Carnevale P, Mouchet J
IRD-IPR, BP 1500, 01 Bouaé, Côte d'Ivoire.
Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 2001 Jul;94(2 Pt 2):202-9.
During the fifties, large scale malaria vector control projects based upon house spraying were implemented in Southern and Northern parts of Cameroon in line of malaria eradication concept. In the South, the pilot zone of Yaounde gathered about 150,000 inhabitants, in the forest area. First operations started in 1953 but the programme became actually operational in 1956. It was divided in two parts: the western part was treated with DDT, while the eastern one was treated with dieldrin. At the same time, the whole forested area was also treated with dieldrin until 1960. Yaounde itself was not treated because it was free of anopheles and malaria. House spraying in the pilot area of Yaounde was a complete success and plasmodic index dropped below 1%. The same success was observed in most of the southern treated areas. Unfortunatly dieldrin resistance of An. gambiae hampered this programme which stopped in 1960. The northem pilot project dealt with some 250,000 inhabitants around Maroua, in a savanna area. To avoid dieldrin resistance observed in 1956, DDT was selected and house spraying started in 1959. From a strictly operational point of view, the campaign was considered as a success. But after two years, it was noticed that plasmodic index remained still around the same value of 35% and the programme stopped. It was thus stated that according to available techniques it was not possible to reach the ultimate goal of eradication even when chemoprophylaxis (chloroquin + pyrimethamin) was added. The comparison between south (= success) and north (= failure) was very interesting as it underlined the big differences between epidemiological faces, an unaccepted concept at that time. Now ecological and epidemiological diversity is the well acknowledged. It also underlined the need of diversity of strategies according to the epidemiology of the disease and the ecology of its vector Vector control was then stopped for a while. In the eighties, Primary Health Care was promoted and malaria control shifted from vector to parasite control, vector control remaining as a prevention method. But chemioresistance of Plasmodium falciparum appeared and. quickly spread, at different levels, across the country. A new emphasis was therefore given to vector control thank to the newly developed technique of insecticide impregnated mosquito nets. Two kinds of studies were undertaken: - what people were actually doing in term of mosquito control at family level, the main reason and the costs as well as current use of mosquito nets - the efficacy of pyrethroid treated mosquito nets (IMN) in different areas of southern forested area against different malaria vectors: An. gambiae, An. nili, An. moucheti. It thus clearly appeared that IMN were very successful in sharply reducing malaria transmission aAd morbidity. But its promotion is limited by the current poor use of mosquito nets in Yaoundé (1 mosquito net for 27 "beds") while in Douala, where IMN are largely used against the bite of the huge population of Culex. quinquefasciatus, the implementation of the first riational centre for impregnation of mosquito net was a great success, as long as it was headed by a motivated and skill manager Impregnated mosquito nets appear thus as a tool of great efficacy but their sustainability is still matter of concern and promotional campaigns must be developed involving private and public, political and scientific spheres as well as the general population who should be encouraged to become partners and even actors of vector and malaria control at their household level.
在20世纪50年代,基于房屋喷洒的大规模疟疾媒介控制项目在喀麦隆南部和北部实施,以符合疟疾根除理念。在南部,雅温得试点地区位于森林地区,约有15万居民。首次行动于1953年开始,但该项目实际上于1956年开始运作。它分为两部分:西部用滴滴涕处理,而东部用狄氏剂处理。与此同时,整个森林地区也用狄氏剂处理,直到1960年。雅温得本身未进行处理,因为它没有按蚊和疟疾。雅温得试点地区的房屋喷洒取得了圆满成功,疟原虫指数降至1%以下。在南部大多数处理过的地区也观察到了同样的成功。不幸的是,冈比亚按蚊对狄氏剂产生了抗性,阻碍了该项目,该项目于1960年停止。北部试点项目涉及马鲁阿周围约25万居民,位于热带稀树草原地区。为避免1956年观察到的狄氏剂抗性,选择了滴滴涕,并于1959年开始房屋喷洒。从严格的操作角度来看,该运动被认为是成功的。但两年后,人们注意到疟原虫指数仍保持在35%左右,该项目停止。因此得出结论,根据现有技术,即使加上化学预防(氯喹+乙胺嘧啶),也不可能实现根除的最终目标。南部(=成功)和北部(=失败)的比较非常有趣,因为它凸显了流行病学情况的巨大差异,这在当时是一个难以接受的概念。现在,生态和流行病学多样性已得到广泛认可。它还强调了根据疾病的流行病学和其媒介的生态制定多样化策略的必要性。当时疟疾媒介控制暂停了一段时间。在20世纪80年代,初级卫生保健得到推广,疟疾控制从媒介控制转向寄生虫控制,媒介控制仍作为一种预防方法。但恶性疟原虫的化学抗性出现并迅速在全国不同层面传播。因此,由于新开发的杀虫剂浸渍蚊帐技术,人们重新重视媒介控制。进行了两类研究: - 人们在家庭层面实际采取的防蚊措施、主要原因、成本以及蚊帐的当前使用情况 - 拟除虫菊酯处理蚊帐(ITN)在南部森林地区不同区域对不同疟疾媒介:冈比亚按蚊、尼罗按蚊、莫氏按蚊的效果。由此清楚地表明,ITN在大幅减少疟疾传播和发病率方面非常成功。但其推广受到雅温得目前蚊帐使用率低(每27张“床位”1顶蚊帐)的限制,而在杜阿拉,ITN被大量用于防止大量致倦库蚊叮咬,第一个国家蚊帐浸渍中心的实施非常成功,只要它由一位积极且有技能的管理人员领导。因此,浸渍蚊帐似乎是一种非常有效的工具,但其可持续性仍然令人担忧,必须开展宣传活动,涉及私营和公共部门、政治和科学领域以及普通民众,应鼓励他们成为媒介和疟疾控制在家庭层面的合作伙伴甚至参与者。