group was the same as at 2 weeks' pre‐intervention, but decreased at 6 weeks' follow‐up. Larvae were clearly reduced at the 2 sites where fish were introduced. For treatment A, the number of An. sinensis larvae increased between one week' and five weeks' follow‐up at both control and intervention sites. However, the number of larvae decreased by 13 weeks' follow‐up at both control and intervention sites. This shows a mean difference in larvae density between control and intervention over the entire period of observation. However, these data were weaker, as no baseline density was noted in the intervention arm, and any difference from the control could be due to chance. | ||
| Intervention: 23.9 ha of rice fields with P. reticulata and C. carpio fish Control: did not specify the size of the control area used Total numbers of control and Intervention field plots not specified | Number of An. aconitus, An. barbirostris, and An. annularis newly emerged adult mosquitoes collected/m²/day (trap area = 0.25 m²) up to 6 years' follow‐up | Effects were mixed, with some indication of an effect of fish on An. aconitus and An. annularis, but not on An. barbirostris. | |||
| Intervention: 2 rice field plots treated with G. affinis fish Control: 2 rice field plots | Number of Anopheles larvae and pupae up to 40 or 41 days' follow‐up | Study appeared to provide evidence of a larvicidal effect of fish in rice field plots up to 40/41 days' follow‐up. | |||
| Intervention: 2 plots treated with 2 species of fish (A. latipes and Tilapia mossambicus), 2 plots treated with 1 species alone (A. latipes) Control: 2 plots | Number of An. sinensis larvae up to 4 weeks' (1 fish) or 7 weeks' (2 fish) follow‐up | At 4 weeks, larvae had increased against baseline in both control and intervention plots, but the size of the increase was lower in the 2 plots treated with 1 species. Follow‐up at 4 weeks and 7 weeks showed considerably lower values in the 2 plots treated with 2 species than in the control. | |||
| 2 areas, 1 rice field per area Intervention: per rice field, 3 checks treated with G. affinis, and 3 treated with P. reticulata Control: 3 untreated checks per rice field (a rice check is a square or rectangular area of a paddy field created by low, narrow banks of earth (dykes) that serve to divide the paddy field into manageable areas and to control the flow of water) | Density of "younger" or "older" Anopheles larvae per m² up to 62 days' (Birlyash village) or 65 days' (Kizilpakhtachi village) follow‐up | Based on data that we extracted from the study authors' graphs, this study appears to provide limited evidence of a possible larvicidal effect of G. affinis fish in the rice field plots of both areas studied. P. reticulata reduced the larval density to similar levels as G. affinis in 1 district, but the effect was less sustained compared to G. affinis in the Shaartuz district, Birlyash village. | |||
| Water canals | Ponds Intervention: single (6 ponds) and multiple stocking of G. affinis (6 ponds) Control: 6 ponds Canals Intervention: G. affinis (6 canals) Control: 6 canals | Estimated marginal mean values of younger (L1 and L2) and older (L3 and L4) An. gambiae s.l. larvae up to 13 weeks' follow‐up | No difference between control and intervention groups at follow‐up, apart from the numbers of older larvae were lower in the canal intervention group. | ||
| Intervention: 20 canals treated with G. holbrooki Control: 5 canals | Density of a late larval stage of An. arabiensis (L4) up to 13 months' follow‐up | An. arabiensis density was lower in intervention canals for 2 months (5 months' and 6 months' post‐intervention) just before and at the beginning of the dry season. Larval densities dropped in both intervention and control groups in the dry season (7 months' post‐intervention) and at the end of the rainy season (13 months' post‐intervention). Fish numbers did not increase after the rainy season and during the last 6 months of the study. According to the authors, control of the flow of water from large to branch canals by gates deprived the fish of free movement. In addition, during the rainy season, rainwater pools act as suitable larval habitats for An. arabiensis. | |||
