Abstract
Background Release of virus-blocking Wolbachia infected mosquitoes is an emerging disease control strategy that aims to control dengue and other arboviral infections. Early entomological data and modelling analyses have suggested promising outcomes and wMel Wolbachia releases are now ongoing or planned in 12 countries. To help inform potential scale-up beyond single city releases, we assessed this technology’s cost-effectiveness under different programmatic options.
Methods Using costing data from existing Wolbachia releases, previous estimates of Wolbachia effectiveness, and a spatially-explicit model of release and surveillance requirements, we predicted the costs and effectiveness of the on-going programme in Yogyakarta City and three new hypothetical programmes in Yogyakarta Special Autonomous Region, Jakarta and Bali.
Results We predicted Wolbachia to be a highly cost-effective intervention when deployed in high density urban areas with gross cost-effectiveness ratios below $1,500 per DALY averted. When offsets from the health system and societal perspective were included, such programmes even became cost saving over 10-year time horizons with favourable benefit-cost ratios of 1.35 to 3.40. Sequencing Wolbachia releases over ten years could reduce programme costs by approximately 38% compared to simultaneous releases everywhere, but also delays the benefits. Even if unexpected challenges occurred during deployment, such as emergence of resistance in the medium-term or low effective coverage, Wolbachia would remain a cost saving intervention.
Conclusions Wolbachia releases in high density urban areas is expected to be highly cost-effective and could potentially be the first cost saving intervention for dengue. Sites with strong public health infrastructure, fiscal capacity, and community support should be prioritized.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
OJB was funded by a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship funded by the Wellcome Trust (206471/Z/17/Z) and a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OP1183567) which also supports KMO. NNW, DDK and DSS are funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1187889). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data used in this analysis is publicly available and can be accessed in the related paper O’Reilly et al. BMC Medicine 2019 17:172 or in the Appendix of this paper. All code to reproduce our analysis is publicly available in the following GitHub repository: (https://github.com/obrady/Wolbachia_CE/tree/V1).
List of abbreviations
- CEA
- Cost Effectiveness Analysis DALY Disability Adjusted Life Year
- GDP
- Gross Domestic Product PPP Purchasing Power Parity
- SAR
- Special Autonomous Region
- USD
- United States Dollar
- WHO
- World Health Organization
- WMP
- World Mosquito Programme
