Abstract

BackgroundIndoor residual spraying (IRS) is the application of insecticide to the interior walls of household structures that often serve as resting sites for mosquito vectors of malaria. Human exposure to malaria vectors is reduced when IRS involves proper application of pre-determined concentrations of the active ingredient specific to the insecticide formulation of choice. The impact of IRS can be affected by the dosage of insecticide, spray coverage, vector behavior, vector susceptibility to insecticides, and the residual efficacy of the insecticide applied. This report compiles data on the residual efficacy of insecticides used in IRS campaigns implemented by the United States President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI)/United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 17 African countries and compares observed length of efficacy to ranges proposed in World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Additionally, this study provides initial analysis on variation of mosquito mortality depending on the surface material of sprayed structures, country spray program, year of implementation, source of tested mosquitoes, and type of insecticide.MethodsResidual efficacy of the insecticides used for PMI/USAID-supported IRS campaigns was measured in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The WHO cone bioassay tests were used to assess the mortality rate of mosquitoes exposed to insecticide-treated mud, wood, cement, and other commonly used housing materials. Baseline tests were performed within weeks of IRS application and follow-up tests were continued until the mortality of exposed mosquitoes dropped below 80% or the program monitoring period ended. Residual efficacy in months was then evaluated with respect to WHO guidelines that provide suggested ranges of residual efficacy for insecticide formulations recommended for use in IRS. Where the data allowed, direct comparisons of mosquito mortality rates were then made to determine any significant differences when comparing insecticide formulation, country, year, surface type, and the source of the mosquitoes used in testing.ResultsThe residual efficacy of alpha-cypermethrin ranged from 4 to 10 months (average = 6.4 months), with no reported incidents of underperformance when compared to the efficacy range provided in WHO guidelines. Deltamethrin residual efficacy results reported a range of 1 to 10 months (average = 4.9 months), with two instances of underperformance. The residual efficacy of bendiocarb ranged from 2 weeks to 7 months (average = 2.8 months) and failed to achieve proposed minimum efficacy on 14 occasions. Lastly, long-lasting pirimiphos-methyl efficacy ranged from 2 months to 9 months (average = 5.3 months), but reported 13 incidents of underperformance.ConclusionsMuch of the data used to determine application rate and expected efficacy of insecticides approved for use in IRS programs are collected in controlled laboratory or pilot field studies. However, the generalizability of the results obtained under controlled conditions are limited and unlikely to account for variation in locally sourced housing materials, climate, and the myriad other factors that may influence the bio-efficacy of insecticides. Here, data are presented that confirm the variation in residual efficacy observed when monitoring household surfaces sprayed during PMI/USAID-supported IRS campaigns. All insecticides except alpha-cypermethrin showed evidence of failing to meet the minimum range of residual efficacy proposed in WHO criteria at least once. However, this initial effort in characterizing program-wide insecticide bio-efficacy indicates that some insecticides, such as bendiocarb and pirimiphos-methyl, may be vulnerable to variations in the local environment. Additionally, the comparative analysis performed in this study provides evidence that mosquito mortality rates differ with respect to factors including: the types of insecticide sprayed, surface material, geographical location, year of spraying, and tested mosquitoes. It is, therefore, important to locally assess the residual efficacy of insecticides on various surfaces to inform IRS programming.

Highlights

  • Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is the application of insecticide to the interior walls of household structures that often serve as resting sites for mosquito vectors of malaria

  • The generalizability of the results obtained under controlled conditions are limited and unlikely to account for variation in locally sourced housing materials, climate, and the myriad other factors that may influence the bio-efficacy of insecticides

  • In order to assess the residual efficacy of insecticides used in a programmatic setting, we present data from 17 countries collected as part of President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI)/United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-supported IRS program monitoring and compare observed lengths of residual efficacy to expected duration of action put forth by the World Health Organization (WHO)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is the application of insecticide to the interior walls of household structures that often serve as resting sites for mosquito vectors of malaria. This report compiles data on the residual efficacy of insecticides used in IRS campaigns implemented by the United States President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI)/United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 17 African countries and compares observed length of efficacy to ranges proposed in World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. The two principal methods used for malaria vector control worldwide are indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticidal nets [1, 2]. Since 2006, several countries in sub-Saharan Africa have introduced or re-started or expanded the reach of IRS with financial and technical support primarily from the United States President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI)/ United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria as part of renewed global commitment to control and eliminate malaria [1, 7]. Spray coverage declined to 8% in 2012, 7% in 2013 and 6%

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call