Journal of Antivirals & Antiretrovirals
Open Access

An In-Depth Overview on the Impact and Symptoms of Vector-Borne Diseases

Wapheer Shakespeare^{* *}Correspondence: Wapheer Shakespeare, Department of Virology and Immunology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, Email:

Author info »

Description

Vector-Borne Diseases (VBDs) represent a significant public health concern globally, posing immense challenges in terms of prevention, treatment, and control [1]. These illnesses are caused by pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, and parasites transmitted to humans and animals through the bites of various vectors like mosquitoes, ticks, sandflies, and fleas [2]. VBDs are a complex amalgamation of ecological, environmental, and socio-economic factors that collectively influence their prevalence and impact on populations worldwide. One of the most well-known vectorborne diseases is malaria, transmitted by the Anopheles mosquito [3]. This disease alone accounts for hundreds of thousands of deaths annually, primarily affecting populations in tropical and subtropical regions. Similarly, diseases like dengue fever, Zika virus, chikungunya, Lyme disease, and leishmaniasis, among others, also significantly impact millions of people globally [4].

The spread of these diseases is influenced by various factors, including climate change, urbanization, travel and trade, changes in land use, and inadequate healthcare infrastructure. Climate change, in particular, has a profound impact on the distribution of vectors, altering their habitats and expanding their geographical range [5]. Warmer temperatures, altered rainfall patterns, and environmental shifts contribute to the proliferation of vectors and the diseases they carry, posing new challenges for disease control [6]. Urbanization and globalization play a crucial role in the transmission of VBDs. Rapid urban expansion often leads to overcrowded living conditions, inadequate sanitation, and water storage practices that create breeding grounds for disease-carrying vectors [7]. Moreover, increased international travel and trade facilitate the rapid spread of vectors and pathogens across borders, making containment and control more challenging. Socio-economic factors also play a significant role in the prevalence and impact of VBDs. Impoverished communities lacking access to proper healthcare, sanitation, and education are disproportionately affected by these diseases [8]. Limited resources hinder effective disease surveillance, vector control programs, and access to preventive measures such as insecticide-treated bed nets, vaccines, or proper medication [9].

Preventing and controlling vector-borne diseases require a multifaceted approach that addresses various aspects of their transmission cycle [10]. Strategies aimed at vector control, including the use of insecticides, environmental management, and community-based interventions, play a pivotal role [11]. Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets (LLINs) have been instrumental in reducing malaria transmission by targeting mosquitoes that bite predominantly during sleeping hours. Additionally, vaccination programs, when available, can significantly reduce the burden of certain VBDs. For instance, vaccines against diseases like yellow fever and Japanese encephalitis have been successful in preventing outbreaks in endemic regions [12]. However, challenges remain in developing effective vaccines for diseases like dengue fever due to the complexities of the virus and its multiple serotypes. Public awareness and community engagement are fundamental in preventing the spread of VBDs. Educating communities about the importance of personal protective measures, such as wearing insect repellent, using mosquito nets, and eliminating breeding sites, can significantly reduce transmission rates. Furthermore, community involvement in surveillance and reporting of suspected cases aids in early detection and response, enabling swift action to control outbreaks. In conclusion, vector-borne diseases continue to pose significant challenges to global public health. Addressing these challenges requires collaborative efforts involving governments, healthcare agencies, research institutions, and communities. By implementing comprehensive strategies focused on vector control, improved healthcare access, vaccination programs, and community engagement, we can mitigate the impact of these diseases and work towards a world with reduced vulnerability to vector-borne illnesses.

References

1. Crook MA. Near patient testing and pathology in the new millennium. J Clin Pathol.2000;53:27-30.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

2. Valenstein P.  Laboratory turnaround time. Am J Clin Pathol.1996;1056: 676-688.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

3. Zarbo RJ, Gephardt GN, Howanitz PJ. Intralaboratory timeliness of surgical pathology reports. Results of two College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies of biopsies and complex specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120: 234-44.

   [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

4. Novis DA, Zarbo RJ, Saladino AJ. Interinstitutional comparison of surgical biopsy diagnosis turnaround time: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 5384 surgical biopsies in 157 small hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med.1998;128: 951-956.

   [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

5. Hawkins RC. Laboratory Turnaround Time. Clin Biochem Rev.2007;28:179.

   [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

6. Tsai ER, Tintu AN, Demirtas D, Boucherie RJ, de Jonge R. A critical review of laboratory performance indicators. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2019;56: 458-471.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

7. Ramsay AD. Errors in histopathology reporting: Detection and avoidance histopathology. 1999;34: 481-490.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

8. Hocking GR, Nick Niteckis V, Cairns BJ, Hayman JA . Departmental audit in surgical anatomical pathology. Pathology.1997;29: 418-421.

   [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

9. Nakhleh RE, Gephardt G, Zarbo RJ. Necessity of clinical information in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;123: 615-619.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

10.  Jeyapal R, Suresh Naidu S, K Shetty JK. Comparison of Turnaround Times TAT in Pathology laboratories from developed and developing countries, and its impact on treatment. Manipal J Med Sci .2007;56: 45-36.

    [Google Scholar]

11. Vollmer RT. Analysis of turnaround times in pathology: an approach using failure time analysis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:215-220. .

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

12. Bhatt RD, Shrestha C, Risal P. Factors Affecting Turnaround Time in the Clinical Laboratory of the Kathmandu University Hospital, Nepal. EJIFCC. 2019;30:14.

    [Google Scholar] [PubMed]