Efficacy of Wolbachia-Infected Mosquito Deployments for the Control of Dengue.

BACKGROUND: Aedes aegypti mosquitoes infected with the wMel strain of Wolbachia pipientis are less susceptible than wild-type A. aegypti to dengue virus infection. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial involving releases of wMel-infected A. aegypti mosquitoes for the control of dengue in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. We randomly assigned 12 geographic clusters to receive deployments of wMel-infected A. aegypti (intervention clusters) and 12 clusters to receive no deployments (control clusters). All clusters practiced local mosquito-control measures as usual. A test-negative design was used to assess the efficacy of the intervention. Patients with acute undifferentiated fever who presented to local primary care clinics and were 3 to 45 years of age were recruited. Laboratory testing was used to identify participants who had virologically confirmed dengue (VCD) and those who were test-negative controls. The primary end point was symptomatic VCD of any severity caused by any dengue virus serotype. RESULTS: After successful introgression of wMel into the intervention clusters, 8144 participants were enrolled; 3721 lived in intervention clusters, and 4423 lived in control clusters. In the intention-to-treat analysis, VCD occurred in 67 of 2905 participants (2.3%) in the intervention clusters and in 318 of 3401 (9.4%) in the control clusters (aggregate odds ratio for VCD, 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.35; P = 0.004). The protective efficacy of the intervention was 77.1% (95% CI, 65.3 to 84.9) and was similar against the four dengue virus serotypes. The incidence of hospitalization for VCD was lower among participants who lived in intervention clusters (13 of 2905 participants [0.4%]) than among those who lived in control clusters (102 of 3401 [3.0%]) (protective efficacy, 86.2%; 95% CI, 66.2 to 94.3). CONCLUSIONS: Introgression of wMel into A. aegypti populations was effective in reducing the incidence of symptomatic dengue and resulted in fewer hospitalizations for dengue among the participants. (Funded by the Tahija Foundation and others; AWED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03055585; Indonesia Registry number, INA-A7OB6TW.)

Impact of randomised <i>w</i>mel <i>Wolbachia </i>deployments on notified dengue cases and insecticide fogging for dengue control in Yogyakarta City

BACKGROUND: Releases of Wolbachia (wMel)-infected Aedes aegypti mosquitoes significantly reduced the incidence of virologically confirmed dengue in a previous cluster randomised trial in Yogyakarta City, Indonesia. Following the trial, wMel releases were extended to the untreated control areas, to achieve city-wide coverage of Wolbachia. OBJECTIVE: In this predefined analysis, we evaluated the impact of the wMel deployments in Yogyakarta on dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF) case notifications and on the frequency of perifocal insecticide spraying by public health teams. METHODS: Monthly counts of DHF cases notified to the Yogyakarta District Health Office between January 2006 and May 2022 were modelled as a function of time-varying local wMel treatment status (fully- and partially-treated vs untreated, and by quintile of wMel prevalence). The frequency of insecticide fogging in wMel-treated and untreated areas was analysed using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Notified DHF incidence was 83% lower in fully treated vs untreated periods (IRR 0.17 [95% CI 0.14, 0.20]), and 78% lower in areas with 80–100% wMel prevalence compared to areas with 0–20% wMel (IRR 0.23 [0.17, 0.30]). A similar intervention effect was observed at 60–80% wMel prevalence as at 80–100% prevalence (76% vs 78% efficacy, respectively). Pre-intervention, insecticide fogging occurred at similar frequencies in areas later randomised to wMel-treated and untreated arms of the trial. After wMel deployment, fogging occurred significantly less frequently in treated areas (IRR 0.17 [0.10, 0.30]). CONCLUSIONS: Deployments of wMel-infected Aedes aegypti mosquitoes resulted in an 83% reduction in the application of perifocal insecticide spraying, consistent with lower dengue case notifications in wMel-treated areas. These results show that the Wolbachia intervention effect demonstrated previously in a cluster randomised trial was also measurable from routine surveillance data

<i>Aedes aegypti</i> abundance and insecticide resistance profiles in the Applying <i>Wolbachia </i>to Eliminate Dengue trial

The Applying Wolbachia to Eliminate Dengue (AWED) trial was a parallel cluster randomised trial that demonstrated Wolbachia (wMel) introgression into Ae. aegypti populations reduced dengue incidence. In this predefined substudy, we compared between treatment arms, the relative abundance of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus before, during and after wMel-introgression. Between March 2015 and March 2020, 60,084 BG trap collections yielded 478,254 Ae. aegypti and 17,623 Ae. albopictus. Between treatment arms there was no measurable difference in Ae. aegypti relative abundance before or after wMel-deployments, with a count ratio of 0.96 (95% CI 0.76, 1.21) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.85, 1.17) respectively. More Ae. aegypti were caught per trap per week in the wMel-intervention arm compared to the control arm during wMel deployments (count ratio 1.23 (95% CI 1.03, 1.46)). Between treatment arms there was no measurable difference in the Ae. albopictus population size before, during or after wMel-deployment (overall count ratio 1.10 (95% CI 0.89, 1.35)). We also compared insecticide resistance phenotypes of Ae. aegypti in the first and second years after wMel-deployments. Ae. aegypti field populations from wMel-treated and untreated arms were similarly resistant to malathion (0.8%), permethrin (1.25%) and cyfluthrin (0.15%) in year 1 and year 2 of the trial. In summary, we found no between-arm differences in the relative abundance of Ae. aegypti or Ae. albopictus prior to or after wMel introgression, and no between-arm difference in Ae. aegypti insecticide resistance phenotypes. These data suggest neither Aedes abundance, nor insecticide resistance, confounded the epidemiological outcomes of the AWED trial

A Chronicle of Indonesia’s Forest Management: A Long Step towards Environmental Sustainability and Community Welfare

Indonesia is the largest archipelagic country in the world, with 17,000 islands of varying sizes and elevations, from lowlands to very high mountains, stretching more than 5000 km eastward from Sabang in Aceh to Merauke in Papua. Although occupying only 1.3% of the world’s land area, Indonesia possesses the third-largest rainforest and the second-highest level of biodiversity, with very high species diversity and endemism. However, during the last two decades, Indonesia has been known as a country with a high level of deforestation, a producer of smoke from burning forests and land, and a producer of carbon emissions. The aim of this paper is to review the environmental history and the long process of Indonesian forest management towards achieving environmental sustainability and community welfare. To do this, we analyze the milestones of Indonesian forest management history, present and future challenges, and provide strategic recommendations toward a viable Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) system. Our review showed that the history of forestry management in Indonesia has evolved through a long process, especially related to contestation over the control of natural resources and supporting policies and regulations. During the process, many efforts have been applied to reduce the deforestation rate, such as a moratorium on permitting primary natural forest and peat land, land rehabilitation and soil conservation, environmental protection, and other significant regulations. Therefore, these efforts should be maintained and improved continuously in the future due to their significant positive impacts on a variety of forest areas toward the achievement of viable SFM. Finally, we conclude that the Indonesian government has struggled to formulate sustainable forest management policies that balance economic, ecological, and social needs, among others, through developing and implementing social forestry instruments, developing and implementing human resource capacity, increasing community literacy, strengthening forest governance by eliminating ambiguity and overlapping regulations, simplification of bureaucracy, revitalization of traditional wisdom, and fair law enforcement