Vectoral Control Synergy: Combined Use of ITN and Residual House Spray in the Control of Malaria in South Western Nigeria
Dr. Olusegun Tope Afolabi,
Department of Community Health
OAU, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Received date: June 18, 2012; Accepted date: July 17, 2012; Published date: July 19, 2012
Citation: Afolabi OT, Onayade AA, Sule SS, Olajide FO (2012) Vectoral Control Synergy: Combined Use of ITN and Residual House Spray in the Control of Malaria in South Western Nigeria. J Community Med Health Educ 2:161. doi:10.4172/2161-0711.1000161
Copyright: © 2012 Afolabi OT, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Introduction: To control malaria, better techniques to apply existing control methods and improved tools must be developed. Both ITNs and residual spraying have been found to be equally effective when used singly, however, it would be worthwhile to determine any synergistic effect or otherwise of combined ITNs and residual spraying in prevention of malaria. The aim of this study is to compare the combined effects of ITNs and residual spraying on the control of malaria as opposed to ITN alone among school children.
Methodology: This was an open randomised community trial conducted at the Federal Government Girls College (a school with enrollees from all parts of the Country), Ipetumodu, Osun State in South-Western Nigeria within a three month period. All students who had spent at least six months were eligible to participate.
Result: Seven hundred and sixty three participants were recruited; baseline prevalence of malaria was 81%. Cumulative incidence of malaria was 185/1000 and 215/1000 in the dual and single intervention groups respectively yielding a relative risk of 0.88 (95%CI 0.65-1.14). The prevalence of parsitaemia reduced significantly by 53% and 45% in the dual and single intervention groups respectively compared to baseline. There was a significant reduction in vector density between the two groups (p=0.04) with a 51% and 17% drop in the dual and single intervention groups respectively.
Conclusion: The dual intervention group had a huge impact on vector density but did not significantly affect the level of parsitaemia and incidence of malaria.