Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:50:18.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Thiamine (vitamin B1) as an insect repellent: a scoping review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

Matan Shelomi*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
*
Author for correspondence: Matan Shelomi, Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While the desire for systemic repellents is high, ineffective repellents put one at risk of insect-vectored pathogens. Vitamin B1, or thiamine, has been touted as a systemic insect repellent since 1943, and denounced as an ineffective placebo for just as long. This paper presents a scoping review of 104 relevant case reports, research studies, and review articles to trace the evolution of this idea and identify an evidence-based, scientific consensus. Reports of thiamine's systemic repellency are primarily anecdotal and based on uncontrolled trials and/or used bite symptoms as a proxy for reduced biting. Controlled experiments on insect landing and feeding found no evidence of repellency. Of the 49 relevant review papers, 16 insect bite prevention guidelines, and 4 government documents, none after the 1990s claimed thiamine is a repellent. The findings of this review are that thiamine cannot repel arthropods in any dosage or route of administration. Due to limited available evidence, the possibility that thiamine reduces the subjective symptoms of insect bites cannot currently be ruled out. Unfortunately, many medical professionals and travelers today still believe thiamine may be effective despite the evidence stating otherwise. Continued promotion of debunked repellents on the commercial market poses a serious risk in countries with the endemic, mosquito-vectored disease.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

The gold standard insect repellent to keep away biting pests like mosquitoes has for decades been N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), which remains the safest and most effective repellent among all synthetic or natural repellents (Holzer, Reference Holzer2001; Fradin and Day, Reference Fradin and Day2002; Kongkaew et al., Reference Kongkaew, Sakunrag, Chaiyakunapruk and Tawatsin2011; Rodriguez et al., Reference Rodriguez, Drake, Price, Hammond and Hansen2015). Hundreds of studies on its safety and efficacy (Fradin and Day, Reference Fradin and Day2002; Canadian Paediatric Society, 2003; Frances, Reference Frances, Debboun, Frances and Strickman2007; Chen-Hussey et al., Reference Chen-Hussey, Behrens and Logan2014) and decades of reports covering tens of thousands of exposures confirm that DEET is of low risk and safe to use in any individual over 2 months of age, including pregnant and breastfeeding women (Veltri et al., Reference Veltri, Osimitz, Bradford and Page1994; Bell et al., Reference Bell, Veltri and Page2002; Koren et al., Reference Koren, Matsui and Bailey2003; Fradin, Reference Fradin, Keystone, Kozarsky, Connor, Nothdurft, Mendelson and Leder2019; Mutebi and Gimnig, Reference Mutebi, Gimnig, Brunette and Nemhauser2019). DEET is better tolerated than most plant-based topical repellents such as oil of lemon eucalyptus or citronella, some of which have higher risks of side effects and/or are not recommended for children younger than three years (Temple et al., Reference Temple, Smith and Beasley1991; Goodyer and Behrens, Reference Goodyer and Behrens1998; Woolf, Reference Woolf1999; Pollack et al., Reference Pollack, Kiszewski and Spielman2002; de Groot and Schmidt, Reference de Groot and Schmidt2016; Mutebi and Gimnig, Reference Mutebi, Gimnig, Brunette and Nemhauser2019). Regardless of ingredients, all topical repellents still require transporting containers of liquids or creams, are only effective for a certain amount of time, may leave an undesirable odor or greasy sensation, and may require total coverage of all exposed skin to prevent all bites.

Proposed alternatives vary in their efficacy: insecticide-treated bed nets work, while sonic repellent devices or phone apps do not (Rasnitsyn et al., Reference Rasnitsyn, Alekseev, Gornostaeva, Kupriyanova, Potapov and Razumova1974; Enayati et al., Reference Enayati, Hemingway and Garner2007). Long sought after are systemic repellents: substances that, when consumed or injected, render the entire body unattractive to biting insects (Sherman, Reference Sherman1966). One widely promoted systemic repellent, especially online (Ives and Paskewitz, Reference Ives and Paskewitz2005), is vitamin B1, or thiamine (C12H17N4OS), also spelled ‘thiamin’ and typically sold in its salt form as thiamin[e] [hydro]chloride. [Note that some sources state other vitamins such as B12 are repellent, but this is typically an error (Roessler, Reference Roessler1961).] Discovered in 1897 (Wuest, Reference Wuest1962), thiamine is an essential nutrient found in whole grains, legumes, fish, pork, and yeast. Following its synthesis in 1936, it was enthusiastically adopted as a medicine and food additive to prevent beriberi, at the time a widespread and debilitating disease (Sriram et al., Reference Sriram, Manzanares and Joseph2012). As a repellent, thiamine is touted as a ‘natural’ alternative to DEET (Maia and Moore, Reference Maia and Moore2011; Shelomi, Reference Shelomi2020). The different online sources publicizing thiamine as a repellent all recommend differing dosages and delivery mechanisms, and differ on the number of doses needed to induce effect: some products claim to work almost immediately, while others claim they must be used regularly for days or weeks to become effective (Ives and Paskewitz, Reference Ives and Paskewitz2005).

Is there any truth to these claims? Nothing in mosquito biology suggests they would be particularly repelled by or attracted to thiamine, as thiamine is an essential nutrient for mosquito larvae (Trager and Subbarow, Reference Trager and Subbarow1938; Kleinjan and Dadd, Reference Kleinjan and Dadd1977). No reports link beriberi or genetic defects in thiamine metabolism to increased susceptibility to mosquito bites (Marcé-Grau et al., Reference Marcé-Grau, Martí-Sánchez, Baide-Mairena, Ortigoza-Escobar and Pérez-Dueñas2019). Thiamine is also not without risks. While oral thiamine supplementation has low risks (Scientific Committee on Food, Reference Scientific Committee on Food2006), rare but potentially lethal side effects were reported for parenteral delivery of thiamine at doses above 100 mg (Wrenn et al., Reference Wrenn, Murphy and Slovis1989; Proebstle et al., Reference Proebstle, Gall, Jugert, Merk and Sterry1995). During the 1940's (Laws, Reference Laws1941; Mills, Reference Mills1941; Schiff, Reference Schiff1941; Brown, Reference Brown1944), reports of sensitization and allergic reactions from subcutaneous thiamine injection were noted, including symptoms such as pruritus (itching), nausea, ataxia, anxiety, cyanosis, anaphylactic shock, and death. Although later studies reported lower toxicity and fewer adverse effects (Scientific Committee on Food, Reference Scientific Committee on Food2006), cases of allergic symptoms like pruritis after thiamine injection were still noted (Wrenn et al., Reference Wrenn, Murphy and Slovis1989; Royer-Morrot et al., Reference Royer-Morrot, Zhiri, Paille and Royer1992). Contact dermatitis was also reported from workers at a pharmaceutical plant making injectable thiamine ampoules (Combes and Groopman, Reference Combes and Groopman1950), and from a patient sensitized after thiamine ingestion (Hjorth, Reference Hjorth1958). Beyond these direct risks, using ineffective repellents can also cause indirect harm by providing a false sense of security (Pollack et al., Reference Pollack, Kiszewski and Spielman2002), such that people who use thiamine as their sole prophylactic when traveling to areas with endemic, mosquito-borne pathogens like malaria will be insufficiently protected (Mølle et al., Reference Mølle, Christensen, Hansen, Dragsted, Aarup and Buhl2000). Thus, a rationale exists for a scoping review of the evidence for the concept of systemically repellent thiamine.

The goal of this review is to settle, for the 21st century reader, the following research questions: What is the evidence for thiamine in the prevention or treatment of arthropod bites? If this evidence exists, then what is the best way to apply thiamine and at what dosage? If no evidence for efficacy exists, and/or evidence for lack of efficacy exists, then what are the challenges to overcoming incorrect knowledge in the general population?

Materials and methods

This paper is a critical appraisal of all available evidence regarding thiamine and insect biting, spanning nearly 80 years of research worldwide. A scoping review was chosen because the literature on the subject is highly heterogeneous, such that statistical analysis of a systematic review is not feasible, and narrative synthesis is employed (Tricco et al., Reference Tricco, Lillie, Zarin, O'Brien, Colquhoun, Levac, Moher, Peters, Horsley, Weeks, Hempel, Akl, Chang, McGowan, Stewart, Harting, Aldcroft, Wilson, Garritty, Lewin, Godfrey, Macdonald, Langlois, Soares-Weiser, Moriarty, Clifford, Tunçalp and Straus2018). As a scoping review, it follows the PRISMA-Scr checklist, and serves to ‘systematically map the research done in this area, as well as to identify any gaps in knowledge’ (Tricco et al., Reference Tricco, Lillie, Zarin, O'Brien, Colquhoun, Levac, Moher, Peters, Horsley, Weeks, Hempel, Akl, Chang, McGowan, Stewart, Harting, Aldcroft, Wilson, Garritty, Lewin, Godfrey, Macdonald, Langlois, Soares-Weiser, Moriarty, Clifford, Tunçalp and Straus2018). The final protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework and is publicly available (https://osf.io/jm8hq/).

Any references (excluding patents) on Google Scholar or PubMed mentioning thiamin[e] or vitamin[e] B1 and repellency, mosquitoes, fleas, midges, bedbugs, or ticks, as well as the papers cited by these papers and any literature that cited them and contained the relevant terms, were obtained online or through interlibrary loans. This method has been shown to sufficiently cover all relevant studies for literature reviews (Bramer et al., Reference Bramer, Giustini, Kramer and Anderson2013; Gehanno et al., Reference Gehanno, Rollin and Darmoni2013), and in this case the search on PubMed did not reveal any publications Google Scholar missed. Using multiple spellings of the terms ensured older papers and papers of non-English, Roman alphabet languages were included in the review. Review papers, case studies, research papers, letters to the editor, and commentary articles were included, as were government documents and legal documents. Articles from predatory journals were noted but not factored into the analysis of the evidence. Popular science or non-academic books, websites such as blogs or wikis, news media, posters, and advertisements were also excluded. While no prior reviews on thiamine as a repellent exist, this paper also covers past review papers on thiamine sensu lato, and on repellents, arthropod-vectored disease prevention, and insect bite symptom treatment sensu lato, to see whether or not they mentioned repellency or thiamine respectively. The PRISMA flowchart summarizing the data collection process is presented in fig. 1.

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart for the scoping review process. *Search performed on 19 November 2020 using the protocol registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/jm8hq/). **Excluded report formats were websites, blogs, news media, advertisements, posters, and articles in predatory journals.

Results

Statistics

Excluding duplicates, a total of 1620 citations were identified from searches of electronic databases, and 20 more from reference lists of other literature. Based on the title and abstract, 1261 were excluded, and another 253 excluded for being in excluded literature categories. In total 156 full-text articles were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 24 were excluded for being irrelevant, and 28 for being websites, news media, articles in predatory journals, or other excluded literature.

Of the remaining 104 references (Supplementary table 1), four were case reports or anecdotes from medical doctors, of which three suggested thiamine is effective and one stated conflicting reports [Such papers' conclusions will be described as ‘ambivalent’ henceforth and in Supplementary table 1]. Of the research papers, 22 were replication studies testing thiamine as a repellent, although several used reduction of bite symptoms as a proxy for repellency. Of these, four examined effects on lab animals, 15 on humans, and three on both. Relatively few, most of which were uncontrolled studies, had positive conclusions, while the majority found thiamine ineffective.

This review also considered other reviews and ‘secondary literature,’ here defined as papers that cite the ‘primary literature’ generating new data about thiamine, but not generating new data about thiamine themselves. Of the 49 review or synthesis papers, 35 were reviews of insect repellents in general or ways to prevent insect bites or insect-vectored diseases, of which three made no mention of thiamine, five were ambivalent as to whether or not thiamine is repellent, and 27 explicitly stating it is not an effective repellent. Ten were reviews of thiamine itself, of which seven made no mention of its purported repellence, one was ambivalent, and two explicitly dismissed this as false. Four reviews were found in medical literature discussing urticaria, of which one from 1944 claimed oral thiamine caused urticaria symptoms (Brown, Reference Brown1944), two claimed thiamine has no positive or negative effect, and one made no mention of thiamine. Also found were six ‘secondary’ research papers studying the repellents recommended by doctors or used by patients or travelers, all of which referred to thiamine as an ineffective repellent. Of the 16 published guidelines on avoiding biting arthropods or preventing insect-vectored disease found, the oldest claimed thiamine worked, the next two oldest were ambivalent, and the rest claimed thiamine is ineffective. Three editorials or commentary articles and four government documents or legal documents found all claimed thiamine is not repellent (Supplementary table 1).

Case reports

The origin of the thiamine-as-systemic-repellent idea is a paper from 1943 by Minnesota pediatrician W Ray Shannon (Reference Shannon1943). Shannon's ‘preliminary report’ describes ten cases in which he used thiamine to control itching symptoms from mosquito bites in children ‘prone to bites’ from 8.5 months to seven years old, plus three adults of unspecified age. This derives from a prior report by Shannon where he claims thiamine is a general anti-itching medication (Shannon, Reference Shannon1942). Doses were oral or, in one case, subcutaneous, and ranged from 10–120 mg delivered 1–4 times a day, typically with a larger loading dose on the first day and smaller doses thereafter for one day up to two months. While initial treatments were likely done in his office, subsequent treatment and reporting of symptoms was done by at home by the adult patients or the children's caregivers. While the thiamine was prescribed as an anti-pruritic, nine of these reports mentioned that the patients obtained ‘complete protection [from mosquitoes] for the rest of the summer,’ leading Shannon to state that oral or injected thiamine causes ‘susceptible persons to become not only tolerant but actually repellent to mosquitoes.’ He also noted that a topical ointment of thiamine did not repel mosquitoes.

In 1945, California physician Howard L Eder gave ‘a large number’ of pediatrics patients thiamine specifically to repel fleas. The treatments were typically two to four doses of 10 mg thiamine daily for a few days followed by one 10 mg dose daily, and, after several weeks, ‘apparently gave complete protection against flea bites’ (Eder, Reference Eder1945). From his description, the possibility exists that Eder mistook outdoor chiggers (mites of the family Trombiculidae) for predominantly indoor fleas. Both flea and chigger bites are typically seasonal and their bites always resolve within weeks, so there is no evidence from Eder's data that thiamine was related to his patients' reported improvement over weeks of time. Nonetheless, by 1949, oral thiamine was being used as a flea repellent across California for humans and animals, with reported results ranging from ‘100 percent effective’ to ‘completely worthless’ (Lunsford, Reference Lunsford1949; Perlman, Reference Perlman1962; Marks, Reference Marks1969).

In 1958, European physician Dieter Müting reported taking four 50 mg doses of thiamine daily along with his wife while vacationing in Lapland, and experiencing no mosquito bites by the third day (Müting, Reference Müting1958). One notes how the necessary dosage and time to effect has increased greatly since the time of Shannon and Eder, when effective daily doses could be as low as 5 mg. Müting also reported a ‘discharge’ attempt where mosquitoes returned to bite the couple shortly after they ceased thiamine therapy. As the study is uncontrolled and the Mütings' intake of dietary thiamine and of thiamine-reducing substances such as coffee or alcohol is unreported during this time, the value of this self-experimentation is low: it could easily have been biased by a placebo effect, or ‘nocebo’ effect in the case of discharge, as well as daily variation in activity levels, bathing, clothing exposure, or location within Lapland that could affect exposure to mosquitoes. Müting also hypothesized that either thiamine or a breakdown product thereof excreted through the skin after 2–3 days is responsible for the repellency effect, although this was already known to be false at the time of his writing (Cornbleet et al., Reference Cornbleet, Kirch, Bergeim and Solomon1943; Tennent and Silber, Reference Tennent and Silber1943).

Experiment reports

Of the 22 experimental reports found, four studies expressed ‘positive’ results. One was a study with cat fleas on humans fed or injected with thiamine, which paradoxically concluded that the fleas are repelled despite the data actually showing fleas eagerly feeding at first (Lunsford, Reference Lunsford1950). The second was an uncontrolled study with an unknown number of humans given 200 mg thiamine orally, which reported that mosquitoes would approach and land but not probe or feed (Velasco and Varela, Reference Velasco and Varela1965). The third was an uncontrolled study from Mexico on papular urticaria (‘insect prurigo’ in Spanish) that found improvement of symptoms in most subjects orally taking 200–300 mg of thiamine daily (Ruiz-Maldonado and Tamayo, Reference Ruiz-Maldonado and Tamayo1973). The authors did not measure repellency, but concluded the observed reduction in symptoms was due to thiamine's repellency despite insect prurigo being known to resolve spontaneously. A recent, uncontrolled study on eight humans in Egypt tested repeated, topical applications of 2–5 mg thiamine on arms put into cages with mosquitoes (Badawi et al., Reference Badawi, El Halawany and Latif2020). The number of bites on the treated arms decreased after each dose, so the authors concluded thiamine is repellent, but lack of a negative control meant they did not account for the possibility that individual mosquitoes were sated after biting and were simply less likely to bite over time.

All 18 other experimental studies by doctors and entomologists alike (Goldman, Reference Goldman1950), notably including all the well-controlled studies, found thiamine unambiguously ineffective as a repellent. In the 1940's the USA Naval Medical Research Institute attempted to replicate Shannon's findings (Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Mathieson and Jachowski1944). Using Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes, they compared three subjects that took 30 mg four times a day for three days compared to three controls, and found that mosquito biting rate and the subjects' reactions to the bites in the two groups did not differ. In the same year when Müting called for verification of his attempts, a study in Switzerland of four men and three women exposed under controlled conditions to bites on a prescribed area of skin found that ingestion of pills from 250 to 1000 mg of thiamine did not provide any repellent effect, although they did provide partial relief of local irritation (Rahm, Reference Rahm1958). A Norwegian study found that 100 mg oral tablets given twice or thrice a day for six days did not reduce the incidence of mosquito bites (Brunn, Reference Brunn1964; Udjus, Reference Udjus1965). An experiment in Liberia compared oral thiamine supplementation with blood thiamine levels and attractiveness to Culex pipiens fatigans (Diptera: Culicidae) and Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae), and found no effect (Maasch, Reference Maasch1973). Observational studies also reported negative results (Smith, Reference Smith1970). In one, the attractiveness of hospitalized patients to mosquitoes was measured in an attempt to identify a drug or disease that induces systemic unattractiveness. None were found, with vitamin B1 specifically mentioned as ineffective (Strauss et al., Reference Strauss, Maibach and Khan1968). In another, 51 Brazilian military personnel stationed in the Amazon were surveyed about their use of repellents. Two stated they used vitamin B1, and both found it ineffective (Ribas and Carreño, Reference Ribas and Carreño2010). Replication research by dermatologists and entomologists alike using larger sample sizes, multiple mosquito species, and more robust controls consistently found no effect of oral thiamine supplementation on the attractiveness of humans or their volatile skin extracts (Ives and Paskewitz, Reference Ives and Paskewitz2005).

Controlled veterinary studies reached the same negative conclusions, including bioassays on laboratory mice using thiamine topically (Lal et al., Reference Lal, Ginocchio and Hawrylewicz1963) and orally (Silva et al., Reference Silva, Braz, Martins, Di Pietro and Mazzucati1995). Tests with thiamine and Brewer's yeast on dogs found it unable to repel or kill fleas (Halliwell, Reference Halliwell1982; Baker and Farver, Reference Baker and Farver1983). A large experimental study from the Ontario Veterinary College tested not only thiamine, but also an extensive range of ‘all available substances which might reveal possibilities as orally-administered repellents,’ delivered at various doses to ‘guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, mice, hamsters and occasionally man’ for two days each, after which the subjects were exposed to Ae. aegypti mosquitoes (Kingscote, Reference Kingscote1958). The effects of age, sex, pregnancy, diet, and blood sugar levels of the subjects as well as the temperature, humidity, health, age, and other related factors regarding the mosquitoes were all investigated, with all experiments replicated and with position correction factors considered. All results were negative.

The first clinical trial, pointedly titled ‘Vitamin B1 is not a systemic mosquito repellent in man’ describes several studies (Khan et al., Reference Khan, Maibach, Strauss and Fenley1969). The first used adults aged 30–50 given 3 × 50 mg doses for three days and measured the time until mosquito probing and a number of mosquitoes feeding until engorged, and found that mosquitoes probed sooner on thiamine-fed subjects. The second was a paired, double-blinded, placebo-controlled experiment of 3 × 200 mg thiamine over two days where a treated and control person would sit in a room with 100 hungry female Ae. aegypti as an observer collected mosquitoes feeding on the subjects. The thiamine group was bitten more frequently, albeit not statistically significantly. ‘In neither experiment was there evidence of less attraction in thiamine treated subjects’ (Khan et al., Reference Khan, Maibach, Strauss and Fenley1969). The authors also tested topical thiamine, and measured the effects of thiamine on itching and wheal formation, and found no effect (Khan et al., Reference Khan, Maibach, Strauss and Fenley1969). The paper also contains possibly the first controlled test of a thiamine-based product marketed as a ‘natural’ pest repellent, Tixtak (AB Cernelle, Vegeholm, Sweden). Khan et al. (Reference Khan, Maibach, Strauss and Fenley1969) tested it on guinea pigs at four tablets [dose unknown] per kilogram, with un-dosed animals as the control, and found mosquitoes bit the dosed animals ‘as avidly as the control’ (Khan et al., Reference Khan, Maibach, Strauss and Fenley1969). [AB Cernelle, which had previously been sued in the United States for false advertisement (US Senate, Reference US Senate1963), still exists today, but Tixtak is no longer sold.]

Secondary literature

Over time, review papers on insect repellents and on insect bite prevention were less ambivalent and increasingly noted the difference in quality between the papers claiming thiamine was repellent and those demonstrating through controlled experiment that it was not (Hocking, Reference Hocking1952, Reference Hocking1963; Beales and Kouznetsov, Reference Beales, Kouznetsov, Steffen, Lobel, Haworth and Bradley1989). Most review papers on mosquito repellents from the 1990's onward either make no mention of thiamine supplementation (Moore and Debboun, Reference Moore, Debboun, Debboun, Frances and Strickman2007; Paluch et al., Reference Paluch, Bartholomay and Coats2010), or refer to it and/or other oral repellents like garlic and Brewer's yeast as unambiguously ineffective (Fradin, Reference Fradin1998; Holzer, Reference Holzer2001; Fradin and Day, Reference Fradin and Day2002; Canadian Paediatric Society, 2003; Miller, Reference Miller2004; Rudin, Reference Rudin2005; Goad, Reference Goad2006; Sturchler, Reference Sturchler and Schlagenhauf-Lawlor2008; Goodyer et al., Reference Goodyer, Croft, Frances, Hill, Moore, Onyango and Debboun2010; Singh et al., Reference Singh, Singh and Mohanty2012; Croft, Reference Croft2014; Onyett and Canadian Paediatric Society Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee, Reference Onyett2014; Ramírez-Galván and Palacios-López, Reference Ramírez-Galván and Palacios-López2019). Veterinary research has reached similar conclusions: Scientific review papers on flea repellents in animals have examined thiamine, yeast, B-complex, sulfur, and ultrasonic-based repellents, and found them all equally ineffective (Dryden and Rust, Reference Dryden and Rust1994; Dryden et al., Reference Dryden, Payne and Smith2000; Case et al., Reference Case, Daristotle, Hayek and Raasch2013).

Also worth mentioning are review papers on thiamine itself, such as its biochemistry and clinical or therapeutic uses. By the 21st century, such reviews typically make no mention at all of thiamine as a repellent, nor do they mention any sulfurous metabolic degradation products or any thiamine involvement whatsoever in the skin or sweat (Lonsdale, Reference Lonsdale2006, Reference Lonsdale and Eskin2018; Ang et al., Reference Ang, Alviar, Dans, Bautista-Velez, Villaruz-Sulit, Tan, Co, Bautista and Roxas2008; Fattal-Valevski, Reference Fattal-Valevski2011; Manzetti et al., Reference Manzetti, Zhang and van der Spoel2014). This includes reviews published in evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine journals (Lonsdale, Reference Lonsdale2006; Fattal-Valevski, Reference Fattal-Valevski2011). One review (Zbinden, Reference Zbinden1962) dismissed most medicinal uses of thiamine outside of treating thiamine deficiency due to both evidence of absence (meaning documented evidence from controlled experiments that thiamine is not effective) and absence of evidence (meaning no documented evidence from controlled experiments that thiamine could be effective). These reviews on thiamine written by leading authorities on thiamine thus provide no evidence that oral thiamine is a systemic repellent, nor do they provide any plausible mechanism from its pharmacology for how it could theoretically function as one.

Similarly, nearly all academic or government-published guidelines on avoiding insect bites from around the world state definitively that vitamins are not oral repellents (Rustad, Reference Rustad1992; Holzer, Reference Holzer1993; Cooper and Francis, Reference Cooper and Francis2002; Whelan, Reference Whelan2003; Boulanger, Reference Boulanger2007; Schofield and Plourde, Reference Schofield and Plourde2012; Juckett, Reference Juckett2013; Chiodini et al., Reference Chiodini, Field, Whitty and Lalloo2014; McGregor, Reference McGregor2014; Parpillewar, Reference Parpillewar2018; Delaigue et al., Reference Delaigue, Signolet, Consigny, de Gentile, D'ortenzio, Gautret, Sorge, Strady and Bouchaud2020). The exceptions are older papers that only imply oral thiamine is ‘sometimes useful’ (Kennedy, Reference Kennedy1965) or ‘might be worth a try’ (Kennedy, Reference Kennedy1965; Honig, Reference Honig1986), and a German guidebook for travel medicine that recommended both DEET and oral thiamine at 300–1500 mg a day for mosquito bite prevention while admitting the latter is not based on controlled studies and is controversial (Steffen, Reference Steffen1984). Question-and-answer columns in British (no author, 1965) and American (no author, 1977) medical journals answered the thiamine-repellency question in the negative. The results summarized are that not only have most individuals and organizations primarily interested in protecting citizens from insect bites and reducing the burden of nuisance bites and vector-borne pathogens rejected the notion that oral thiamine is a systemic repellent, but also that this notion has been widespread enough among the general public from the 1960s until today that these authors deemed it prudent to address and explicitly refute it.

A ‘turning point’ (Proctor, Reference Proctor2012) in the general recognition of the scientific consensus on thiamine as a systemic insect repellent can arguably be dated to 1985, when the USA Food and Drug Administration evaluated the evidence and issued a final rule declaring that all oral insect repellents including thiamine ‘are not generally recognized as safe and effective’ (Food and Drug Administration, 1985). Labeling an oral thiamine-based product as having repellency properties is thus considered ‘misbranding’ and a violation of US law. Demonstrative of this consensus, researchers today use thiamine explicitly as an example of an ineffective repellent, as in survey-based studies on whether travelers or military personnel are taking adequate precautions against insect-vectored pathogens (Mølle et al., Reference Mølle, Christensen, Hansen, Dragsted, Aarup and Buhl2000; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Wilson and Schlagenhauf2006; Schoepke et al., Reference Schoepke, Steffen and Gratz2006; Kodkani et al., Reference Kodkani, Jenkins and Hatz2008; Piyaphanee et al., Reference Piyaphanee, Wattanagoon, Silachamroon, Mansanguan, Wichianprasat and Walker2009). Thiamine is not recommended in a good practices document commissioned by the French High Health Authority (Legros et al., Reference Legros, Ancelle, Caumes, Dardé, Delmont, Descloitres, Imbert, De Gentile, Migliani, Ouvrard, Robert, Duvallet, Boulanger, Chandre, de Verdière, Consigny, Delaunay, Depaquit, Doudier, Franc, Moulin, Pagès, Prangé, Quatresous, Robert, Saviuc, Auvin, Carsuzza, Cochet, Darriet, Demantké, Elefant, Failloux, de Gentile, Lagneau, La Ruche, Pecquet, Sorge, Tarantola, Vauzelle, Ajana, Armengaud, Boutin, Chevaillier, Gagnon, Genty, Girod, Godineau, Guiguen, Hatchuel, Hengy, Izri, Jean, Jourdain, Lamaury, Marchou, Masson, Minodier, Pérignon, Piccoli, Quinet, Yébakima, Santi-Rocca and Smith2011), the Brazilian National Sanitary Surveillance Agency is mentioned as not approving of thiamine's use as a repellent (Duarte et al., Reference Duarte, Moron, Timerman, Fernandes, Mariani Neto, Almeida Filho, Werner Junior, Santo, Steibel and Bortoletti Filho2017), and thiamine is explicitly mentioned as ineffective in the Canadian Recommendations for the Prevention and Treatment of Malaria Among International Travelers (Boggild et al., Reference Boggild, Brophy, Charlebois, Crockett, Geduld, Ghesquiere, McDonald, Plourde, Teitelbaum and Tepper2014). The results suggest that at a point no later than the 1980s, the confluence of diverse forms of scientific evidence ‘prompted health and medical authorities throughout the world to publicly acknowledge’ that oral thiamine is not a safe and effective repellent and should not be used as such (Proctor, Reference Proctor2012).

Note that a scientific consensus does not imply unanimous acceptance or awareness (Proctor, Reference Proctor2012). A 2008 study of Swiss pharmacists found that up to 20% still recommended vitamin B1 to patients traveling in malaria-endemic areas (Kodkani et al., Reference Kodkani, Jenkins and Hatz2008). A 2020 study of Australian pharmacists found that 27% think thiamine repels mosquitoes, and only 77% selected ‘clinically justifiable’ chemoprophylaxis for malaria (Heslop et al., Reference Heslop, Speare, Bellingan and Glass2020). A 2002 vaccine study in Mexico by the same team that used thiamine to treat papular urticaria (Ruiz-Maldonado and Tamayo, Reference Ruiz-Maldonado and Tamayo1973) mentioned using 150 mg daily of thiamine as a repellent ‘in accordance with the Ethics Committee instructions’ (Giraldi et al., Reference Giraldi, Ruiz-Maldonado, Tamayo and Sosa-de-Martínez2002). Since this review was performed, the same pharmacist authors of the uncontrolled study in Egypt claiming thiamine is a repellent (Badawi et al., Reference Badawi, El Halawany and Latif2020) cited that paper to justify an uncontrolled experiment of a topical formulation consisting of thiamine-loaded pullulan acetate nanospheres in a pluronic hydrogel (Halawany et al., Reference Halawany, Latif and Badawi2021). They concluded the thiamine hydrogel is as repellent as DEET, but because the study lacked a negative control, the possibility remains that the hydrogel without thiamine would have been equally repellent. In addition to peer-reviewed journals; non-scientific, pseudoscientific (Williams, Reference Williams2003), and predatory publications still publish papers claiming vitamins are repellent. The German Mesotherapy Society claims, without evidence, that it can prevent mosquito bites using subcutaneous injections of thiamine, among other demonstrably false claims associated with the pseudoscience of mesotherapy (Rotunda and Kolodney, Reference Rotunda and Kolodney2006). Due to the aforementioned legal restrictions on falsely branding oral thiamine as a repellent, thiamine retailers are re-formulating the product into transdermal patches that claim to introduce thiamine into the body non-orally while repelling insects. Several extremely low-quality papers published in non-peer-reviewed, predatory journals claimed that transdermal thiamine products are effective (Kalita et al., Reference Kalita, Bora and Sharma2013; Naseem et al., Reference Naseem, Malik and Munir2016), however controlled experiments of several mosquito patch products containing 300 mg thiamine found them ineffective (Revay et al., Reference Revay, Junnila, Xue, Kline, Bernier, Kravchenko, Qualls, Ghattas and Müller2013; Rodriguez et al., Reference Rodriguez, Drake, Price, Hammond and Hansen2015).

Discussion

To summarize the results of this review (Supplementary table 1): in controlled experiments, thiamine does not appear to repel biting insects of any species, in humans or animals, at any dose, over any period of time, and in any formulation: topical, oral, subcutaneous, or transdermal. This statement is accepted by the majority of the medical, veterinary, or entomological community at this time, such that all statements by relevant authorities worldwide since the 1990s disadvise its use as an oral repellent. However, some medical practitioners still prescribe oral thiamine as a repellent, and low-quality papers with insufficient references describing uncontrolled experiments testing parenteral thiamine as a repellent are still being published. The remaining question therefore is, how did the myth of thiamine as an oral repellent arise, and why does it persist?

Early papers alleging thiamine's repellency were not controlled experiments, but instead frequently based on second-hand reporting of subjective impressions of biting or on improvement in symptoms post-bite. After Shannon's papers, later publications would provide a better understanding of the physiology of insect bite reactions that explained most of his findings (Mellanby, Reference Mellanby1946; Gordon and Crewe, Reference Gordon and Crewe1948). Attractiveness to mosquitoes and the intensity of the reaction to mosquito bites are uncorrelated and each affected by multiple factors, meaning the individuals who attract the most mosquitoes are not necessarily those with the most bites, and vice versa (Téllez, Reference Téllez2005). Mosquito bite reactions consist of two parts: an immediate reaction that appears within minutes and improves within two hours, and a delayed reaction that emerges after 20–24 h and lasts for days. Whether or not one experiences the immediate or delayed reactions also changes with repeated exposure to mosquitoes, until eventually one has no response at all (Mellanby, Reference Mellanby1946; Oka and Ohtaki, Reference Oka and Ohtaki1989; Tatsuno et al., Reference Tatsuno, Fujiyama, Matsuoka, Shimauchi, Ito and Tokura2016). The alleged immediate effects of thiamine on mosquito bite symptoms may be the inevitable vanishing of the immediate reaction, while the reported decreased reactions over longer periods of time may thus be due to reduced sensitivity to the mosquito allergen, matching an anecdotal belief in certain countries that bite reactions are bigger at the onset of mosquito season and become weaker as the summer progresses (Reunala et al., Reference Reunala, Brummer-korvenkontio and Palosuo1994). Thus, in the early case reports that used symptoms as a proxy for biting, a natural progression in patients' bite reactions may have been mistaken for repellency.

Our knowledge of thiamine has also improved greatly since its discovery (Lonsdale, Reference Lonsdale2006; Sriram et al., Reference Sriram, Manzanares and Joseph2012). Thiamine is actively absorbed in the upper small intestine until saturated and passively thereafter, though absorption declines rapidly at oral doses above 5 mg. Excess thiamine is actively excreted in the urine, such that higher doses do not significantly raise plasma levels of thiamine, and such that diuretics lead to thiamine deficiency (Sriram et al., Reference Sriram, Manzanares and Joseph2012; Pacei et al., Reference Pacei, Tesone, Laudi, Laudi, Cretti, Pnini, Varesco and Colombo2020). Alcohol is notorious for causing thiamine deficiency in affluent nations by interfering with thiamine intake, absorption, and cellular utilization (Martin et al., Reference Martin, Singleton and Hiller-Sturmhöfel2003). Other foods or drugs that can reduce thiamine concentrations in the body due to the presence of thiamine antagonists and thiaminases include tea, coffee, betel nut, raw fish, and certain edible insects (Nishimune et al., Reference Nishimune, Watanabe, Okazaki and Akai2000; Ehigie et al., Reference Ehigie, Emuebie and Ehigie2013; Pacei et al., Reference Pacei, Tesone, Laudi, Laudi, Cretti, Pnini, Varesco and Colombo2020). While primarily excreted in the urine, free thiamine is also secreted in the sweat (Cornbleet et al., Reference Cornbleet, Kirch, Bergeim and Solomon1943), with approximately 8% of ingested thiamine secreted through the skin (Alexander and Landwehr, Reference Alexander and Landwehr1946). The amount of thiamine in the sweat increases by an order of magnitude when subjects are given large oral doses, but the amount is still so small (<1 μg per 1 ml sweat) as to be insignificantly different (Cornbleet et al., Reference Cornbleet, Kirch, Bergeim and Solomon1943; Tennent and Silber, Reference Tennent and Silber1943), while thiamine excretion in urine greatly increases with such oral dosing. Thiamine in sweat seems to have no impact on skin bacteria, and vice versa (Cornbleet et al., Reference Cornbleet, Kirch, Bergeim and Solomon1943). Thiamine is poorly stored, mostly as protein-bound thiamine diphosphate in the liver, heart, kidneys, and brain, and only for 1–3 weeks. Its blood plasma levels are tightly regulated, with excretion of excess complete in four to six hours post-ingestion of an oral dose, such that the total vitamin B1 content of the average human is maintained at approximately 30 mg (van Snippenburg et al., Reference van Snippenburg, Reijnders, Hofhuis, de Vos, Kamphuis and Spronk2017). The elimination half-life is either between 1–12 h (Pacei et al., Reference Pacei, Tesone, Laudi, Laudi, Cretti, Pnini, Varesco and Colombo2020) or approximately 1.8 days (Scientific Committee on Food, Reference Scientific Committee on Food2006). At no point does the sulfur moiety of the molecule leave thiamine or its phosphates during any metabolic stages between normal consumption and excretion (Cornbleet et al., Reference Cornbleet, Kirch, Bergeim and Solomon1943; Tennent and Silber, Reference Tennent and Silber1943). To summarize: nothing in the chemistry of thiamine metabolism would explain how thiamine could be repellent, nor does it justify the extremely high doses typically used in the above papers, most of which would not even be absorbed. Thiamine as systemic repellent is pharmacologically highly implausible.

While thiamine is not repellent, the possibility exists that its effects on bite symptoms may not just be a placebo effect (Obermayer and Frost, Reference Obermayer and Frost1945). A few authors tested for this possibility (Ruiz-Maldonado and Tamayo, Reference Ruiz-Maldonado and Tamayo1973), including Khan et al. (Reference Khan, Maibach, Strauss and Fenley1969), whose controlled experiments found thiamine ineffective, and Lunsford (Reference Lunsford1950) and Rahm (Reference Rahm1958), whose uncontrolled experiments found it possibly reduced local symptoms. Fewer researchers have studied thiamine as an anti-pruritic than as a repellent, and any such papers face the problem that itch response can vary widely in the same individual for both physiological and psychological reasons (Nakao & Barsky, Reference Nakao and Barsky2007; Ogden & Zoukas, Reference Ogden and Zoukas2009; Colloca & Miller, Reference Colloca and Miller2011; Papoiu et al., Reference Papoiu, Wang, Coghill, Chan and Yosipovitch2011; Lloyd et al., Reference Lloyd, Hall, Hall and McGlone2013; Sukan & Maner, Reference Sukan and Maner2015). However, unlike systemic repellency, thiamine as post-bite treatment is pharmacologically plausible. Thiamine has been noted as an anti-inflammatory agent before (Manzetti et al., Reference Manzetti, Zhang and van der Spoel2014), and thiamine deficiency is a known cause of peripheral neuropathy and neuritis (Ang et al., Reference Ang, Alviar, Dans, Bautista-Velez, Villaruz-Sulit, Tan, Co, Bautista and Roxas2008). Vitamin B complex was recommended in the 1940s for allergic dermatoses, although the mode of action was unknown (Obermayer and Frost, Reference Obermayer and Frost1945), and shows potential in treating multiple different types of pain (Jurna, Reference Jurna1998; Lonsdale, Reference Lonsdale and Eskin2018). Thiamine injection was also reported as useful against chronic urticaria when injected into acupuncture points (Tong and Song, Reference Tong and Song1986), although neither thiamine nor acupuncture has been systematically confirmed as effective for pain in controlled studies (Chen and Yu, Reference Chen and Yu1998). In recent reviews of treatment for urticaria, including that caused by insects, vitamins are not listed as a treatment, valid or invalid (Schaefer, Reference Schaefer2017; Antia et al., Reference Antia, Baquerizo, Korman, Alikhan and Bernstein2018). It is therefore plausible, albeit not probable based on a scoping review of the literature, that thiamine supplementation, oral or parenteral, can reduce symptoms of insect bites.

The persistence of the myth that thiamine is repellent is easier to explain. A medical myth, ‘even if it is never fully published, discussed, and examined by other scientists… may become regarded as common knowledge and eventually be referred to even in the scientific literature’ (Winkler and Anderson, Reference Winkler and Anderson1990). Pseudo-scientific articles promoting thiamine as a repellent are pervasive throughout non-academic media such as news, popular science and health websites, and wellness blogs. The myth of thiamine's repellency appears often enough in the media that it may be an assumption that scientists entering the field already hold before starting their literature review, and which they can only shed upon accumulating sufficient knowledge. Unfortunately, the literature that debunks the myth of thiamine's repellency is typically behind a pay-wall in subscription-only journals, if it is online at all, while the lowest quality research is easily available in open access, predatory journals. Thus, inaccurate ideas in online, unreviewed papers purporting to have legitimate scientific authority are more easily available than facts in the actual scientific literature. In addition, positive publication bias (Mlinarić et al., Reference Mlinarić, Horvat and Šupak Smolčić2017), combined with the persistent prevalence of inappropriately designed experimental studies in both high and low impact factor journals (Masic and Jankovic, Reference Masic and Jankovic2020), means high quality, controlled studies or review papers claiming a nutraceutical does not work may be less likely to be published (Song et al., Reference Song, Parekh, Hooper, Loke, Ryder, Sutton, Hing, Kwok, Pang and Harvey2010) and cited (Duyx et al., Reference Duyx, Urlings, Swaen, Bouter and Zeegers2017) than low quality, uncontrolled studies claiming it does. These issues are linked to the reproducibility crisis in science (Bizzarri and Monti, Reference Bizzarri and Monti2019; Ioannidis, Reference Ioannidis2019), partially explaining how those who promote ineffective, thiamine-based repellents are still publishing papers today.

Just as it took time for doctors to alert patients that cigarettes cause cancer despite the existence of a scientific consensus (Proctor, Reference Proctor2012), doctors are not yet completely aware that thiamine-based and/or systemic repellents do not work. Entomologists and vector-borne disease prevention experts have been in consensus for decades that thiamine is not a mosquito repellent in any dose or by any route of administration, yet ignorance of this consensus is leading to wasted research resources and unprotected consumers at increased risk of illness. One hopes that this review, the most comprehensive ever on the subject of thiamine and arthropod bite prevention and treatment, will increase awareness of the problem. Combined with broader laws against the marketing and production of ineffective remedies, this awareness of ineffective prophylaxis can better protect people from biting insects and consumer fraud alike.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485321001176.

Data

The final protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework and is publicly available (https://osf.io/jm8hq/).

Acknowledgements

None.

Author contribution

MS conceived and designed the study, conducted data gathering, and wrote the article.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical standards

Not applicable.

References

Alexander, B and Landwehr, G (1946) Studies of thiamine metabolism in man. I. Thiamine balance. The normal requirement of vitamin B 1 and the rôle of fecal thiamine in human nutrition. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 25, 287293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ang, CD, Alviar, MJM, Dans, AL, Bautista-Velez, GGP, Villaruz-Sulit, MVC, Tan, JJ, Co, HU, Bautista, MRM and Roxas, AA (2008) Vitamin B for treating peripheral neuropathy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3, CD004573.Google Scholar
Antia, C, Baquerizo, K, Korman, A, Alikhan, A and Bernstein, JA (2018) Urticaria: a comprehensive review: treatment of chronic urticaria, special populations, and disease outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 79, 617633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1965) Any questions? British Medical Journal 1, 502503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badawi, A, El Halawany, M and Latif, R (2020) A pilot clinical study on thiamine hydrochloride as a new mosquito repellent: determination of the Minimum effective dose on human skin. Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin 43, 284288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, NF and Farver, TB (1983) Failure of Brewer's yeast as a repellent to fleas on dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 183, 212214.Google ScholarPubMed
Beales, PF and Kouznetsov, RL (1989) Measures against mosquito bites. In Steffen, R, Lobel, HO, Haworth, J and Bradley, DJ (eds), Travel Medicine: Proceedings of the First Conference on International Travel Medicine, Zürich, Switzerland, 5–8 April 1988. Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 113122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, JW, Veltri, JC and Page, BC (2002) Human exposures to N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide insect repellents reported to the American association of poison control centers 1993–1997. International Journal of Toxicology 21, 341352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bizzarri, M and Monti, N (2019) Reproducibility crisis. Impact on uncontrolled release of nutraceutical preparations. Organisms: Journal of Biological Sciences 3, 910.Google Scholar
Boggild, A, Brophy, J, Charlebois, P, Crockett, M, Geduld, J, Ghesquiere, W, McDonald, P, Plourde, P, Teitelbaum, P and Tepper, M (2014) Malaria: summary of recommendations for the prevention of malaria by the committee to advise on tropical medicine and travel (CATMAT). Canada Communicable Disease Report 40, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulanger, N (2007) Quelles mesures de prévention primaire peut-on proposer pour éviter une borréliose de Lyme? [what primary prevention should be used to prevent Lyme disease? ]. Medecine et Maladies Infectieuses 37, 456462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bramer, WM, Giustini, D, Kramer, BMR and Anderson, PF (2013) The comparative recall of google scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 2, 115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, EA (1944) The vitamins and allergy. Annals of Allergy 2, 156164.Google Scholar
Brunn, J (1964) Thiamin som middel mot mygg [thiamine as a remedy against mosquitoes]. Nordisk Medicin 71, 650651.Google Scholar
Canadian Paediatric Society (2003) West Nile virus – Mosquitoes no longer just an annoyance!. Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases = Journal Canadien des Maladies Infectieuses 14, 150153.Google Scholar
Case, LP, Daristotle, L, Hayek, MG and Raasch, MF (2013) Nutrición en Caninos y Felinos. Para los Especialistas en Animales de Compañía. Buenos Aires: Editorial Inter-Médica S.A.I.C.I, pp. 606.Google Scholar
Chen-Hussey, V, Behrens, R and Logan, JG (2014) Assessment of methods used to determine the safety of the topical insect repellent N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET). Parasites & Vectors 7, 173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, C-J and Yu, H-S (1998) Acupuncture treatment of urticaria. Archives of Dermatology 134, 13971399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, LH, Wilson, ME and Schlagenhauf, P (2006) Prevention of malaria in long-term travelers. Journal of the American Medical Association 296, 22342244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiodini, P, Field, V, Whitty, C and Lalloo, D (2014) Guidelines for Malaria Prevention in Travellers From the United Kingdom. London: Public Health England, p. 97.Google Scholar
Colloca, L and Miller, FG (2011) The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice. Psychosomatic Medicine 73, 598603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Combes, FC and Groopman, J (1950) Contact dermatitis due to thiamine: report of two cases. Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology 61, 858859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R and Francis, S (2002) Personal protection measures against mosquitoes. A brief history and current use of repellents by the Australian Defence Force. ADF Health 3, 5863.Google Scholar
Cornbleet, T, Kirch, ER, Bergeim, O and Solomon, JD (1943) Excretion of thiamine, riboflavin, niacin and pantothenic acid in human sweat. Journal of the American Medical Association 122, 426429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, AM (2014) Malaria: prevention in travellers (non-drug interventions). BMJ Clinical Evidence 11, 0903.Google Scholar
de Groot, AC and Schmidt, E (2016) Essential oils, part IV: contact allergy. Dermatitis: Contact, Atopic, Occupational, Drug 27, 170175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delaigue, S, Signolet, I, Consigny, P, de Gentile, L, D'ortenzio, E, Gautret, P, Sorge, F, Strady, C and Bouchaud, O (2020) New guidelines for the prevention of imported malaria in France. Medecine et Maladies Infectieuses 50, 113126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dryden, MW and Rust, MK (1994) The cat flea: biology, ecology and control. Veterinary Parasitology 52, 119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dryden, MW, Payne, PA and Smith, V (2000) Evaluation of the CatanDog's® tag to prevent flea infestations, inhibit flea reproduction or repel existing flea infestations on cats. Veterinary Parasitology 92, 303308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duarte, G, Moron, AF, Timerman, A, Fernandes, CE, Mariani Neto, C, Almeida Filho, GLD, Werner Junior, H, Santo, HFBDE, Steibel, JAP and Bortoletti Filho, J (2017) Zika Virus infection in pregnant women and microcephaly. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia 39, 235248.Google ScholarPubMed
Duyx, B, Urlings, MJE, Swaen, GMH, Bouter, LM and Zeegers, MP (2017) Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 88, 92101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eder, HL (1945) Flea bites: prevention and treatment with thiamin chloride. Archives of Pediatrics 62, 300301.Google Scholar
Ehigie, LO, Emuebie, O and Ehigie, FA (2013) Biochemical properties of thiaminase, a toxic enzyme in the gut of grasshoppers (Zonocerus variegatus Linn). Cameroon Journal of Experimental Biology 9, 916.Google Scholar
Enayati, AA, Hemingway, J and Garner, P (2007) Electronic mosquito repellents for preventing mosquito bites and malaria infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, CD005434CD005434.Google ScholarPubMed
Fattal-Valevski, A (2011) Thiamine (vitamin B1). Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine 16, 1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Drug Administration (1985) Insect repellent drug products for over-the-counter oral human Use. Federal Register 50, 2517025171.Google Scholar
Fradin, MS (1998) Mosquitoes and mosquito repellents: a clinician's guide. Annals of Internal Medicine 128, 931940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fradin, MS (2019) Insect protection. In Keystone, JS, Kozarsky, PE, Connor, BA, Nothdurft, HD, Mendelson, M and Leder, K (eds), Travel Medicine (Fourth Edition). London: Elsevier, pp. 4352.Google Scholar
Fradin, MS and Day, JF (2002) Comparative efficacy of insect repellents against mosquito bites. New England Journal of Medicine 347, 1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frances, SP (2007) Efficacy and safety of repellents containing deet. In Debboun, M, Frances, SP and Strickman, D (eds), Insect Repellents: Principles, Methods and Uses. Boc Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 311326.Google Scholar
Gehanno, J-F, Rollin, L and Darmoni, S (2013) Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 13, 7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giraldi, S, Ruiz-Maldonado, R, Tamayo, L and Sosa-de-Martínez, C (2002) Oral desensitization in papular urticaria in children. Tropical Doctor 32, 142145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goad, JA (2006) Protecting against insect bites. US Pharmacist 6, 7277.Google Scholar
Goldman, L (1950) Dermatologic aspects of insect repellents and toxicants. Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology 62, 245260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodyer, L and Behrens, RH (1998) The safety and toxicity of insect repellents. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 59, 323324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodyer, LI, Croft, AM, Frances, SP, Hill, N, Moore, SJ, Onyango, SP and Debboun, M (2010) Expert review of the evidence base for arthropod bite avoidance. Journal of Travel Medicine 17, 182192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, RM and Crewe, W (1948) The mechanisms by which mosquitoes and tsetse-flies obtain their blood-meal, the histology of the lesions produced, and the subsequent reactions of the mammalian host; together with some observations on the feeding of Chrysops and Cimex. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 42, 334356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halawany, ME, Latif, R and Badawi, A (2021) The potential of a site-specific delivery of thiamine hydrochloride as a novel insect repellent exerting long-term protection on human skin: in-vitro, ex-vivo study and clinical assessment. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 110, 36593669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliwell, REW (1982) Ineffectiveness of thiamine (vitamin B1) as a flea-repellent in dogs. Journal American Animal Hospital Association 18, 423426.Google Scholar
Heslop, IM, Speare, R, Bellingan, M and Glass, BD (2020) Assessing the travel health knowledge of Australian pharmacists. Pharmacy 8, 94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hjorth, N (1958) Contact dermatitis from vitamin B1 (thiamine): relapse after ingestion of thiamine. cross-sensitization to co-carboxylase. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 30, 261264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocking, B (1952) Protection from northern biting flies. Mosquito News 12, 91102.Google Scholar
Hocking, B (1963) The use of attractants and repellents in vector control. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 29(suppl), 121126.Google ScholarPubMed
Holzer, RB (1993) [Malaria prevention without drugs]. Schweizerische Rundschau fur Medizin Praxis 82, 139143.Google ScholarPubMed
Holzer, RB (2001) Schutz gegen Stechmücken [Protection against mosquito bites]. Therapeutische Umschau 58, 341346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honig, PJ (1986) Arthropod bites, stings, and infestations: their prevention and treatment. Pediatric Dermatology 3, 189197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, JPA (2019) Why most published research findings are false. CHANCE 32, 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ives, AR and Paskewitz, SM (2005) Testing vitamin B as a home remedy against mosquitoes. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 21, 213217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juckett, G (2013) Arthropod bites. American Family Physician 88, 841847.Google ScholarPubMed
Jurna, I (1998) Analgetische und analgesiepotenzierende Wirkung von B-Vitaminen [Analgesic and analgesia-potentiating action of B vitamins]. Der Schmerz 12, 136141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalita, B, Bora, S and Sharma, AK (2013) Plant essential oils as Mosquito repellent-a review. International Journal of Research and Development in Pharmacy & Life Sciences 3, 715721.Google Scholar
Kennedy, CB (1965) Insect stings and bites. Postgraduate Medicine 37, 193197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, AA, Maibach, HI, Strauss, WG and Fenley, WR (1969) Vitamin B1 is not a systemic mosquito repellent in man. Transactions of the St. John's Hospital Dermatological Society 55, 99102.Google Scholar
Kingscote, AA (1958) Orally administered insect repellents: approaches and problems related to the search. Proceedings of the tenth international congress of entomology. Montreal 3, 799800.Google Scholar
Kleinjan, JE and Dadd, RH (1977) Vitamin requirements of the Larval Mosquito, Culex pipiens. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 70, 541543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kodkani, N, Jenkins, JM and Hatz, CE (2008) Travel advice given by pharmacists. Journal of Travel Medicine 6, 8793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kongkaew, C, Sakunrag, I, Chaiyakunapruk, N and Tawatsin, A (2011) Effectiveness of citronella preparations in preventing mosquito bites: systematic review of controlled laboratory experimental studies. Tropical Medicine & International Health 16, 802810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koren, G, Matsui, D and Bailey, B (2003) DEET-based insect repellents: safety implications for children and pregnant and lactating women. Canadian Medical Association Journal 169, 209212.Google ScholarPubMed
Lal, H, Ginocchio, S and Hawrylewicz, E (1963) Procedure for bioassaying mosquito repellents in laboratory animals. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 113, 770772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laws, CL (1941) Sensitization to thiamine hydrochloride. Journal of the American Medical Association 117, 176176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legros, F, Ancelle, T, Caumes, E, Dardé, M-L, Delmont, J, Descloitres, R, Imbert, P, De Gentile, L, Migliani, R, Ouvrard, P, Robert, V, Duvallet, G, Boulanger, N, Chandre, F, de Verdière, NC, Consigny, P-H, Delaunay, P, Depaquit, J, Doudier, B, Franc, M, Moulin, F, Pagès, F, Prangé, A, Quatresous, I, Robert, V, Saviuc, P, Auvin, S, Carsuzza, F, Cochet, A, Darriet, F, Demantké, A, Elefant, E, Failloux, A-B, de Gentile, L, Lagneau, C, La Ruche, G, Pecquet, C, Sorge, F, Tarantola, A, Vauzelle, C, Ajana, F, Armengaud, A, Boutin, J-P, Chevaillier, S, Gagnon, S, Genty, S, Girod, R, Godineau, N, Guiguen, C, Hatchuel, Y, Hengy, C, Izri, A, Jean, D, Jourdain, F, Lamaury, I, Marchou, B, Masson, V, Minodier, P, Pérignon, A, Piccoli, S, Quinet, B, Yébakima, A, Santi-Rocca, J and Smith, S (2011) Personal protection against biting insects and ticks. Parasite 18, 93111.Google Scholar
Lloyd, DM, Hall, E., Hall, S and McGlone, FP (2013) Can itch-related visual stimuli alone provoke a scratch response in healthy individuals? British Journal of Dermatology 168, 106111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lonsdale, D (2006) A review of the biochemistry, metabolism and clinical benefits of thiamin(e) and its derivatives. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 3, 4959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lonsdale, D (2018) Chapter one – thiamin. In Eskin, NAM (ed.), Advances in Food and Nutrition Research. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 156.Google Scholar
Lunsford, C (1949) Flea problem in California. Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology 60, 11841202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lunsford, C (1950) Newer insecticides and Scabicides. California Medicine 72, 350.Google ScholarPubMed
Maasch, HJ (1973) Freilanduntersuchungen zur mueckenabweisenden Wirkung von Vitamin B1 [Outdoor studies on the mosquito repellent effect of vitamin B1] Zeitschrift für Tropenmedizin und Parasitologie 24, 119122.Google Scholar
Maia, MF and Moore, SJ (2011) Plant-based insect repellents: a review of their efficacy, development and testing. Malaria Journal 10, S11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manzetti, S, Zhang, J and van der Spoel, D (2014) Thiamin function, metabolism, uptake, and transport. Biochemistry 53, 821835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcé-Grau, A, Martí-Sánchez, L, Baide-Mairena, H, Ortigoza-Escobar, JD and Pérez-Dueñas, B (2019) Genetic defects of thiamine transport and metabolism: a review of clinical phenotypes, genetics, and functional studies. Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease 42, 581597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, MB (1969) Stinging insects: allergy implications. Pediatric Clinics of North America 16, 177191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, PR, Singleton, CK and Hiller-Sturmhöfel, S (2003) The role of thiamine deficiency in alcoholic brain disease. Alcohol Research & Health 27, 134142.Google ScholarPubMed
Masic, I and Jankovic, SM (2020) Meta-analysing methodological quality of published research: importance and effectiveness. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 272, 229232.Google ScholarPubMed
McGregor, A (2014) Malaria prophylaxis: guidance for general practice. The Prescriber 25, 1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, K (1946) Man's reaction to mosquito bites. Nature 158, 554554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, P (2004) Avoiding the bite: update on DEET: safe and effective against West Nile virus when properly used. Canadian Pharmacists Journal/Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada 137, 4447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, CA (1941) Thiamine overdosage and toxicity. Journal of the American Medical Association 116, 21012101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mlinarić, A, Horvat, M and Šupak Smolčić, V (2017) Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochemia medica 27, 030201030201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mølle, I, Christensen, KL, Hansen, PS, Dragsted, UB, Aarup, M and Buhl, MR (2000) Use of medical chemoprophylaxis and antimosquito precautions in Danish malaria patients and their traveling companions. Journal of Travel Medicine 7, 253258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, SJ and Debboun, M (2007) History of insect repellents. In Debboun, M, Frances, SP and Strickman, D (eds), Insect Repellents: Principles, Methods and Uses. Boc Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 329.Google Scholar
Mutebi, J-P and Gimnig, JE (2019) Mosquitoes, ticks & other arthropods. In Brunette, GW and Nemhauser, JB (eds), CDC Yellow Book 2020: Health Information for International Travel. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 133138.Google Scholar
Müting, D (1958) Über die Verhütung von Mückenstichen durch Einnahme von vitamin B1 [On preventing mosquito bites by taking vitamin B1]. Medizinische Klinik 53, 1023.Google ScholarPubMed
Nakao, M and Barsky, AJ (2007) Clinical application of somatosensory amplification in psychosomatic medicine. BioPsychoSocial Medicine 1, 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naseem, S, Malik, MF and Munir, Talhat (2016) Mosquito management: A review. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 4, 7379.Google Scholar
Nishimune, T, Watanabe, Y, Okazaki, H and Akai, H (2000) Thiamin Is decomposed Due to Anaphe spp. Entomophagy in seasonal ataxia patients in Nigeria. The Journal of Nutrition 130, 16251628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Obermayer, ME and Frost, K (1945) Some phases of vitamin therapy in dermatology. Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology 51, 309312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, J and Zoukas, S (2009) Generating physical symptoms from visual cues: An experimental study. Psychology, Health & Medicine 14, 695704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oka, K and Ohtaki, N (1989) Clinical observations of mosquito bite reactions in man: a survey of the relationship between Age and bite reaction. The Journal of Dermatology 16, 212219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onyett, H and Canadian Paediatric Society Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee (2014) preventing mosquito and tick bites: a Canadian update. Paediatrics & Child Health 19, 326328.Google ScholarPubMed
Pacei, F, Tesone, A, Laudi, N, Laudi, E, Cretti, A, Pnini, S, Varesco, F and Colombo, C (2020) The relevance of thiamine evaluation in a practical setting. Nutrients 12, 2810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paluch, G, Bartholomay, L and Coats, J (2010) Mosquito repellents: a review of chemical structure diversity and olfaction. Pest Management Science 66, 925935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papoiu, ADP, Wang, H, Coghill, RC, Chan, Y-H and Yosipovitch, G (2011) Contagious itch in humans: a study of visual ‘transmission’ of itch in atopic dermatitis and healthy subjects. British Journal of Dermatology 164, 12991303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parpillewar, MBT (2018) Emergence of Zika virus in India: implications for pregnant women and obstetrician. Indian Journal of OBGYN 4, 100105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlman, F (1962) Treatment for severe reactions to bites and stings of arthropods. Medical Times 90, 813.Google ScholarPubMed
Piyaphanee, W, Wattanagoon, Y, Silachamroon, U, Mansanguan, C, Wichianprasat, P and Walker, E (2009) Knowledge, attitudes, and practices among foreign backpackers toward malaria risk in Southeast Asia. Journal of Travel Medicine 16, 101106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollack, RJ, Kiszewski, AE and Spielman, A (2002) Repelling Mosquitoes. New England Journal of Medicine 347, 23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proctor, RN (2012) The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll. Tobacco Control 21, 8791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proebstle, TM, Gall, H, Jugert, FK, Merk, HF and Sterry, W (1995) Specific IgE and IgG serum antibodies to thiamine associated with anaphylactic reaction. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 95, 10591060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1977) Questions and answers. Journal of the American Medical Association 237, 21132114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahm, U (1958) Besitzt vitamin B1 insektenabhaltende Eigenschaften [Has vitamin B1 insect-repelling properties?]. Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift 88, 634635.Google Scholar
Ramírez-Galván, G and Palacios-López, CG (2019) ¿Son realmente útiles los repelentes de insectos? [Are insect's repellents really useful?]. Dermatología Revista Mexicana 63, 160173.Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, S, Alekseev, A, Gornostaeva, R, Kupriyanova, E, Potapov, A and Razumova, O (1974) Negative results of a test of examples of sound-generators intended to repel mosquitoes. Meditsinskaya Parazitologiya i Parazitarnye Bolezni 43, 706708.Google Scholar
Reunala, T, Brummer-korvenkontio, H and Palosuo, T (1994) Are we really allergic to Mosquito bites? Annals of Medicine 26, 301306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Revay, EE, Junnila, A, Xue, R-D, Kline, DL, Bernier, UR, Kravchenko, VD, Qualls, WA, Ghattas, N and Müller, GC (2013) Evaluation of commercial products for personal protection against mosquitoes. Acta Tropica 125, 226230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ribas, J and Carreño, AM (2010) Avaliação do uso de repelentes contra picada de mosquitos em militares na Bacia Amazônica [Evaluation of the use of mosquito bite repellents in military personnel in the Amazon Basin]. Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 85, 3338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, SD, Drake, LL, Price, DP, Hammond, JI and Hansen, IA (2015) The efficacy of some commercially available insect repellents for Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Insect Science 15, 140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roessler, HP (1961) Versuche zur Geruchlichen Anlockung Weiblicher Stechmücken (Aëdes Aegypti L. Culicidae). Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie 44, 184231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotunda, AM and Kolodney, MS (2006) Mesotherapy and phosphatidylcholine injections: historical clarification and review. Dermatologic Surgery 32, 465480.Google ScholarPubMed
Royer-Morrot, MJ, Zhiri, A, Paille, F and Royer, RJ (1992) Plasma thiamine concentrations after intramuscular and oral multiple dosage regimens in healthy men. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 42, 219222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudin, W (2005) Schutz vor Insekten [Protection against insects]. Therapeutische Umschau. Revue therapeutique 62, 713718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Maldonado, R and Tamayo, L (1973) Treatment of 100 children with papular urticaria with thiamine chloride. International Journal of Dermatology 12, 258260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rustad, O (1992) Outdoors and active: relieving summer's siege on skin. The Physician and Sportsmedicine 20, 162178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, P (2017) Acute and chronic urticaria: evaluation and treatment. American Family Physician 95, 717724.Google ScholarPubMed
Schiff, L (1941) Collapse following parenteral administration of solution of thiamine hydrochloride. Journal of the American Medical Association 117, 609609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoepke, A, Steffen, R and Gratz, N (2006) Effectiveness of personal protection measures against mosquito bites for malaria prophylaxis in travelers. Journal of Travel Medicine 5, 188192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, S and Plourde, P (2012) Statement on personal protective measures to prevent arthropod bites: an advisory committee statement (ACS) committee to advise on tropical medicine and travel (CATMAT). Canada Communicable Disease Report 38, 118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scientific Committee on Food, (2006) Tolerable Upper Intake Levels for Vitamins and Minerals. Brussels: European Food Safety Authority, pp. 440.Google Scholar
Shannon, WR (1942) Thiamin chloride in the treatment of itching conditions, particularly with reference to infants and children. The Urologic and Cutaneous Review 46, 786788.Google Scholar
Shannon, WR (1943) Thiamine chloride—an aid in the solution of the mosquito problem. Minnesota Medicine 26, 799802.Google Scholar
Shelomi, M (2020) Who's afraid of DEET? Fearmongering in papers on botanical repellents. Malaria Journal 19, 13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherman, JL (1966) Development of a systemic insect repellent. Journal of the American Medical Association 196, 256258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva, M, Braz, L, Martins, J, Di Pietro, A and Mazzucati, E (1995) Avaliaçäo experimental em camundongos da atividade repelente do complexo vitamínico B, em relaçäo ao Culex quinquefasciatus [Experimental evaluation in mice of vitamin B complex repellent activity against Culex quinquefasciatus]. Revista do Hospital das Clinicas 50, 5557.Google Scholar
Singh, B, Singh, PR and Mohanty, MK (2012) Toxicity of a plant based mosquito repellent/killer. Interdisciplinary Toxicology 5, 184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, CN (1970) Repellents for anopheline mosquitoes. Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America 7, 99115.Google Scholar
Song, F, Parekh, S, Hooper, L, Loke, YK, Ryder, J, Sutton, AJ, Hing, C, Kwok, CS, Pang, C and Harvey, I (2010) Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment 14, iii, ix-xi, 1193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sriram, K, Manzanares, W and Joseph, K (2012) Thiamine in nutrition therapy. Nutrition in Clinical Practice 27, 4150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steffen, R (1984) Reisemedizin: Epidemiologie der Gesundheitsstörungen bei Interkontinentalreisenden und präventivmedizinische Konsequenzen [Travel medicine: epidemiology of health disorders in intercontinental travelers and preventive medical consequences] Berlin, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, WG, Maibach, HI and Khan, AA (1968) Drugs and disease as mosquito repellents in man. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 17, 461464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturchler, MP (2008) The vector and measures against mosquito bites. In Schlagenhauf-Lawlor, P (ed.), Travelers’ Malaria. Canada: B.C. Decker Inc., pp. 88106.Google Scholar
Sukan, M and Maner, F (2015) The somatosensory amplification in vitiligo and chronic urticaria patients: A controlled study. Journal of Neurological Disorders 3, 2.Google Scholar
Tatsuno, K, Fujiyama, T, Matsuoka, H, Shimauchi, T, Ito, T and Tokura, Y (2016) Clinical categories of exaggerated skin reactions to mosquito bites and their pathophysiology. Journal of Dermatological Science 82, 145152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Téllez, EAR (2005) Human body odor, mosquito bites and the risk of disease transmission. Folia Entomologica Mexicana 44, 247265.Google Scholar
Temple, WA, Smith, NA and Beasley, M (1991) Management of oil of citronella poisoning. Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology 29, 257262.Google ScholarPubMed
Tennent, DM and Silber, RH (1943) The excretion of Ascorbic acid, thiamine, Riboflavin, and Pantothenic acid in sweat. Journal of Biological Chemistry 148, 359364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, Y and Song, D (1986) Acupuncture point injection with vitamin B1 to treat chronic urticaria: clinical observation of 40 cases. Journal of Clinical Dermatology 15, 102103.Google Scholar
Trager, W and Subbarow, Y (1938) The chemical nature of growth factors required by Mosquito Larvæ: I. Riboflavin And Thiamin. The Biological Bulletin 75, 7584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, O'Brien, KK, Colquhoun, H, Levac, D, Moher, D, Peters, MD, Horsley, T, Weeks, L, Hempel, S, Akl, EA, Chang, C, McGowan, J, Stewart, L, Harting, L, Aldcroft, A, Wilson, MG, Garritty, C, Lewin, S, Godfrey, CM, Macdonald, MT, Langlois, EV, Soares-Weiser, K, Moriarty, J, Clifford, T, Tunçalp, Ö and Straus, SE (2018) PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169, 467473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udjus, L (1965) Vitamin B against fleas. British Medical Journal 1, 503.Google Scholar
US Senate, (1963) Frauds and quackery affecting the older citizen: hearings before the special committee on aging. In: United States Senate 88 Cong. First Session, Part 3. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 265–516.Google Scholar
van Snippenburg, W, Reijnders, MGJ, Hofhuis, JGM, de Vos, R, Kamphuis, S and Spronk, PE (2017) Thiamine levels during intensive insulin therapy in critically Ill patients. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 32, 559564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velasco, R and Varela, G (1965) Estudio de la vitamina B1 como repelente de mosquitos [Study on vitamin B1 as a repellent for mosquitos]. Revista del Instituto de Salubridad y Enfermedades Tropicales (México) 25, 177179.Google Scholar
Veltri, JC, Osimitz, TG, Bradford, DC and Page, BC (1994) Retrospective analysis of calls to poison control centers resulting from exposure to the insect repellent N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) from 1985–1989. Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology 32, 116.Google Scholar
Whelan, PI (2003) Biting midges or sandflies in the northern territory. Northern Territory Disease Control Bulletin 10, 19.Google Scholar
Williams, RM (2003) Safe flea control & organic labeling. (Health Risks and Environmental Issues) pp. 36+Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients.Google Scholar
Wilson, CS, Mathieson, DR and Jachowski, LA (1944) Ingested thiamin chloride as a mosquito repellent. Science 100, 147147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winkler, MG and Anderson, KE (1990) Vampires, porphyria, and the media: medicalization of a myth. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 33, 598611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolf, A (1999) Essential oil poisoning. Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology 37, 721727.Google ScholarPubMed
Wrenn, KD, Murphy, F and Slovis, CM (1989) A toxicity study of parenteral thiamine hydrochloride. Annals of Emergency Medicine 18, 867870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wuest, HM (1962) The history of thiamine. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 98, 385400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zbinden, G (1962) Therapeutic use of vitamin B1 in diseases other than beriberi. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 98, 550561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart for the scoping review process. *Search performed on 19 November 2020 using the protocol registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/jm8hq/). **Excluded report formats were websites, blogs, news media, advertisements, posters, and articles in predatory journals.

Supplementary material: File

Shelomi et al. supplementary material

Shelomi et al. supplementary material

Download Shelomi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 27.7 KB