Abstract. Attempts to quantify the epidemiologic and economic burden of malaria have so far neglected to specifically address the burden of epidemic malaria. Moreover, the data on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions in epidemics is extremely limited. Answering such key questions in an epidemic prone context is more challenging than doing so in endemic areas. Using the limited data available, we estimate that in Africa, there are more than 12 million malaria episodes and 155,000−310,000 malaria deaths per year attributable to epidemics if control options are not implemented or well timed, which is equivalent to some 4% of estimated annual malaria cases worldwide and 12−25% of estimated annual worldwide malaria deaths, including up to 50% of the estimated annual worldwide malaria mortality in persons > 15 years of age. The possible economic impact of malaria epidemics is described and the limited evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions in areas of low or seasonal transmission is reviewed.

Objective To provide the international community with an estimate of the amount of financial resources needed to scale up malaria control to reach international goals, including allocations by country, year and intervention as well as an indication of the current funding gap. Methods A costing model was used to estimate the total costs of scaling up a set of widely recommended interventions, supporting services and programme strengthening activities in each of the 81 most heavily affected malaria-endemic countries. Two scenarios were evaluated, using different assumptions about the effect of interventions on the needs for diagnosis and treatment. Current health expenditures and funding for malaria control were compared to estimated needs. Findings A total of US$ 38 to 45 billion will be required from 2006 to 2015. The average cost during this period is US$ 3.8 to 4.5 billion per year. The average costs for Africa are US$ 1.7 billion and US$ 2.2 billion per year in the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios, respectively; outside Africa, the corresponding costs are US$ 2.1 billion and US$ 2.4 billion. Conclusion While these estimates should not be used as a template for country-level planning, they provide an indication of the scale and scope of resources required and can help donors to collaborate towards meeting a global benchmark and targeting funding to countries in greatest need. The analysis highlights the need for much greater resources to achieve the goals and targets for malaria control set by the international community.

BackgroundReliable information on mobility patterns of migrants is a crucial part of the strategy to contain the spread of artemisinin-resistant malaria parasites in South-East Asia, and may also be helpful to efforts to address other public health problems for migrants and members of host communities. In order to limit the spread of malarial drug resistance, the malaria prevention and control programme will need to devise strategies to reach cross-border and mobile migrant populations.MethodologyThe Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) method was used to survey migrant workers from Cambodia and Myanmar, both registered and undocumented, in three Thai provinces on the Thailand-Cambodia border in close proximity to areas with documented artemisinin-resistant malaria parasites. 1,719 participants (828 Cambodian and 891 Myanmar migrants) were recruited. Subpopulations of migrant workers were analysed using the Thailand Ministry of Health classification based on length of residence in Thailand of greater than six months (long-term, or M1) or less than six months (short-term, or M2). Key information collected on the structured questionnaire included patterns of mobility and migration, demographic characteristics, treatment-seeking behaviours, and knowledge, perceptions, and practices about malaria.ResultsWorkers from Cambodia came from provinces across Cambodia, and 22% of Cambodian M1 and 72% of Cambodian M2 migrants had been in Cambodia in the last three months. Less than 6% returned with a frequency of greater than once per month. Of migrants from Cambodia, 32% of M1 and 68% of M2 were planning to return, and named provinces across Cambodia as their likely next destinations. Most workers from Myanmar came from Mon state (86%), had never returned to Myanmar (85%), and only 4% stated plans to return.ConclusionInformation on migratory patterns of migrants from Myanmar and Cambodia along the malaria endemic Thailand-Cambodian border within the artemisinin resistance containment zone will help target health interventions, including treatment follow-up and surveillance.

No abstract