Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Increased funding is needed to eliminate malaria across 22 Asia-Pacific countries and save an estimated 400,000 lives, according to research published in a new collection of studies on Wellcome Open Research.

A child writes something on a blackboard
A Cambodian child teaches his classmates what he's learned about malaria control, part of MORU's activities to raise community awareness in malaria-endemic areas of the importance of malaria prevention and the importance of early treatment. © MORU 2019. Photographer: Nicky Almasy

Although Asia-Pacific countries have made significant progress towards their goal of eliminating malaria by 2030, collection researchers warn that stagnating donor funding puts at risk national malaria control efforts and access to lifesaving drugs and other tools, and could, under one potential scenario, result in as many as 845 million more malaria cases and 3.5 million deaths.

“This evidence-based investment case for the region comes from preliminary estimates to quantify the economic benefits of eliminating malaria, which could save hundreds of thousands of lives, avoid millions of malaria cases, and generate billions in healthcare savings, as well as savings from lost wages and productivity due to illness.” said collection advisor and study author Prof Richard Maude from the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) in Bangkok.

“While the cost of eliminating malaria in the Asia Pacific is not insignificant, it will result in a large return on investment. For every additional dollar spent, there was predicted to be an overall economic benefit of USD $6 for the affected countries,” said lead study author Rima Shretta.

Study author Prof Lisa White of MORU adds, “We made these preliminary estimates using a first of its kind multispecies mathematical and economic modelling approach supported by estimated disease burden and from this we could develop an evidence-based investment case for the region.” 

Eliminating malaria in Asia-Pacific by 2030 is realistic, with significant human benefits – but only if adequately funded, say the study authors, who note that it is important to put pressure on donors and decision-makers to continue funding current efforts – including  fully funding the Global Fund at the upcoming replenishment conference this October.

“In the current climate of decreasing global malaria funding, countries with a lower malaria burden are becoming a lesser priority for donors, but sustained financing needs to be secured to realise this goal of P. falciparum and P. vivax elimination in the Asia-Pacific by 2030,” said study author Sheetal Silal from the University of Cape Town, South Africa.

“We hope to raise awareness of the need for increased investment to eliminate malaria and also the potential overall economic benefits of this investment,” said Prof Maude.

The articles in this collection include three research articles, an article on the new software tool and an editorial summarizing the new body of research. All are freely available online on Wellcome Open Research, https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/collections/cost_malaria_pred, and will undergo open peer review, where all reports are published alongside the articles with the authors’ responses.

The research is the result of partnership between the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), with funding support by the Asian Development Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government.

Media inquiries, kindly contact:  

Bangkok, Asia and Europe: John Bleho, john@tropmedres.ac, +66.81.750.0539 (Thailand/WhatsApp)

USA: Laura J. Newman, Laura.Newman@ucsf.edu     UK:  Alanna Orpen, Alanna.Orpen@f1000.com

Similar stories

RECOVERY trial closes recruitment to convalescent plasma treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19

@Oxford Research

Convalescent plasma has been widely used as a treatment for COVID-19 but to date there has been no convincing evidence of the effect of convalescent plasma on clinical outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Recruitment to the convalescent plasma arm of the RECOVERY trial has now closed. The preliminary analysis based on 1873 reported deaths among 10,406 randomised patients shows no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality. Recruitment to all other treatment arms – tocilizumab, aspirin, colchicine, and Regeneron’s antibody cocktail – continues as planned.

Check-list recommended to improve reporting of microscopy methods and results in malaria studies

@Oxford MORU Publication Research

A study to explore the variations of how microscopy methods are reported in published malaria studies has recommended standardised procedures should be implemented for methodological consistency and comparability of clinical trial outcomes.

Receiving and responding to community feedback during health system crises in Kenya

KWTRP Publication Research

The responsiveness of a health system is one of its goals, alongside fairness in financing and outcomes. Listening and responding to the public can make a health system stronger and fairer. However, responsiveness is likely to be undermined, especially for vulnerable and marginal populations, in periods of crises such as disease outbreaks. In the current COVID-19 crisis, there has been more focus on health system control interventions, with minimal consideration of community views. KWTRP colleagues in Kenya consider community engagement and citizens feedback channels, concerns raised by the public and how they were handled, and highlight lessons learned.

RECOVERY trial finds no benefit from azithromycin in patients hospitalised with COVID-19

@Oxford Research

Established in March 2020, the RECOVERY trial tests a range of potential treatments for COVID-19, including azithromycin, a widely used antibiotic that also reduces inflammation. The azithromycin arm of the trial was established to determine whether or not the drug has a meaningful benefit among patients hospitalised with COVID-19. A preliminary analysis shows no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality; there was also no evidence of beneficial effects on the risk of progression to mechanical ventilation or length of hospital stay.

The COVID-19 vaccine: do we know enough to end the pandemic?

@Oxford MORU

Blog by Rima Shretta. Preliminary efficacy results from three vaccine candidates currently in Phase 3 trials have shown an efficacy of more than 90% against the development of symptomatic COVID-19. While these results are promising, all vaccines are in relatively early stages of testing. A comprehensive and transparent roadmap is urgently needed, to determine how limited doses of the first vaccines to be licensed will be distributed, together with which groups will initially be prioritized.

Restoring confidence in science – tinkering in the margin is not enough

@Oxford Publication

Blog by Piero Olliaro, Josephine Bourner and Lakshmi Manoharan. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the limits of the current peer-review model, which is collapsing under the number of articles and volume of information, unable to cope with the conflicting needs for speed and quality of information. The peer review process is often slow, opaque, unaccountable and biased; it is now time to focus on tangible improvements, making transparency our top priority. We need a system reset, not tinkering in the margin.