An evidence-based vector control strategy for military deployments: the British Army experience

We describe the British Army's current strategy for controlling arthropod vectors of disease during overseas deployments. Military commanders and medical officers have different, but complementary responsibilities in achieving vector control. In this paper we define a hierarchy of evidence-based vector control guidelines. Field guidelines must be based on the best available research evidence, preferably that derived from pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and from systematic reviews of trials. Assessing the effectiveness of different vector control measures involves a trade-off between the relative benefits and harm of different technology options. There is compelling scientific evidence that bed nets and screens treated with a pyrethroid insecticide are highly effective in protecting against nocturnally active, anthropophilic arthropods (including ectoparasites), and will reduce the incidence of malaria, leishmaniasis, lymphatic filariasis and Chagas' disease. Etofenprox and deltamethrin are the safest pyrethroids, and permethrin the least safe. Vector control strategies of probable effectiveness are the use of insecticide-treated clothing, the wearing of protective clothing, and the correct use of DEET-based topical insect repellents. Aerosol insecticides are of debatable effectiveness. Other effective vector control measures, of limited usefulness during deployments, include electric fans, mosquito coils/vaporising mats, and smoke. "Biological" vector control measures, and insect buzzers/electrocuters are ineffective. Practical insect avoidance measures, based on an understanding of vector biology, complete the military vector-control arsenal. We conclude that practical insect avoidance measures, combined with pyrethroid-treated nets and clothing, and DEET-based topical repellents, can achieve almost 100% protection against biting arthropods.