[Lessons from the Malaria Vector Control Program Based on Indoors Residual Spraying with DDT or Dieldrin in the Pilot Zone of Bobo-Dioulasso: Failure or Success?].

During five years, from 1953, a village scale indoors residual spraying (IRS) was done in the pilot zone of Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, with DDT or dieldrin (DLN) or even HCH with a conceptually both entomological and parasitological evaluation [18].Compared to the control area, DDT induced an approximatively 95% and 67% reduction in the landing rate of , respectively inside and outside human houses but due to its irritant action, DDT greatly increased their exophagic behaviour. However, DLN had no impact on the landing rate of either indoors or outdoors due to the already noticed resistance of this species to this insecticide. The sporozoitic index of was reduced by 96% in the DDT treated areas and by 70% in the DLN treated area.DDT reduced the landing rates of Anopheles funestus by 98% and 91%, inside and outside treated houses respectively. With DLN, these reductions were 98% and 97%, respectively. The sporozoitic index of was reduced by 95% in areas treated with DDT.Thus, vector control has reduced malaria transmission due to the two main vectors, and , by some 99.8% in DDT treated villages compared to control villages. DLN reduced transmission from by 99.9%, but almost not from . Overall, the implementation of vector control based on indoor residual spraying with DDT or DLN reduced by 99.9% the transmission of human Plasmodium in the villages of the pilot zone and therefore the program can be considered as entomologically successful.In children aged 2-9 years (target group for endemicity indices) the splenic index was 84.3% (n = 979) in the control area and 44.4% (n = 8920) in the treated areas (difference -47.3%), the plasmodial prevalence was 60.6% (n = 946) in the control zone and 38.0% (n = 7242) in the treated zones (difference - 37%) but the relatively high level of plasmodic or splenic index in treated villages showed that transmission was maintained at such a level that the program could be considered as a "semi-failure".Besides, the gametocytic indices remained at the same levels (3.28%, n = 946 in the control zone and 3.04%, n = 7242 in the treated zones) indicating the maintenance of the "reservoir of parasites" and the remaining possibilities of transmission.Compared to the control area, the index of new contamination was significantly lower in infants 0-3 months and 4 to 6 months in DDT treated villages but not in infants 7 to 12 months demonstrating that the control vector had some efficacy in the prevention of plasmodial infection but "all newborns were infected within one year" demonstrating that transmission was not completely stopped.In spite of its striking drop, the transmission was not fully stopped, and the programme was considered as a "semi-failure" or even a "failure" and inducing a complete shift in malaria control policy from vector control to mass drug chemotherapy (with several drugs, chloroquine, primaquine, pyriméthamine etc) without complete stop of transmission either. In fact, such vector control operations by DDT may have different analysis; in one side they can be considered an entomological success but, in another side, the actual reduction of plasmodic and splenic indices was not enough to be considered as successful. It was clear that both vector and parasite must be implemented in an integrated programme taking care of insecticide and drug resistance. Nevertheless, such programme, even not as successful as expected, could be considered as encouraging and not "disappointing" as it was. Important lessons can be learned from such large-scale field trial in spite of several methodological and operational issues.