BackgroundWith the emergence and spread of vector resistance to pyrethroids and DDT in Africa, several countries have recently switched or are considering switching to carbamates and/or organophosphates for indoor residual spraying (IRS). However, data collected on the residual life of bendiocarb used for IRS in some areas indicate shorter than expected bio-efficacy. This study evaluated the effect of pH and wall type on the residual life of the carbamates bendiocarb and propoxur as measured by the standard World Health Organization (WHO) cone bioassay test.MethodsIn phase I of this study, bendiocarb and propoxur were mixed with buffered low pH (pH 4.3) local water and non-buffered high pH (pH 8.0) local water and sprayed on two types of wall surface, mud and dung, in experimental huts. In the six month phase II study, the two insecticides were mixed with high pH local water and sprayed on four different surfaces: painted, dung, mud and mud pre-wetted with water. The residual bio-efficacy of the insecticides was assessed monthly using standard WHO cone bioassay tests.ResultsIn phase I, bendiocarb mixed with high pH water killed more than 80 % of susceptible Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes for two months on both dung and mud surfaces. On dung surfaces, the 80 % mortality threshold was achieved for three months when the bendiocarb was mixed with low pH water and four months when it was mixed with high pH water. Propoxur lasted longer than bendiocarb on dung surfaces, staying above the 80 % mortality threshold for four and five months when mixed with high and low pH water, respectively. Phase II results also showed that the type of surface sprayed has a significant impact on the bio-efficacy of bendiocarb. Keeping the spray water constant at the same high pH of 8.0, bendiocarb killed 100 % of exposed mosquitoes on impervious painted surfaces for the six months of the study period compared with less than one month on mud surfaces.ConclusionsMixing the insecticides in alkaline water did not reduce the residual bio-efficacy of bendiocarb. However, bendiocarb performed much better on impervious (painted) surfaces than on porous dung or mud ones. Propoxur was less affected by wall type than was bendiocarb. Studies on the interaction between wall materials, soil, humidity, temperature and pH and the residual bio-efficacy of new and existing insecticides are recommended prior to their wide use in IRS.

Integrating indoor residual spraying into the institutionalized community-based health system in 5 districts was more efficient than the district-based model and did not compromise quality or compliance with environmental standards.

Background Malaria is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Widespread resistance to pyrethroids threatens the gains achieved by vector control. To counter resistance to pyrethroids, third-generation indoor residual spraying (3GIRS) products have been developed. This study details the results of a multi-country cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of indoor residual spraying (IRS) programmes using Actellic®300CS, a 3GIRS product with pirimiphos-methyl, in sub-Saharan Africa in 2017 added to standard malaria control interventions including insecticide-treated bed nets versus standard malaria control interventions alone. Methods An economic evaluation of 3GIRS using Actellic®300CS in a broad range of sub-Saharan African settings was conducted using a variety of primary data collection and evidence synthesis methods. Four IRS programmes in Ghana, Mali, Uganda, and Zambia were included in the effectiveness analysis. Cost data come from six IRS programmes: one in each of the four countries where effect was measured plus Mozambique and a separate programme conducted by AngloGold Ashanti Malaria Control in Ghana. Financial and economic costs were quantified and valued. The main indicator for the cost was cost per person targeted. Country-specific case incidence rate ratios (IRRs), estimated by comparing IRS study districts to adjacent non-IRS study districts or facilities, were used to calculate cases averted in each study area. A deterministic analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted in each of the four countries for which effectiveness evaluations were available. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to generate plausibility bounds around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates for adding IRS to other standard interventions in each study setting as well as jointly utilizing data on effect and cost across all settings. Results Overall, IRRs from each country indicated that adding IRS with Actellic®300CS to the local standard intervention package was protective compared to the standard intervention package alone (IRR 0.67, [95% CI 0.50–0.91]). Results indicate that Actellic®300CS is expected to be a cost-effective (> 60% probability of being cost-effective in all settings) or highly cost-effective intervention across a range of transmission settings in sub-Saharan Africa. Discussion Variations in the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness likely result from several sources including: variation in the sprayed wall surfaces and house size relative to household population, the underlying malaria burden in the communities sprayed, the effectiveness of 3GIRS in different settings, and insecticide price. Programmes should be aware that current recommendations to rotate can mean variation and uncertainty in budgets; programmes should consider this in their insecticide-resistance management strategies. Conclusions The optimal combination of 3GIRS delivery with other malaria control interventions will be highly context specific. 3GIRS using Actellic®300CS is expected to deliver acceptable value for money in a broad range of sub-Saharan African malaria transmission settings.