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.

BackgroundPast experience and modelling suggest that, in most cases, mass treatment strategies are not likely to succeed in interrupting Plasmodium falciparum malaria transmission. However, this does not preclude their use to reduce disease burden. Mass screening and treatment (MSAT) is preferred to mass drug administration (MDA), as the latter involves massive over-use of drugs. This paper reports simulations of the incremental cost-effectiveness of well-conducted MSAT campaigns as a strategy for P. falciparum malaria disease-burden reduction in settings with varying receptivity (ability of the combined vector population in a setting to transmit disease) and access to case management.MethodsMSAT incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated in different sub-Saharan African settings using simulation models of the dynamics of malaria and a literature-based MSAT cost estimate. Imported infections were simulated at a rate of two per 1,000 population per annum. These estimates were compared to the ICERs of scaling up case management or insecticide-treated net (ITN) coverage in each baseline health system, in the absence of MSAT.ResultsMSAT averted most episodes, and resulted in the lowest ICERs, in settings with a moderate level of disease burden. At a low pre-intervention entomological inoculation rate (EIR) of two infectious bites per adult per annum (IBPAPA) MSAT was never more cost-effective than scaling up ITNs or case management coverage. However, at pre-intervention entomological inoculation rates (EIRs) of 20 and 50 IBPAPA and ITN coverage levels of 40 or 60%, respectively, the ICER of MSAT was similar to that of scaling up ITN coverage further.ConclusionsIn all the transmission settings considered, achieving a minimal level of ITN coverage is a “best buy”. At low transmission, MSAT probably is not worth considering. Instead, MSAT may be suitable at medium to high levels of transmission and at moderate ITN coverage. If undertaken as a burden-reducing intervention, MSAT should be continued indefinitely and should complement, not replace, case management and vector control interventions.

Recent declines in malaria burden in many parts of the world have prompted consideration of how interruption of Plasmodium falciparum transmission could be maintained, if achieved, and notably whether large-scale vector control could be replaced with surveillance. This information is essential for elimination feasibility assessments and planning. The risk of re-establishment of transmission depends mainly on vectorial capacity (receptivity), likely to rebound once vector control is removed, the rate of importation of infections (vulnerability), the capacity to detect and treat infections and the level of immunity in infected individuals. Timely detection and removal of new infections is likely to be critical to prevent re-establishment of transmission. We assess, through mathematical modeling and simulation, which levels of case detection and treatment (case management) are required to prevent re-establishment of transmission of P. falciparum after local interruption of transmission has been achieved, in settings with varying receptivity and vulnerability. We find that, even at rather low levels of receptivity, case management alone cannot reliably prevent re-establishment of P. falciparum malaria transmission in the face of medium to high importation rates. Thus, if vector control is to be discontinued, preventing the importations by controlling transmission in source areas will generally be necessary for preventing reintroduction in such settings, and cannot be substituted by very high levels of case management coverage.