Incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of the addition of indoor residual spraying with pirimiphos-methyl in sub-Saharan Africa versus standard malaria control: results of data collection and analysis in the Next Generation Indoor Residual Sprays (NgenIRS) project, an economic-evaluation

Table 5 Incremental cost-effective ratio estimates for 3GIRS versus standard interventions

Programme	Year(s)	Cost per case averted	Cost per death averted (USD)	Cost per DALY averted (USD)	Cost-effectiveness estimate	Stringent highly cost-effective threshold (0.5 × GDP per capita)^a (USD)	WHO highly cost-effective threshold (GDP per capita)^a (USD)	WHO cost-effective threshold (3 × GDP per capita)^a (USD)
Ghana AIRS/VectorLink Northeastern and Northern Regions	2017–2018	3.20	1599	48	Highly cost-effective (by stringent standard)	1130	2260	6780
Mali AIRS/VectorLink Mopti Region	2017	6.76	3380	102	Highly cost-effective (by stringent standard)	467	933	2700
Uganda Abt bilateral Northern and Eastern Regions	2017–2018	41.25	20,624	625	Highly cost-effective (by WHO standard)	380	759	2277
Zambia AIRS/VectorLink Eastern, Luapula, Muchinga, Northern Provinces	2017	105.15	52,572	1593	Cost-effective	670	1340	4020

3GIRS, third-generation indoor residual spray; AIRS, Africa Indoor Residual Spraying Project; DALY, disability-adjusted life year; GDP, gross domestic product; USD, US dollars; WHO, World Health Organization
^aGDP per capita extracted from International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook

ISSN: 1475-2875