Efficacy and safety of repellents marketed in Brazil against bites from Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: A systematic review

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Gomes Fernandes, Maria Raquel [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: 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
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/requestopendoar: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
_version_ 1803046002352979968