Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:10:08.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bancroftian filariasis in Pondicherry, South India – epidemiological impact of recovery of the vector population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

P. K. Das ,
A. Manoharan ,
S. Subramanian ,
K. D. Ramaiah ,
S. P. Pani ,
A. R. Rajavel  and
P. K. Rajagopalan
P. K. Das
Affiliation:
Vector Control Research Centre (Indian Council of Medical Research), Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Pondicherry–605 006, India
A. Manoharan
Affiliation:
Vector Control Research Centre (Indian Council of Medical Research), Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Pondicherry–605 006, India
S. Subramanian
Affiliation:
Vector Control Research Centre (Indian Council of Medical Research), Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Pondicherry–605 006, India
K. D. Ramaiah
Affiliation:
Vector Control Research Centre (Indian Council of Medical Research), Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Pondicherry–605 006, India
S. P. Pani
Affiliation:
Vector Control Research Centre (Indian Council of Medical Research), Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Pondicherry–605 006, India
A. R. Rajavel
Affiliation:
Vector Control Research Centre (Indian Council of Medical Research), Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Pondicherry–605 006, India
P. K. Rajagopalan
Affiliation:
Vector Control Research Centre (Indian Council of Medical Research), Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Pondicherry–605 006, India
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An Integrated Vector Management (IVM) strategy was implemented from 1981 to 1985 in one part of Pondicherry, South India, for the control of the bancroftian filariasis vector Culex quinquefasciatus (the IVM area). The rest of the town (the comparison area) received the conventional larvicidal input. After 1985 both the areas were managed conventionally. The switch to conventional strategy resulted in an increase of vector density in both areas. The microfilaraemia prevalence in humans showed a general decline (P < 0·05) from 1986 to 1989 only in the IVM area whereas its intensity did not change significantly in either area. While the age-specific rate of gain of infection was generally unchanged in the IVM area, an increase in all age classes was observed after 1985 in the comparison area, where the Annual Transmission Index was high during the previous years. In both areas the rate of loss of infection increased during 1986–9 compared to 1981–6. The results suggest that 3 years is too short a period to relate the changes in entomological parameters to those in the microfilaraemia status of the population.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 108 , Issue 3 , June 1992 , pp. 483 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

References

REFERENCES

1.Rajagopalan, PK, Das, PK. The Pondicherry project on integrated disease vector control (Filariasis Control Demonstration Project). Pondicherry: Vector Control Research Centre. 1987: 1–164.Google Scholar
2.Rajagopalan, PK, Das, PK, Subramanian, S, Vanamail, P, Ramaiah, KD. Bancroftian filariasis in Pondicherry. South India. 1. Pre-control epidemiological observations. Epidemiol Infect 1989; 103: 685–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Subramanian, S, Pani, SP, Das, PK, Rajagopalan, PK. Bancroftian filariasis in Pondieherry, South India. 2. Epidemiological evaluation of the effect of vector control. Epidemiol Infect 1989; 103: 693–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Webber, RH. Vector control of filariasis in the Solomon Islands. South East Asian J Trop Med Publ Hlth 1975; 6: 430–4.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Chelbowsky, HO, Zielke, ZE. Studies on bancroftian filariasis in Liberia. West Africa. III. Efficacy of repeated treatment with Di-ethyl carbamazine and vector control on the microfilarial reservoir in a rural population. Tropenmed Parasit 1980; 31: 181–93.Google Scholar
6.Webber, RH. The natural decline of Wuchereria bancrofti infection in a vector control situation in the Solomon Islands. Trans Roy Soc Trop Med Hyg 1977; 71: 396–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Webber, RH. Eradication of Wuchereria bancrofti infection through vector control. Trans Roy Soc Trop Med Hyg 1979; 73: 722–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Dissanaike, AS. Filarial infections. In: Gilles, HM, ed. Recent advances in tropical medicine. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. 1984: 115–52.Google Scholar
9.Hairston, GN, Jachowski, LA. Analysis of the W. bancrofti population in the people of American Samoa. Bull WHO 1968; 38: 29–59.Google Scholar
10.Baker, D, Nelder, JA. Numerical Algorithms Group: GLIM Version 3.77: User Manual. Oxford. 1978.Google Scholar
11.Bekessey, A, Molineaux, L, Storey, J. Estimation of Malaria incidence and recovery rates of Plasmodium falciparum parasitaemia from longitudinal data. Bull WHO 1976; 54: 685–93.Google Scholar
12.Beye, HK, Gurian, J. Epidemiology and dynamics of transmission of Wuchereria bancrofti and Brugia malayi. Indian J Malariol 1960; 14: 415–40.Google Scholar
13.Rajagopalan, PK, Das, PK, Panicker, KN et al. , Environmental and water management for mosquito control. In: Curtis, CF, ed. Appropriate technology in vector control. Florida: Boca Raton. 1990: 121–38.Google Scholar