Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: A systematic review
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102179 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/222751 |
Resumo: | Background: Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya viruses represent a serious public health problem. No evidence is available on the efficacy of repellents commercially available in Brazil. This systematic review assessed the efficacy and safety of products containing repellents commercially available in Brazil for protection against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Methods: We performed a systematic review using the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, AMED, LILACS and Scopus databases. Randomized clinical trials and non-randomized clinical trials comparing topical repellent products registered with the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency were included. Main outcomes of interest investigated were adverse effects, percentage repellency and protection time against bites. Pairs of reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias. Results: Sixteen studies were included. No adverse effects were reported by the studies. Against Ae. aegypti: protection time using DEET (10% and 20%-spray) was similar to IR3535 (10% and 20%-spray) and longer than citronella (5%-spray). DEET (25%-solution) had longer protection time than eucalyptus (25%-solution), while DEET (20%-lotion) had longer protection time than citronella (10%-lotion). There was no difference in protection time between herbal repellents. DEET (7% and 15%- spray) had higher percentage repellency compared to both icaridin (7%-spray) and IR3535 (20%-spray). Against Ae. albopictus: DEET (15%-spray) had a similar protection time to icaridin (20%-spray), but longer than citronella (10%-spray). Conclusion: DEET proved more effective than the other synthetic and natural repellents marketed in Brazil for protecting against bites from the mosquito species investigated. All repellents studied exhibited satisfactory safety profile. |
id |
UNSP_dd9f316d4d2847c029d816b732c8b714 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/222751 |
network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
2946 |
spelling |
Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: A systematic reviewChikungunyaDengueEfficacyInsect repellentsSafetyZikaBackground: Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya viruses represent a serious public health problem. No evidence is available on the efficacy of repellents commercially available in Brazil. This systematic review assessed the efficacy and safety of products containing repellents commercially available in Brazil for protection against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Methods: We performed a systematic review using the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, AMED, LILACS and Scopus databases. Randomized clinical trials and non-randomized clinical trials comparing topical repellent products registered with the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency were included. Main outcomes of interest investigated were adverse effects, percentage repellency and protection time against bites. Pairs of reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias. Results: Sixteen studies were included. No adverse effects were reported by the studies. Against Ae. aegypti: protection time using DEET (10% and 20%-spray) was similar to IR3535 (10% and 20%-spray) and longer than citronella (5%-spray). DEET (25%-solution) had longer protection time than eucalyptus (25%-solution), while DEET (20%-lotion) had longer protection time than citronella (10%-lotion). There was no difference in protection time between herbal repellents. DEET (7% and 15%- spray) had higher percentage repellency compared to both icaridin (7%-spray) and IR3535 (20%-spray). Against Ae. albopictus: DEET (15%-spray) had a similar protection time to icaridin (20%-spray), but longer than citronella (10%-spray). Conclusion: DEET proved more effective than the other synthetic and natural repellents marketed in Brazil for protecting against bites from the mosquito species investigated. All repellents studied exhibited satisfactory safety profile.Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of Agricultural Sciences Department of Bioprocesses and Biotechnology Multiuser Central LaboratoryUniversity of Sorocaba (UNISO) Graduate Program in Pharmaceutical SciencesSão Paulo State University (UNESP) School of Pharmaceutical Science Department of Clinical AnalysisUniversity of São Paulo (USP) School of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Ribeirão Preto Department of Pharmaceutical SciencesSão Paulo State University (UNESP) School of Agricultural Sciences Department of Bioprocesses and Biotechnology Multiuser Central LaboratorySão Paulo State University (UNESP) School of Pharmaceutical Science Department of Clinical AnalysisFAPESP: 2017/07813-8FAPESP: 2017/07813–8Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)Graduate Program in Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)Gomes Fernandes, Maria Raquel [UNESP]Cruz Lopes, LucianeSuguimoto Iwami, RodrigoDel Grossi Paglia, MarianaMateus de Castilho, Bruna [UNESP]Maicon de Oliveira, AlanFulone, IzabelaSilveira Leite, Ricardode Cássia Bergamaschi, Cristiane2022-04-28T19:46:32Z2022-04-28T19:46:32Z2021-11-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102179Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, v. 44.1873-04421477-8939http://hdl.handle.net/11449/22275110.1016/j.tmaid.2021.1021792-s2.0-85118194248Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengTravel Medicine and Infectious Diseaseinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2022-04-28T19:46:32Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/222751Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462022-04-28T19:46:32Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: A systematic review |
title |
Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: A systematic review |
spellingShingle |
Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: A systematic review Gomes Fernandes, Maria Raquel [UNESP] Chikungunya Dengue Efficacy Insect repellents Safety Zika |
title_short |
Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: A systematic review |
title_full |
Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: A systematic review |
title_fullStr |
Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed |
Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: A systematic review |
title_sort |
Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: A systematic review |
author |
Gomes Fernandes, Maria Raquel [UNESP] |
author_facet |
Gomes Fernandes, Maria Raquel [UNESP] Cruz Lopes, Luciane Suguimoto Iwami, Rodrigo Del Grossi Paglia, Mariana Mateus de Castilho, Bruna [UNESP] Maicon de Oliveira, Alan Fulone, Izabela Silveira Leite, Ricardo de Cássia Bergamaschi, Cristiane |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Cruz Lopes, Luciane Suguimoto Iwami, Rodrigo Del Grossi Paglia, Mariana Mateus de Castilho, Bruna [UNESP] Maicon de Oliveira, Alan Fulone, Izabela Silveira Leite, Ricardo de Cássia Bergamaschi, Cristiane |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Gomes Fernandes, Maria Raquel [UNESP] Cruz Lopes, Luciane Suguimoto Iwami, Rodrigo Del Grossi Paglia, Mariana Mateus de Castilho, Bruna [UNESP] Maicon de Oliveira, Alan Fulone, Izabela Silveira Leite, Ricardo de Cássia Bergamaschi, Cristiane |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Chikungunya Dengue Efficacy Insect repellents Safety Zika |
topic |
Chikungunya Dengue Efficacy Insect repellents Safety Zika |
description |
Background: Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya viruses represent a serious public health problem. No evidence is available on the efficacy of repellents commercially available in Brazil. This systematic review assessed the efficacy and safety of products containing repellents commercially available in Brazil for protection against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Methods: We performed a systematic review using the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, AMED, LILACS and Scopus databases. Randomized clinical trials and non-randomized clinical trials comparing topical repellent products registered with the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency were included. Main outcomes of interest investigated were adverse effects, percentage repellency and protection time against bites. Pairs of reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias. Results: Sixteen studies were included. No adverse effects were reported by the studies. Against Ae. aegypti: protection time using DEET (10% and 20%-spray) was similar to IR3535 (10% and 20%-spray) and longer than citronella (5%-spray). DEET (25%-solution) had longer protection time than eucalyptus (25%-solution), while DEET (20%-lotion) had longer protection time than citronella (10%-lotion). There was no difference in protection time between herbal repellents. DEET (7% and 15%- spray) had higher percentage repellency compared to both icaridin (7%-spray) and IR3535 (20%-spray). Against Ae. albopictus: DEET (15%-spray) had a similar protection time to icaridin (20%-spray), but longer than citronella (10%-spray). Conclusion: DEET proved more effective than the other synthetic and natural repellents marketed in Brazil for protecting against bites from the mosquito species investigated. All repellents studied exhibited satisfactory safety profile. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-11-01 2022-04-28T19:46:32Z 2022-04-28T19:46:32Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102179 Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, v. 44. 1873-0442 1477-8939 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/222751 10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102179 2-s2.0-85118194248 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102179 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/222751 |
identifier_str_mv |
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, v. 44. 1873-0442 1477-8939 10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102179 2-s2.0-85118194248 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scopus reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
repositoriounesp@unesp.br |
_version_ |
1826303623842234368 |