The realized efficacy of indoor residual spraying campaigns falls quickly below the recommended WHO threshold when coverage, pace of spraying and residual efficacy on different wall types are considered.

Indoor residual spraying (IRS) has been and remains an important malaria control intervention in southern Mozambique, South Africa and Eswatini. A better understanding of the effectiveness of IRS campaigns is critical to guide future elimination efforts. We analyze the three IRS campaigns conducted during a malaria elimination demonstration project in southern Mozambique, the "Magude project", and propose a new method to calculate the efficacy of IRS campaigns adjusting for IRS coverage, pace of house spraying and IRS residual efficacy on different wall types. Anopheles funestus sensu lato (s.l.) and An. gambiae s.l. were susceptible to pirimiphos-methyl and DDT. Anopheles funestus s.l. was resistant to pyrethroids, with 24h post-exposure mortality being lower for An. funestus sensu stricto (s.s.) than for An. parensis (collected indoors). The percentage of structures sprayed was above 90% and percentage of people covered above 86% in all three IRS campaigns. The percentage of households sprayed was above 83% in 2015 and 2016, but not assessed in 2017. Mosquito mortality 24h post-exposure stayed above 80% for 196 days after the 2016 IRS campaign and 222 days after the 2017 campaign and was 1.5 months longer on mud walls than on cement walls. This was extended by up to two months when 120h post-exposure mortality was considered. The district-level realized IRS efficacy was 113 days after the 2016 campaign. While the coverage of IRS campaigns in Magude were high, IRS protection did not remain optimal for the entire high malaria transmissions season. The use of a longer-lasting IRS product could have further supported the interruption of malaria transmission in the district. To better estimate the protection afforded by IRS campaigns, National Malaria Control Programs and partners are encouraged to adjust the calculation of IRS efficacy for IRS coverage, pace of house spraying during the campaign and IRS efficacy on different wall types combined with wall type distribution in the sprayed area.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Abt Associates Inc. provided support in the form of salaries for author NC, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE’s policies on sharing data and materials.