Integrating control across diseases
In addition to integrating multiple vector control methods to target a single disease, simultaneously targeting multiple diseases using the same vector control programme infrastructure and possibly the same interventions has the potential for economies of scale and scope and even greater increases in cost-effectiveness. No large-scale vector control programmes have trialled multi-disease vector control, but several examples of ‘accidental’ control of vector-borne diseases suggest the potential of this approach.
Campaigns to reduce the incidence of malaria in India in the 1950s by indoor residual spraying of insecticides are credited with drastically reducing the burden from visceral leishmaniasis by killing its sand fly vectors as they rested inside homes [
14]. Similarly, the mass rollout of LLINs in sub-Saharan Africa over the last decade is thought to have reduced the incidence of lymphatic filariasis, since these diseases share the same mosquito vector in rural areas [
15].
Combining vector control activities across vector-borne diseases has the potential to be more cost-effective than parallel programmes. Cost savings would come both from reducing the direct costs of deploying interventions and from sharing the necessary support structures for these control programmes.
Integrated vaccination and mass chemotherapy
This integration of disease control programmes is not without precedent. For example, the initiation in 1974 of the Expanded Programme on Immunization was a ground-breaking move to combine the control programmes for several vaccine-preventable diseases into a single, large-scale programme. By simultaneously deploying vaccines for a range of diseases, and combining the support structures required for large-scale immunization programmes, the Expanded Programme on Immunization was able to slash the costs of controlling each disease [
16]. The subsequent development and rollout of polyvalent vaccines has further compounded these savings, enabling even cheaper and more effective disease control. Indeed, these vaccine distribution networks and other public health programmes have already been used as a cost-effective and equitable method for distributing LLINs [
17,
18].
The successes of integrated vaccination programmes have recently been mirrored in the integration of mass chemotherapy control programmes for a number of neglected tropical diseases [
19]. As with vector control, many of the drugs used in mass chemotherapy are efficacious against multiple diseases. The distribution mechanisms for these drugs are very similar and they can safely be administered together, meaning that cost savings can be made by administering multiple drugs in a single treatment round.
Identifying opportunities for integration
A crucial first step in assessing where and when an integrated approach to vector-borne disease control is likely to be effective is determining which interventions are effective against which diseases. Robust experimental studies of the effectiveness of vector control methods are unfortunately scarce for most diseases other than malaria [
20,
21]. However, the limited studies available suggest that many vector control interventions are effective against several different vector-borne diseases [
22].
For example, the most obvious candidates for synergy with malaria vector control methods are lymphatic filariasis (spread by the same mosquito vectors as malaria in rural Africa) and leishmaniasis (spread by the bite of sand flies). There is good evidence for the efficacy of insecticide-treated nets, screens, and curtains against both of these diseases, as several of the main vector species share the house-entering behaviour of the most important malaria vectors [
23,
24]. There is also limited evidence for the effectiveness of these methods at controlling the mosquito vectors of dengue and yellow fever, and of Japanese encephalitis [
25‐
28]. Indoor residual spraying of insecticides is likely to be effective against leishmaniasis and lymphatic filariasis vectors [
29,
30] and is known to be highly effective at controlling the Triatomine bug vectors of Chagas disease [
31].
Larval source management is an effective (if not widely used) tool for the control of malaria [
32] and can be combined with other vector control approaches for an additive reduction in malaria burden [
33]. Similarly, larval control has been successfully combined with mass drug administration for the control of lymphatic filariasis in India [
34]. Control of larval
Aedes mosquitoes is a widely used intervention for tackling dengue [
35] and was historically a key tool in the elimination of both dengue and yellow fever from Cuba and Panama [
36].
Whilst insecticide treatment of nets, screens, and walls are implemented at the household level, larval source management must be targeted at the breeding sites of the specific vector species of interest, necessitating different procedures for different vectors. For example, application of larvicides is appropriate for controlling
Anopheles [
33], whereas polystyrene beads may be more effective for the urban
Culex vectors of lymphatic filariasis [
34] and the removal or larvicidal treatment of water containers is more useful for the
Aedes vectors of dengue and yellow fever [
35,
37]. Nevertheless, there are many situations where
Anopheles and
Culex mosquitoes share the same habitat [
38,
39], and control operatives could reasonably be tasked to treat or remove the distinct larval habitats of several key species in a single programme, sharing many of the costs of control. The development of larval control products that are effective against multiple vectors could enhance these cost savings. Evaluating the practical feasibility and quantifying the cost-effectiveness of such cross-disease integration of larval source management should be considered in detail in future studies.
For many vector-borne diseases, improving the quality of housing can be an effective method of disease control [
40,
41]. Whilst house improvement can mean different things in different epidemiological situations (such as screening roof spaces for malaria control [
42,
43] versus repairing plaster for Chagas disease [
44,
45]), integrated programmes that carry out multiple improvements could be an effective approach for jointly controlling multiple diseases.
The likely impacts of applying control methods simultaneously against multiple vectors are a cause of debate amongst vector ecologists. However, a deliberate integration programme has so far never been applied operationally or evaluated in a research context. Therefore, evaluation of programmes targeting multiple vectors and diseases should be a priority for future research in order to determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility of this approach.