Global trends in the production and use of DDT for control of malaria and other vector-borne diseases

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

DDT was among the initial persistent organic pollutants listed under the Stockholm Convention and continues to be used for control of malaria and other vector-borne diseases in accordance with its provisions on acceptable purposes. Trends in the production and use of DDT were evaluated over the period 2001–2014.

Results

Available data on global production of DDT showed a 32% decline over the reporting period, from 5144 to 3491 metric tons of active ingredient p.a. Similarly, global use of DDT, for control of malaria and leishmaniasis, showed a 30% decline over the period 2001–2014, from 5388 metric tons p.a. to 3772 metric tons p.a. India has been by far the largest producer and user of DDT. In some countries, DDT is used in response to the development of resistance in malaria vectors against pyrethroid and carbamate insecticides. Some other countries have stopped using DDT, in compliance to the Convention, or in response to DDT resistance in malaria vectors. Progress has been made in establishing or amending national legal measures on DDT, with the majority of countries reportedly having measures in place that prohibit, or restrict, the production, import, export and use of DDT. Limitations in achieving the objectives of the Stockholm Convention with regard to DDT include major shortcomings in periodic reporting by Parties to the Stockholm Convention, and deficiencies in reporting to the DDT Register.

Conclusion

Global production and global use of DDT have shown a modest decline since the adoption of the Stockholm Convention.

Related collections

Most cited references 16

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The evidence for improving housing to reduce malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lucy S Tusting, Matthew M Ippolito, Barbara Willey … (2015)

Background The global malaria burden has fallen since 2000, sometimes before large-scale vector control programmes were initiated. While long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying are highly effective interventions, this study tests the hypothesis that improved housing can reduce malaria by decreasing house entry by malaria mosquitoes. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether modern housing is associated with a lower risk of malaria than traditional housing, across all age groups and malaria-endemic settings. Six electronic databases were searched to identify intervention and observational studies published from 1 January, 1900 to 13 December, 2013, measuring the association between house design and malaria. The primary outcome measures were parasite prevalence and incidence of clinical malaria. Crude and adjusted effects were combined in fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses, with sub-group analyses for: overall house type (traditional versus modern housing); screening; main wall, roof and floor materials; eave type; ceilings and elevation. Results Of 15,526 studies screened, 90 were included in a qualitative synthesis and 53 reported epidemiological outcomes, included in a meta-analysis. Of these, 39 (74 %) showed trends towards a lower risk of epidemiological outcomes associated with improved house features. Of studies assessing the relationship between modern housing and malaria infection (n = 11) and clinical malaria (n = 5), all were observational, with very low to low quality evidence. Residents of modern houses had 47 % lower odds of malaria infection compared to traditional houses (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0°53, 95 % confidence intervals (CI) 0°42–0°67, p < 0°001, five studies) and a 45–65 % lower odds of clinical malaria (case–control studies: adjusted OR 0°35, 95 % CI 0°20–0°62, p <0°001, one study; cohort studies: adjusted rate ratio 0°55, 95 % CI 0°36–0°84, p = 0°005, three studies). Evidence of a high risk of bias was found within studies. Conclusions Despite low quality evidence, the direction and consistency of effects indicate that housing is an important risk factor for malaria. Future research should evaluate the protective effect of specific house features and incremental housing improvements associated with socio-economic development. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-015-0724-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

0 comments Cited 167 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

World Malaria Report 2016

(2016)

0 comments Cited 88 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Global Status of DDT and Its Alternatives for Use in Vector Control to Prevent Disease

Henk van den Berg (2009)

Objective I review the status of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), used for disease vector control, along with current evidence on its benefits and risks in relation to the available alternatives. Data sources and extraction Contemporary data on DDT use were largely obtained from questionnaires and reports. I also conducted a Scopus search to retrieve published articles. Data synthesis DDT has been recommended as part of the arsenal of insecticides available for indoor residual spraying until suitable alternatives are available. Approximately 14 countries use DDT for disease control, and several countries are preparing to reintroduce DDT. The effectiveness of DDT depends on local settings and merits close consideration in relation to the alternatives. Concerns about the continued use of DDT are fueled by recent reports of high levels of human exposure associated with indoor spraying amid accumulating evidence on chronic health effects. There are signs that more malaria vectors are becoming resistant to the toxic action of DDT, and that resistance is spreading to new countries. A comprehensive cost assessment of DDT versus its alternatives that takes side effects into account is missing. Effective chemical methods are available as immediate alternatives to DDT, but the choice of insecticide class is limited, and in certain areas the development of resistance is undermining the efficacy of insecticidal tools. New insecticides are not expected in the short term. Nonchemical methods are potentially important, but their effectiveness at program level needs urgent study. Conclusions To reduce reliance on DDT, support is needed for integrated and multipartner strategies of vector control and for the continued development of new technologies. Integrated vector management provides a framework for developing and implementing effective technologies and strategies as sustainable alternatives to reliance on DDT.

0 comments Cited 85 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Henk van den Berg:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9983-638X

henk.vandenberg@wur.nl

Gamini Manuweera: gamini.manuweera@brsmeas.org

Flemming Konradsen: flko@sund.ku.dk

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Malar J

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Malar. J

Title: Malaria Journal

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1475-2875

Publication date (Electronic): 5 October 2017

Publication date PMC-release: 5 October 2017

Publication date Collection: 2017

Volume: 16

Electronic Location Identifier: 401

Affiliations

[1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0791 5666, GRID grid.4818.5, Laboratory of Entomology, , Wageningen University, ; P.O. Box 8031, 6700EH Wageningen, The Netherlands

[2 ]GRID grid.439002.c, Secretariat of Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions (BRS), , United Nations Environment Programme, ; Geneva, Switzerland

[3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0674 042X, GRID grid.5254.6, Department of Public Health, , University of Copenhagen, ; Copenhagen, Denmark

Author information

Henk van den Berg http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9983-638X

Article

Publisher ID: 2050

DOI: 10.1186/s12936-017-2050-2

PMC ID: 5629760

PubMed ID: 28982359

SO-VID: 7327896d-3047-43c5-af0e-fa6866be9eda

License:

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.