Background Malaria is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Widespread resistance to pyrethroids threatens the gains achieved by vector control. To counter resistance to pyrethroids, third-generation indoor residual spraying (3GIRS) products have been developed. This study details the results of a multi-country cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of indoor residual spraying (IRS) programmes using Actellic®300CS, a 3GIRS product with pirimiphos-methyl, in sub-Saharan Africa in 2017 added to standard malaria control interventions including insecticide-treated bed nets versus standard malaria control interventions alone. Methods An economic evaluation of 3GIRS using Actellic®300CS in a broad range of sub-Saharan African settings was conducted using a variety of primary data collection and evidence synthesis methods. Four IRS programmes in Ghana, Mali, Uganda, and Zambia were included in the effectiveness analysis. Cost data come from six IRS programmes: one in each of the four countries where effect was measured plus Mozambique and a separate programme conducted by AngloGold Ashanti Malaria Control in Ghana. Financial and economic costs were quantified and valued. The main indicator for the cost was cost per person targeted. Country-specific case incidence rate ratios (IRRs), estimated by comparing IRS study districts to adjacent non-IRS study districts or facilities, were used to calculate cases averted in each study area. A deterministic analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted in each of the four countries for which effectiveness evaluations were available. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to generate plausibility bounds around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates for adding IRS to other standard interventions in each study setting as well as jointly utilizing data on effect and cost across all settings. Results Overall, IRRs from each country indicated that adding IRS with Actellic®300CS to the local standard intervention package was protective compared to the standard intervention package alone (IRR 0.67, [95% CI 0.50–0.91]). Results indicate that Actellic®300CS is expected to be a cost-effective (> 60% probability of being cost-effective in all settings) or highly cost-effective intervention across a range of transmission settings in sub-Saharan Africa. Discussion Variations in the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness likely result from several sources including: variation in the sprayed wall surfaces and house size relative to household population, the underlying malaria burden in the communities sprayed, the effectiveness of 3GIRS in different settings, and insecticide price. Programmes should be aware that current recommendations to rotate can mean variation and uncertainty in budgets; programmes should consider this in their insecticide-resistance management strategies. Conclusions The optimal combination of 3GIRS delivery with other malaria control interventions will be highly context specific. 3GIRS using Actellic®300CS is expected to deliver acceptable value for money in a broad range of sub-Saharan African malaria transmission settings.

Background While many malaria-endemic countries have health management information systems that can measure and report malaria trends in a timely manner, these routine systems have limitations. Periodic community cross-sectional household surveys are used to estimate malaria prevalence and intervention coverage but lack geographic granularity and are resource intensive. Incorporating malaria testing for all women at their first antenatal care (ANC) visit (i.e., ANC1) could provide a more timely and granular source of data for monitoring trends in malaria burden and intervention coverage. This article describes a protocol designed to assess if ANC-based surveillance could be a pragmatic tool to monitor malaria. Methods This is an observational, cross-sectional study conducted in Benin, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Zambia. Pregnant women attending ANC1 in selected health facilities will be tested for malaria infection by rapid diagnostic test and administered a brief questionnaire to capture key indicators of malaria control intervention coverage and care-seeking behaviour. In each location, contemporaneous cross-sectional household surveys will be leveraged to assess correlations between estimates obtained using each method, and the use of ANC data as a tool to track trends in malaria burden and intervention coverage will be validated. Results This study will assess malaria prevalence at ANC1 aggregated at health facility and district levels, and by gravidity relative to current pregnancy (i.e., gravida 1, gravida 2, and gravida 3 +). ANC1 malaria prevalence will be presented as monthly trends. Additionally, correlation between ANC1 and household survey–derived estimates of malaria prevalence, bed net ownership and use, and care-seeking will be assessed. Conclusion ANC1-based surveillance has the potential to provide a cost-effective, localized measure of malaria prevalence that is representative of the general population and useful for tracking monthly changes in parasite prevalence, as well as providing population-representative estimates of intervention coverage and care-seeking behavior. This study will evaluate the representativeness of these measures and collect information on operational feasibility, usefulness for programmatic decision-making, and potential for scale-up of malaria ANC1 surveillance.