Table 1.
Baseline model parameters, with distributions and sources.
Table 2.
Additional intervention model parameters, with distributions and sources.
Table 3.
Country-specific unit cost estimates (best and 95% uncertainty interval), 2013 US$.
Fig 1.
Weekly number of dengue cases with no vector control or immunization (case management only), our base model compared to published estimates of apparent cases, best estimates and 95% UIs.
The black line and grey bands represent the best estimates and uncertainty intervals for the number of dengue cases as projected by our base model; the dotted black line represents the number of dengue cases in a single, randomly selected iteration of the model; the blue bands represent uncertainty intervals for apparent cases, as published by Bhatt et al. (2013)
Fig 2.
Weekly number of dengue cases with medium or high efficacy sustained vector control technologies but no immunization, best estimates.
Fig 3.
Weekly number of dengue cases with high efficacy sustained vector control and/or a highly targeted immunization strategy, best estimates.
Table 4.
Average annual DALYs (in thousands) implied by the model (best and 95% uncertainty interval).
Table 5.
Average annual cost and affordability, 2013 US$ millions.
Table 6.
Best estimates of costs, DALYs, Average Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ACER) and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), high efficacy vector control over 15 years.
Table 7.
Best estimates of costs, DALYs, Average Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ACER) and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), medium efficacy vector control over 15 years.
Fig 4.
Probability of being most cost-effective at any given threshold, considering high-efficacy sustained vector control and a highly targeted, low-cost immunization strategy.
The solid lines are cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) representing the probability that an intervention is cost-effective at a given threshold; the (vertical) dashed line indicates the probability that an intervention is cost-effective at a threshold equal to GDP per capita; the dotted line represents the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF) which represents the probability that the most cost-effective option is cost-effective at a given threshold.
Fig 5.
Probability of being most cost-effective at any given threshold, considering medium-efficacy sustained vector control and a highly targeted, low-cost immunization strategy.
The solid lines are cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) representing the probability that an intervention is cost-effective at a given threshold; the (vertical) dashed line indicates the probability that an intervention is cost-effective at a threshold equal to GDP per capita; the dotted line represents the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF) which represents the probability that the most cost-effective option is cost-effective at a given threshold.