RESUMEN
Most vector control activities in urban areas are focused on household environments; however, information relating to infection risks in spaces other than households is poor, and the relative risk that these spaces represent has not yet been fully understood. We used data-driven simulations to investigate the importance of household and non-household environments for dengue entomological risk in two Kenyan cities where dengue circulation has been reported. Fieldwork was performed using four strategies that targeted different stages of mosquitoes: ovitraps, larval collections, Prokopack aspiration, and BG-sentinel traps. Data were analyzed separately between household and non-household environments to assess mosquito presence, the number of vectors collected, and the risk factors for vector presence. With these data, we simulated vector and human populations to estimate the parameter m and mosquito-to-human density in both household and non-household environments. Among the analyzed variables, the main difference was found in mosquito abundance, which was consistently higher in non-household environments in Kisumu but was similar in Ukunda. Risk factor analysis suggests that small, clean water-related containers serve as mosquito breeding places in households as opposed to the trash- and rainfall-related containers found in non-household structures. We found that the density of vectors (m) was higher in non-household than household environments in Kisumu and was also similar or slightly lower between both environments in Ukunda. These results suggest that because vectors are abundant, there is a potential risk of transmission in non-household environments; hence, vector control activities should take these spaces into account.
Asunto(s)
Aedes , Dengue , Animales , Humanos , Dengue/prevención & control , Mosquitos Vectores , Kenia , Composición Familiar , Control de Mosquitos/métodosRESUMEN
The Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV) is a zoonotic arbovirus that can also transmit directly to humans from livestock. Previous studies have shown consumption of sick animal products are risk factors for RVFV infection, but it is difficult to disentangle those risk factors from other livestock rearing activities. Urban areas have an increased demand for animal source foods, different vector distributions, and various arboviruses are understood to establish localized urban transmission cycles. Thus far, RVFV is an unevaluated public health risk in urban areas within endemic regions. We tested participants in our ongoing urban cohort study on dengue (DENV) and chikungunya (CHIKV) virus for RVFV exposure and found 1.6% (57/3,560) of individuals in two urban areas of Kenya had anti-RVFV IgG antibodies. 88% (50/57) of RVFV exposed participants also had antibodies to DENV, CHIKV, or both. Although livestock ownership was very low in urban study sites, RVFV exposure was overall significantly associated with seeing goats around the homestead (OR = 2.34 (CI 95%: 1.18-4.69, p = 0.02) and in Kisumu, RVFV exposure was associated with consumption of raw milk (OR = 6.28 (CI 95%: 0.94-25.21, p = 0.02). In addition, lack of piped water and use of small jugs (15-20 liters) for water was associated with a higher risk of RVFV exposure (OR = 5.36 (CI 95%: 1.23-16.44, p = 0.01) and this may contribute to interepidemic vector-borne maintenance of RVFV. We also investigated perception towards human vaccination for RVFV and identified high acceptance (91% (97/105) at our study sites. This study provides baseline evidence to guide future studies investigating the urban potential of RVFV and highlights the unexplored role of animal products in continued spread of RVFV.