RESUMEN

Thrips biocontrol research in greenhouse crops has focused primarily on western flower thrips (WFT; Frankliniella occidentalis). However, recent outbreaks of onion thrips (OT; Thrips tabaci) in Ontario, Canada, demonstrate that biocontrol-based IPM programs for WFT do not control OT sufficiently to prevent crop losses. A lack of comparative studies makes it difficult to determine which program components for WFT are failing for OT. We conducted several laboratory trials examining the extent to which commercial biocontrol products kill OT compared to WFT. These included phytoseiid mites (Amblyseius swirskii, Neoseiulus cucumeris, Amblydromalus limonicus, Iphiseius degenerans), a large generalist predator (Orius insidiosus), an entomopathogenic fungus (Beauveria bassiana strain GHA), and entomopathogenic nematodes (Steinernema feltiae, S. carpocapsae, Heterorhabditis bacteriophora). In no-choice trials, A. swirskii and O. insidiosus consumed more OT than WFT (first instars and adults, respectively). In choice trials, A. swirskii, N. cucumeris, and O. insidiosus consumed more OT than WFT. Steinernema feltiae caused higher mortality in OT than WFT. There was no difference in mortality between thrips species exposed to other biocontrol agents. This suggests available tools have the potential to manage OT as well as WFT. Possible explanations why this potential is not realized in commercial settings are explored.

RESUMEN

Proper species identification is the keystone of successful integrated pest management (IPM). However, efforts to identify thrips species in Canadian greenhouses have not been formally made since the 1980s. In response to recent increases in crop damage, we sampled thrips communities from eight commercial floriculture greenhouses in the Niagara region (Ontario, Canada) from May until August 2016. Selected sites were revisited in 2017, 2018, and 2019 to determine changes in species composition over time. Western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)), along with onion thrips (Thrips tabaci Lindeman), constituted the majority of species found. Other pest species (less than 8% of specimens across all sampling years) included poinsettia thrips (Echinothrips americanus Morgan), chrysanthemum thrips (Thrips nigropilosus Uzel), and Frankliniella fusca (Hinds). Further investigations of thrips outbreaks in Ontario from 2016 to 2023 revealed other important species, including Thrips parvispinus (Karny), Hercinothrips femoralis (Reuter), and Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood. The current biocontrol strategies used in Ontario floriculture crops for western flower thrips do not adequately control onion thrips or other thrips pests in ornamental crops, making identification a fundamental step in determining whether biocontrol or chemical control strategies should be implemented. However, traditional taxonomic keys are inaccessible to non-specialists due to their technical difficulty. Using the data gathered in these surveys, we developed a simplified, illustrated identification key for use by growers and IPM consultants.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To develop best-practice guidance for health technology assessment (HTA) agencies when appraising diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. METHODS: We used a policy sandbox approach to develop best-practice guidance for HTA agencies to approach known challenges associated with assessing tests and treatments for COVID-19. The guidance was developed by a multi-stakeholder workshop of twenty-one participants representing HTA agencies, clinical and patient experts, academia, industry, and a payer, from across Europe and North America. The workshop was supported by extensive background work to identify the key challenges, including: targeted reviews of existing COVID-related methods guidance for assessing interventions and clinical guidelines, engagement with clinical experts, a survey and workshop of HTA agencies, a systematic review of published economic evaluations, and a workshop of health economic modelers. RESULTS: We suggest HTA agencies should consider using other types of evidence (e.g., real world) where high-quality randomized controlled trials may be lacking and healthcare systems would value timely HTA outputs. A "living" HTA approach may be useful, given the context of an evolving disease, scientific understanding and evidence base, allowing for decisions to be efficiently revisited in response to new information; particularly, if supported by a common "disease model" for COVID-19. Innovative ways of engaging with the public and clinicians, and early engagement with regulators and payers, are recommended. CONCLUSIONS: HTA agencies should consider the elements of this guidance that are most suited to their existing processes to enable them to assess the effectiveness and value of interventions for COVID-19.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: As healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a "living" systematic review approach. METHODS: Key databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer. RESULTS: Overall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price. CONCLUSIONS: Presently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this "living" review.

Asunto(s)