Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 11;21:185. doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04160-3

Table 5.

Incremental cost-effective ratio estimates for 3GIRS versus standard interventions

Programme Year(s) Cost per case averted Cost per death averted (USD) Cost per DALY averted (USD) Cost-effectiveness estimate Stringent highly cost-effective threshold (0.5 × GDP per capita)a (USD) WHO highly cost-effective threshold (GDP per capita)a (USD) WHO cost-effective threshold (3 × GDP per capita)a (USD)

Ghana AIRS/VectorLink

Northeastern and Northern Regions

2017–2018 3.20 1599 48 Highly cost-effective (by stringent standard) 1130 2260 6780

Mali AIRS/VectorLink

Mopti Region

2017 6.76 3380 102 Highly cost-effective (by stringent standard) 467 933 2700

Uganda Abt bilateral

Northern and Eastern Regions

2017–2018 41.25 20,624 625 Highly cost-effective (by WHO standard) 380 759 2277

Zambia AIRS/VectorLink

Eastern, Luapula, Muchinga, Northern Provinces

2017 105.15 52,572 1593 Cost-effective 670 1340 4020

3GIRS, third-generation indoor residual spray; AIRS, Africa Indoor Residual Spraying Project; DALY, disability-adjusted life year; GDP, gross domestic product; USD, US dollars; WHO, World Health Organization

aGDP per capita extracted from International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook