Figure 3. Cost-effectiveness (US$/DALY averted) for different levels of delivery cost and coverage with rectal treatment(s).

Figure 3 illustrates how both changes in the cost of deploying rectal treatments (per capita), as well as the coverage levels achieved, could impact on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. The three panels present these analyses for rectal antimalarial treatment compared with usual practice (Panel A), rectal antibacterial treatment compared with usual practice (Panel B), and a combined antimalarial/antibacterial rectal formulation compared with usual practice (Panel C). The comparisons between a combined rectal formulation and either antimalarial or antibacterial only rectal formulations are not presented, as the delivery costs for the combined rectal formulation and antimalarial or antibacterial only rectal formulations are similar and would difference out without affecting the cost-effectiveness figures presented in Table 3 . Usual practice refers to a situation where no rectal treatments for severe febrile illness are widely used.