ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Effective Aedes aegypti control is limited, in part, by the difficulty in achieving sufficient intervention coverage. To maximise the effect of vector control, areas with persistently high numbers of Aedes-borne disease cases could be identified and prioritised for preventive interventions. We aimed to identify persistent Aedes-borne disease hotspots in cities across southern Mexico. METHODS: In this spatial analysis, geocoded cases of dengue, chikungunya, and Zika from nine endemic Mexican cities were aggregated at the census-tract level. We included cities that were located in southern Mexico (the arbovirus endemic region of Mexico), with a high burden of dengue cases (ie, more than 5000 cases reported during a 10-year period), and listed as high priority for the Mexican dengue control and prevention programme. The Getis-Ord Gi*(d) statistic was applied to yearly slices of the dataset to identify spatial hotspots of each disease in each city. We used Kendall's W coefficient to quantify the agreement in the distribution of each virus. FINDINGS: 128â507 dengue, 4752 chikungunya and 25â755 Zika clinical cases were reported between Jan 1, 2008, and Dec 31, 2016. All cities showed evidence of transmission heterogeneity, with a mean of 17·6% (SD 4·7) of their total area identified as persistent disease hotspots. Hotspots accounted for 25·6% (SD 9·7; range 12·8-43·0) of the population and 32·1% (10·5; 19·6-50·5) of all Aedes-borne disease cases reported. We found an overlap between hotspots of 61·7% for dengue and Zika and 53·3% for dengue and chikungunya. Dengue hotspots in 2008-16 were significantly associated with dengue hotspots detected during 2017-20 in five of the nine cities. Heads of vector control confirmed hotspot areas as problem zones for arbovirus transmission. INTERPRETATION: This study provides evidence of the overlap of Aedes-borne diseases within geographical hotspots and a methodological framework for the stratification of arbovirus transmission risk within urban areas, which can guide the implementation of surveillance and vector control. FUNDING: USAID, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre, Fondo Mixto CONACyT (Mexico)-Gobierno del Estado de Yucatan, and the US National Institutes of Health. TRANSLATION: For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
