IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0014395.html

The cost-effectiveness of Wolbachia-based biocontrol interventions for dengue: A scoping review of the available evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Hugo C Turner
  • Trinh Manh Hung
  • Oliver J Brady
  • Raman Velayudhan
  • Ilaria Dorigatti
  • Hannah E Clapham

Abstract

Background: Dengue incidence has increased sharply worldwide, placing nearly half of the global population at risk. In response, various innovative technologies and interventions, including biocontrol strategies that deploy Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes, are being explored. These can be used to either replace the existing mosquito population with one that is less likely to transmit infection or to suppress the existing mosquito population. We conducted a scoping review of economic evaluations of Wolbachia-based interventions for dengue control, aimed at summarising assumptions and results of existing studies. Methodology/Principal Findings: A scoping review of the published literature was conducted on the 29th of April 2024 using the MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase Classic+Embase (via OVID), Global Health - OVID, PubMed, and Econ Lit electronic databases. No date or language restrictions were applied to the searches. We identified nine studies that reported the results of economic evaluations of Wolbachia-based interventions for dengue control. The majority (eight out of nine studies) investigated Wolbachia replacement-based programmes. Overall, the results were supportive for the use of replacement-based programmes in large urban settings, with the intervention likely to generate cost savings from a societal perspective. Conclusions/Significance.: The available economic evaluations consistently suggest that Wolbachia-based replacement interventions can be cost-effective for dengue control when targeted to densely populated urban areas, and several studies indicate that they can generate substantial long‑term cost savings from a societal perspective. Further research is needed to understand how heterogeneity in epidemiological effectiveness influences long-term projected cost‑effectiveness and to investigate the combination of Wolbachia-based interventions with other dengue control/prevention measures (such as vaccination). To support more robust and comparable analyses, we provide recommendations for future studies in this area, emphasising the importance of reporting results disaggregated by cost and outcome components, and making important underlying assumptions related to the intervention more explicit. Author summary: Dengue poses a growing global health threat, with nearly half the world’s population at risk. Among emerging control strategies, Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes offer a promising biocontrol approach—either by replacing local mosquito populations with less infectious ones or by suppressing mosquito numbers. We conducted the first scoping review of economic evaluations of Wolbachia-based interventions for dengue control, identifying nine studies published up to 29th of April 2024. Most focused on replacement strategies, particularly in large urban settings, and found these interventions to be cost-effective from a societal perspective. Our review highlights that the available economic evaluations consistently suggest that Wolbachia‑based replacement programmes are highly cost‑effective in high‑burden areas, where the intervention has the potential to generate substantial long‑term cost savings from a societal perspective in many settings. We also identify key drivers of variation across studies and provide recommendations to guide future economic evaluations in this field, emphasising the importance of reporting results in a disaggregated manner and making all underlying assumptions explicit.

Suggested Citation

  • Hugo C Turner & Trinh Manh Hung & Oliver J Brady & Raman Velayudhan & Ilaria Dorigatti & Hannah E Clapham, 2026. "The cost-effectiveness of Wolbachia-based biocontrol interventions for dengue: A scoping review of the available evidence," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(6), pages 1-25, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0014395
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0014395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0014395
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0014395&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0014395?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clive Pritchard;Martin Sculpher, 2000. "Productivity Costs: Principles and Practice in Economic Evaluation," Monograph 000464, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Jessica Ochalek & James Lomas & Karl Claxton, 2015. "Cost per DALY averted thresholds for low- and middle-income countries: evidence from cross country data," Working Papers 122cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    3. Mavalankar, Dileep & Puwar, Tapasvi & Tiina M Murtola & S S Vasan, 2009. "Quantifying the Impact of Chikungunya and Dengue on Tourism Revenues," IIMA Working Papers WP2009-02-03, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    5. Olsen, Jan Abel & Richardson, Jeff, 1999. "Production gains from health care: what should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 17-26, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Claxton, Karl & Asaria, Miqdad & Chansa, Collins & Jamison, Julian & Lomas, James & Ochalek, Jessica & Paulden, Mike, 2019. "Accounting for timing when assessing health-related policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100038, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Ina Rissanen & Leena Ala-Mursula & Iiro Nerg & Marko Korhonen, 2021. "Adjusted productivity costs of stroke by human capital and friction cost methods: a Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 531-545, June.
    3. Jessica Ochalek & Karl Claxton & Paul Revill & Mark Sculpher & Alexandra Rollinger, 2016. "Supporting the development of an essential health package: principles and initial assessment for Malawi," Working Papers 136cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    4. Cheryl Jones & Suzanne M. M. Verstappen & Katherine Payne, 2019. "A Systematic Review of Productivity in Economic Evaluations of Workplace Interventions: A Need for Reporting Criteria?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 591-613, October.
    5. Carmen Herrero & Juan D. Moreno‐Ternero, 2009. "Estimating production costs in the economic evaluation of health‐care programs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 21-35, January.
    6. Peter J. Neumann & David D. Kim & Thomas A. Trikalinos & Mark J. Sculpher & Joshua A. Salomon & Lisa A. Prosser & Douglas K. Owens & David O. Meltzer & Karen M. Kuntz & Murray Krahn & David Feeny & An, 2018. "Future Directions for Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Health and Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 767-777, October.
    7. Tom L. Drake & Yoel Lubell, 2017. "Malaria and Economic Evaluation Methods: Challenges and Opportunities," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 291-297, June.
    8. Niek Stadhouders & Xander Koolman & Christel van Dijk & Patrick Jeurissen & Eddy Adang, 2019. "The marginal benefits of healthcare spending in the Netherlands: Estimating cost‐effectiveness thresholds using a translog production function," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(11), pages 1331-1344, November.
    9. Hugo C Turner & Duong Le Quyen & Reynold Dias & Phan Thi Huong & Cameron P Simmons & Katherine L Anders, 2023. "An economic evaluation of Wolbachia deployments for dengue control in Vietnam," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-16, May.
    10. Krol, Marieke & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Severens, Johan L. & Kaper, Janneke & Evers, Silvia M.A.A., 2012. "Productivity cost calculations in health economic evaluations: Correcting for compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1981-1988.
    11. Hugo C. Turner & Juan Carlos Rivillas-Garcia & Shankar Prinja & Trinh Manh Hung & Saudamini Vishwanath Dabak & Brian A. Asare & Mark Jit & Yot Teerawattananon, 2025. "An Introduction to Costing and the Types of Costs Used within Health Economic Studies," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 849-868, November.
    12. Marco Hafner & Erez Yerushalmi & Fredrik L. Andersson & Teodor Burtea, 2023. "Partially different? The importance of general equilibrium in health economic evaluations: An application to nocturia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 654-674, March.
    13. Gravelle, Hugh & Schroyen, Fred, 2020. "Optimal hospital payment rules under rationing by waiting," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    14. Claxton, Karl & Asaria, Miqdad & Chansa, Collins & Jamison, Julian & Lomas, James & Ochalek, Jessica & Paulden, Mike, 2019. "Accounting for Timing when Assessing Health-Related Policies," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(S1), pages 73-105, April.
    15. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    16. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    17. Yesim Tozan & Joshua Kiyingi & Sooyoung Kim & Flavia Namuwonge & Florence Namuli & Vicent Ssentumbwe & Rashida Namirembe & Edwinnah Kasidi & Ozge Sensoy Bahar & Mary M Mckay & Fred M Ssewamala, 2024. "Micro-costing analysis of a combination intervention for improved mental health and HIV risk behaviors among school-going adolescent girls in Uganda," PLOS Mental Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(7), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & G. Ardine de Wit & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2007. "Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a ‘perfect’ cost–utility ratio," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 421-433, April.
    19. Dong-Won Kang & Patricio B. Lynn & Li Wang & Shouhao Zhou & Chan Shen, 2025. "Cost-Effectiveness of Fruquintinib for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the USA," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 93-101, January.
    20. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2023. "EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(11), pages 1515-1524, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0014395. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.