The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Aedes aegyptimass trapping using the sticky trap MosquiTRAP (MQT) by performing a cluster randomised controlled trial in Manaus, state of Amazonas, Brazil. After an initial questionnaire and baseline monitoring of adultAe. aegyptiabundance with BG-Sentinel (BGS) traps in six clusters, three clusters were randomly assigned to the intervention arm where each participating household received three MQTs for mass trapping during 17 months. The remaining three clusters (control arm) did not receive traps. The effect of mass trapping on adult Ae. aegyptiabundance was monitored fortnightly with BGS traps. During the last two months of the study, a serological survey was conducted. After the study, a second questionnaire was applied in the intervention arm. Entomological monitoring indicated that MQT mass trapping did not reduce adult Ae. aegyptiabundance. The serological survey indicated that recent dengue infections were equally frequent in the intervention and the control arm. Most participants responded positively to questions concerning user satisfaction. According to the results, there is no evidence that mass trapping with MQTs can be used as a part of dengue control programs. The use of this sticky trap is only recommendable for dengue vector monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol dependence is among the main leading health risk factors in most developed and developing countries. Therapeutic success of psychosocial programs for relapse prevention is moderate, but could potentially be increased by an adjuvant treatment with the glutamate antagonist acamprosate. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of acamprosate in comparison to placebo and other pharmacological agents. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, PubMed, Embase and CINAHL in January 2009 and inquired manufacturers and researchers for unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compare the effects of acamprosate with placebo or active control on drinking-related outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. Trial quality was assessed by one author and cross-checked by a second author. Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses were used to verify the primary effectiveness outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: 24 RCTs with 6915 participants fulfilled the criteria of inclusion and were included in the review. Compared to placebo, acamprosate was shown to significantly reduce the risk of any drinking RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.91); NNT 9.09 (95% CI 6.66 to 14.28) and to significantly increase the cumulative abstinence duration MD 10.94 (95% CI 5.08 to 16.81), while secondary outcomes (gamma-glutamyltransferase, heavy drinking) did not reach statistical significance. Diarrhea was the only side effect that was more frequently reported under acamprosate than placebo RD 0.11 (95% 0.09 to 0.13); NNTB 9.09 (95% CI 7.69 to 11.11). Effects of industry-sponsored trials RR 0.88 (95% 0.80 to 0.97) did not significantly differ from those of non-profit funded trials RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96). In addition, the linear regression test did not indicate a significant risk of publication bias (P = 0.861). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Acamprosate appears to be an effective and safe treatment strategy for supporting continuous abstinence after detoxification in alcohol dependent patients. Even though the sizes of treatment effects appear to be rather moderate in their magnitude, they should be valued against the background of the relapsing nature of alcoholism and the limited therapeutic options currently available for its treatment