RÉSUMÉ
In 2016 the World Health Organization identified 21 countries that could eliminate malaria by 2020. Monitoring progress towards this goal requires tracking ongoing transmission. Here we develop methods that estimate individual reproduction numbers and their variation through time and space. Individual reproduction numbers, Rc, describe the state of transmission at a point in time and differ from mean reproduction numbers, which are averages of the number of people infected by a typical case. We assess elimination progress in El Salvador using data for confirmed cases of malaria from 2010 to 2016. Our results demonstrate that whilst the average number of secondary malaria cases was below one (0.61, 95% CI 0.55-0.65), individual reproduction numbers often exceeded one. We estimate a decline in Rc between 2010 and 2016. However we also show that if importation is maintained at the same rate, the country may not achieve malaria elimination by 2020.
Sujet(s)
Paludisme/transmission , Taux de reproduction de base , Salvador/épidémiologie , Maladies endémiques/prévention et contrôle , Surveillance épidémiologique , Humains , Incidence , Fonctions de vraisemblance , Paludisme/épidémiologie , Paludisme/prévention et contrôle , Paludisme à Plasmodium falciparum/épidémiologie , Paludisme à Plasmodium falciparum/prévention et contrôle , Paludisme à Plasmodium falciparum/transmission , Paludisme à Plasmodium vivax/épidémiologie , Paludisme à Plasmodium vivax/prévention et contrôle , Paludisme à Plasmodium vivax/transmission , Facteurs de risque , Facteurs tempsRÉSUMÉ
BACKGROUND: The control and elimination of malaria requires expanded coverage of and access to effective malaria control interventions such as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), indoor residual spraying (IRS), intermittent preventive treatment (IPT), diagnostic testing and appropriate treatment. Decisions on how to scale up the coverage of these interventions need to be based on evidence of programme effectiveness, equity and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature on the costs and cost-effectiveness of malaria interventions was undertaken. All costs and cost-effectiveness ratios were inflated to 2009 USD to allow comparison of the costs and benefits of several different interventions through various delivery channels, across different geographical regions and from varying costing perspectives. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies of the costs and forty three studies of the cost-effectiveness of malaria interventions were identified, 78% of which were undertaken in sub-Saharan Africa, 18% in Asia and 4% in South America. The median financial cost of protecting one person for one year was $2.20 (range $0.88-$9.54) for ITNs, $6.70 (range $2.22-$12.85) for IRS, $0.60 (range $0.48-$1.08) for IPT in infants, $4.03 (range $1.25-$11.80) for IPT in children, and $2.06 (range $0.47-$3.36) for IPT in pregnant women. The median financial cost of diagnosing a case of malaria was $4.32 (range $0.34-$9.34). The median financial cost of treating an episode of uncomplicated malaria was $5.84 (range $2.36-$23.65) and the median financial cost of treating an episode of severe malaria was $30.26 (range $15.64-$137.87). Economies of scale were observed in the implementation of ITNs, IRS and IPT, with lower unit costs reported in studies with larger numbers of beneficiaries. From a provider perspective, the median incremental cost effectiveness ratio per disability adjusted life year averted was $27 (range $8.15-$110) for ITNs, $143 (range $135-$150) for IRS, and $24 (range $1.08-$44.24) for IPT. CONCLUSIONS: A transparent evidence base on the costs and cost-effectiveness of malaria control interventions is provided to inform rational resource allocation by donors and domestic health budgets and the selection of optimal packages of interventions by malaria control programmes.
Sujet(s)
Contrôle des maladies transmissibles/économie , Contrôle des maladies transmissibles/méthodes , Paludisme/épidémiologie , Paludisme/prévention et contrôle , Afrique/épidémiologie , Asie/épidémiologie , Analyse coût-bénéfice , Humains , Paludisme/diagnostic , Paludisme/traitement médicamenteux , Amérique du Sud/épidémiologieRÉSUMÉ
A novel influenza A (H1N1) virus has spread rapidly across the globe. Judging its pandemic potential is difficult with limited data, but nevertheless essential to inform appropriate health responses. By analyzing the outbreak in Mexico, early data on international spread, and viral genetic diversity, we make an early assessment of transmissibility and severity. Our estimates suggest that 23,000 (range 6000 to 32,000) individuals had been infected in Mexico by late April, giving an estimated case fatality ratio (CFR) of 0.4% (range: 0.3 to 1.8%) based on confirmed and suspected deaths reported to that time. In a community outbreak in the small community of La Gloria, Veracruz, no deaths were attributed to infection, giving an upper 95% bound on CFR of 0.6%. Thus, although substantial uncertainty remains, clinical severity appears less than that seen in the 1918 influenza pandemic but comparable with that seen in the 1957 pandemic. Clinical attack rates in children in La Gloria were twice that in adults (<15 years of age: 61%; >/=15 years: 29%). Three different epidemiological analyses gave basic reproduction number (R0) estimates in the range of 1.4 to 1.6, whereas a genetic analysis gave a central estimate of 1.2. This range of values is consistent with 14 to 73 generations of human-to-human transmission having occurred in Mexico to late April. Transmissibility is therefore substantially higher than that of seasonal flu, and comparable with lower estimates of R0 obtained from previous influenza pandemics.