Table 1.

Summary of the identified cost‐benefit analyses and estimates of the economic benefits of onchocerciasis interventions

Source	Setting and time period of the intervention	Time horizon for the benefits	Discount rate	Cost year	Cost of the intervention	Total economic benefitb	Net present value	Internal rate of return
Benton & Skinner 67	OCP (1974–2004)	1974–2023	5–10%	1985 US$	US$140 million (10% discount rate) to US$231 million (5% discount rate). US$437 million when not discounted. Financial costs from the programmes perceptive. Details not specified.	US$148 million (10% discount rate) to US$543 million (5% discount rate).	US$8 million (10% discount rate) to US$312 million (5% discount rate).	11–13%
Kim & Benton 58	OCP (1974–2002)	1974–2012	3–10%	1987 US$	US$571.2 million (appears to be pre‐discounting). Financial costs from the programmes perceptive. Based on actual and projected OCP expenditure.	Not stated.	US$485 million (10% discount rate) to US$3729 million (3% discount rate).	20%
McFarland & Murray 124, a	OCP (10‐year project time period)	1974–2023	5%	Not available	US$195.5 million (not discounted). Details not available.	Not available.	US$8 million.	‐
Benton 125	APOC (1996–2007)	1996–2017	10%	1996 US$	US$131.2 million (appears to be pre‐discounting). Financial costs from the healthcare providers perceptive. Details not specified.	Not stated.	US$53.7 million.	17%
Haddix 69, a	APOC (1996–2007)	1996–2017	3–10%	1996 US$	US$108.5 million (unclear if discounted). Details not available.	Not available.	US$87.6 million (10% discount rate) to US$307.4 million (3% discount rate).	24%
Kim et al. 60	Potential benefits of achieving elimination scenarios in Africa	2013–2045	3%	2013 US$	NA	Compared with the control scenario, the Elim I and II scenariosc would generate US$5.96 (2.53–7.28) billion and US$6.46 (2.83–8.09) billion in economic benefits respectively.	NA	NA
Redekop et al. 59	Potential economic benefits of achieving the WHO 2020 targets	2011–2030	3%	2005 US$	NA	US$3.3 (2.4–5.11) billion.	NA	NA
Turner et al. 95	Potential impact of moxidectin on onchocerciasis elimination in African savannah settingsd	50 years	3%	2012 US$	Moxidectin distribution was assumed to cost the same as that for ivermectin. The relative total cost of using moxidectin vs. ivermectin was considered for different programmatic scenariosd. Used the healthcare providers perspective (not including the value of the donated drugs). Based on a costing study in Ghana 44.	Annual moxidectin treatment would achieve similar reductions in programme duration as using biannual ivermectin treatment. If the moxidectin tablets were donated its use would lead to substantial in‐country cost savings.	NA	NA

APOC, African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control; NA, not applicable; OCP, Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa; pOTTIS, provisional operational thresholds for treatment interruption followed by surveillance.

^aInformation for this study was taken from Waters et al. 18.

^bThe estimated economic benefits are outlined in further detail in Table 3.

^cThe Control, Elim I and Elim II scenarios are described in Kim et al. 99.

^dAssumed that MDA would be stopped (determining the programme duration) once the pOTTIS would have been achieved (defined as the modelled microfilarial prevalence being <1.4%, measured just before the next treatment round).