印度和尼泊尔消除内脏利什曼病的室内滞留喷洒计划:绩效和效果。

R Chowdhury, M M Huda, V Kumar, P Das, A B Joshi, M R Banjara, S Akhter, A Kroeger, B Krishnakumari, M Petzold, D Mondal, M L Das
{"title":"印度和尼泊尔消除内脏利什曼病的室内滞留喷洒计划:绩效和效果。","authors":"R Chowdhury, M M Huda, V Kumar, P Das, A B Joshi, M R Banjara, S Akhter, A Kroeger, B Krishnakumari, M Petzold, D Mondal, M L Das","doi":"10.1179/136485911X12899838683124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although, when applied under controlled conditions in India and Nepal, indoor residual spraying (IRS) has been found to reduce sandfly densities significantly, it is not known if IRS will be as effective when applied generally in these countries, via the national programmes for the elimination of visceral leishmaniasis. The potential benefits and limitations of national IRS programmes for the control of sandflies were therefore evaluated in the districts of Vaishali (in the Indian state of Bihar), Sarlahi (in Nepal) and Sunsari (also in Nepal). The use of technical guidelines, levels of knowledge and skills related to spraying operations, insecticide bio-availability on the sprayed surfaces, concentrations of the insecticide on the walls of sprayed houses, insecticide resistance, and the effectiveness of spraying, in terms of reducing sandfly densities within sprayed houses (compared with those found in unsprayed sentinel houses or control villages) were all explored. It was observed that IRS programme managers, at district and subdistrict levels in India and Nepal, used the relevant technical guidelines and were familiar with the procedures for IRS operation. The performance of the spraying activities, however, showed important deficiencies. The results of bio-assays and the chemical analysis of samples from sprayed walls indicated substandard spraying and suboptimal concentrations of insecticide on sprayed surfaces. This was particularly obvious at one of the Nepali study sites (Sunsari district), where no significant vector reduction was achieved. Sandfly resistance to the insecticide used in India (DDT) was widespread but the potential vectors in Nepal remained very susceptible towards a pyrethroid similar to the one used there. The overall short-term effectiveness of IRS was found to be satisfactory in two of the three study sites (in terms of reduction in the densities of the sandfly vectors). Unfortunately, the medium-term evaluation, conducted 5 months after spraying, was probably made invalid by flooding or lime plastering in the study areas. Preparation for, and the monitoring of, the IRS operations against sandfly populations in India and Nepal need to be improved.</p>","PeriodicalId":8019,"journal":{"name":"Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology","volume":"105 1","pages":"31-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089790/pdf/atm-105-01-031.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Indian and Nepalese programmes of indoor residual spraying for the elimination of visceral leishmaniasis: performance and effectiveness.\",\"authors\":\"R Chowdhury, M M Huda, V Kumar, P Das, A B Joshi, M R Banjara, S Akhter, A Kroeger, B Krishnakumari, M Petzold, D Mondal, M L Das\",\"doi\":\"10.1179/136485911X12899838683124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although, when applied under controlled conditions in India and Nepal, indoor residual spraying (IRS) has been found to reduce sandfly densities significantly, it is not known if IRS will be as effective when applied generally in these countries, via the national programmes for the elimination of visceral leishmaniasis. The potential benefits and limitations of national IRS programmes for the control of sandflies were therefore evaluated in the districts of Vaishali (in the Indian state of Bihar), Sarlahi (in Nepal) and Sunsari (also in Nepal). The use of technical guidelines, levels of knowledge and skills related to spraying operations, insecticide bio-availability on the sprayed surfaces, concentrations of the insecticide on the walls of sprayed houses, insecticide resistance, and the effectiveness of spraying, in terms of reducing sandfly densities within sprayed houses (compared with those found in unsprayed sentinel houses or control villages) were all explored. It was observed that IRS programme managers, at district and subdistrict levels in India and Nepal, used the relevant technical guidelines and were familiar with the procedures for IRS operation. The performance of the spraying activities, however, showed important deficiencies. The results of bio-assays and the chemical analysis of samples from sprayed walls indicated substandard spraying and suboptimal concentrations of insecticide on sprayed surfaces. This was particularly obvious at one of the Nepali study sites (Sunsari district), where no significant vector reduction was achieved. Sandfly resistance to the insecticide used in India (DDT) was widespread but the potential vectors in Nepal remained very susceptible towards a pyrethroid similar to the one used there. The overall short-term effectiveness of IRS was found to be satisfactory in two of the three study sites (in terms of reduction in the densities of the sandfly vectors). Unfortunately, the medium-term evaluation, conducted 5 months after spraying, was probably made invalid by flooding or lime plastering in the study areas. Preparation for, and the monitoring of, the IRS operations against sandfly populations in India and Nepal need to be improved.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology\",\"volume\":\"105 1\",\"pages\":\"31-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089790/pdf/atm-105-01-031.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1179/136485911X12899838683124\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1179/136485911X12899838683124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在印度和尼泊尔,室内滞留喷洒(IRS)在受控条件下使用时可显著降低沙蝇密度,但在这些国家,通过国家消除内脏利什曼病计划普遍使用室内滞留喷洒是否同样有效,目前尚不得而知。因此,我们在 Vaishali(印度比哈尔邦)、Sarlahi(尼泊尔)和 Sunsari(尼泊尔)地区评估了国家 IRS 计划在控制沙蝇方面的潜在效益和局限性。对技术指南的使用、与喷洒操作有关的知识和技能水平、喷洒表面的杀虫剂生物利用率、喷洒房屋墙壁上的杀虫剂浓度、杀虫剂抗药性以及喷洒的有效性进行了探讨,以降低喷洒房屋内的沙蝇密度(与未喷洒的哨兵房屋或对照村庄内的沙蝇密度进行比较)。据观察,印度和尼泊尔地区和分区一级的 IRS 计划管理人员使用了相关的技术指南,并熟悉 IRS 的操作程序。然而,喷洒活动的绩效却存在重大缺陷。生物检测和喷洒墙壁样本的化学分析结果表明,喷洒不达标,喷洒表面的杀虫剂浓度不理想。这一点在尼泊尔的一个研究地点(Sunsari 区)尤为明显,在那里病媒没有明显减少。沙蝇对印度使用的杀虫剂(滴滴涕)普遍产生抗药性,但尼泊尔的潜在病媒对与印度使用的杀虫剂类似的拟除虫菊酯仍然非常敏感。在三个研究地点中的两个地点,IRS 的总体短期效果令人满意(在减少沙蝇病媒密度方面)。遗憾的是,喷洒 5 个月后进行的中期评估可能因研究地区的洪水或石灰抹灰而失效。在印度和尼泊尔开展的针对沙蝇的室内滞留喷雾行动的准备工作和监测工作需要改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Indian and Nepalese programmes of indoor residual spraying for the elimination of visceral leishmaniasis: performance and effectiveness.

The Indian and Nepalese programmes of indoor residual spraying for the elimination of visceral leishmaniasis: performance and effectiveness.

Although, when applied under controlled conditions in India and Nepal, indoor residual spraying (IRS) has been found to reduce sandfly densities significantly, it is not known if IRS will be as effective when applied generally in these countries, via the national programmes for the elimination of visceral leishmaniasis. The potential benefits and limitations of national IRS programmes for the control of sandflies were therefore evaluated in the districts of Vaishali (in the Indian state of Bihar), Sarlahi (in Nepal) and Sunsari (also in Nepal). The use of technical guidelines, levels of knowledge and skills related to spraying operations, insecticide bio-availability on the sprayed surfaces, concentrations of the insecticide on the walls of sprayed houses, insecticide resistance, and the effectiveness of spraying, in terms of reducing sandfly densities within sprayed houses (compared with those found in unsprayed sentinel houses or control villages) were all explored. It was observed that IRS programme managers, at district and subdistrict levels in India and Nepal, used the relevant technical guidelines and were familiar with the procedures for IRS operation. The performance of the spraying activities, however, showed important deficiencies. The results of bio-assays and the chemical analysis of samples from sprayed walls indicated substandard spraying and suboptimal concentrations of insecticide on sprayed surfaces. This was particularly obvious at one of the Nepali study sites (Sunsari district), where no significant vector reduction was achieved. Sandfly resistance to the insecticide used in India (DDT) was widespread but the potential vectors in Nepal remained very susceptible towards a pyrethroid similar to the one used there. The overall short-term effectiveness of IRS was found to be satisfactory in two of the three study sites (in terms of reduction in the densities of the sandfly vectors). Unfortunately, the medium-term evaluation, conducted 5 months after spraying, was probably made invalid by flooding or lime plastering in the study areas. Preparation for, and the monitoring of, the IRS operations against sandfly populations in India and Nepal need to be improved.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology
Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信