TY - JOUR
T1 - Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for indoor residual spraying in Africa
T2 - How can it be used for malaria control?
AU - Sadasivaiah, Shobha
AU - Tozan, Yeşim
AU - Breman, Joel G.
PY - 2007/12
Y1 - 2007/12
N2 - In 2006, the World Health Organization issued a position statement promoting the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for malaria vector control in epidemic and endemic areas. Other international organizations concurred because of the great burden of malaria and the relative ineffectiveness of current treatment and control strategies. Although the Stockholm Convention of 2001 targeted DDT as 1 of 12 persistent organic pollutants for phase-out and eventual elimination, it allowed a provision for its continued indoor use for disease vector control. Although DDT is a low-cost antimalarial tool, the possible adverse human health and environmental effects of exposure through IRS must be carefully weighed against the benefits to malaria control. This article discusses the controversy surrounding the use of DDT for IRS; its effective implementation in Africa; recommendations for deployment today, and training, monitoring, and research needs for effective and sustainable implementation. We consider the costs and cost effectiveness of IRS with DDT, alternative insecticides to DDT, and the importance of integrated vector control if toxicity, resistance, and other issues restrict its use.
AB - In 2006, the World Health Organization issued a position statement promoting the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for malaria vector control in epidemic and endemic areas. Other international organizations concurred because of the great burden of malaria and the relative ineffectiveness of current treatment and control strategies. Although the Stockholm Convention of 2001 targeted DDT as 1 of 12 persistent organic pollutants for phase-out and eventual elimination, it allowed a provision for its continued indoor use for disease vector control. Although DDT is a low-cost antimalarial tool, the possible adverse human health and environmental effects of exposure through IRS must be carefully weighed against the benefits to malaria control. This article discusses the controversy surrounding the use of DDT for IRS; its effective implementation in Africa; recommendations for deployment today, and training, monitoring, and research needs for effective and sustainable implementation. We consider the costs and cost effectiveness of IRS with DDT, alternative insecticides to DDT, and the importance of integrated vector control if toxicity, resistance, and other issues restrict its use.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=40049108976&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=40049108976&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4269/ajtmh.2007.77.249
DO - 10.4269/ajtmh.2007.77.249
M3 - Article
C2 - 18165500
AN - SCOPUS:40049108976
SN - 0002-9637
VL - 77
SP - 249
EP - 263
JO - American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
JF - American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
IS - SUPPL. 6
ER -