Contrasting the impact and cost-effectiveness of successive intervention strategies in response to Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2018–2020

Bibliographic Data

ID21880848
AuthorsThibaut Jombart (0000-0003-2226-8692, London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research), Wu Zeng (0000-0002-3473-3638, Georgetown University), Michel Yao (World Health Organization), Anne Cori (0000-0002-8443-9162, Imperial College London), Steve Ahuka-Mundeke (Institut National de Recherche Biomédicale, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo), Steve Ahuka‐Mundeke (0009-0009-5210-864X, National Institute of Biomedical Research), Hadia Nazem Samaha (World Bank Group), Hadia Samaha (Health, Nutrition and Population, World Bank Group, Washington, District of Columbia, USA), Thomas Wilkinson (World Bank Group), Mathias Mossoko (Ministry of Public Health), Jean-Pierre Lokonga (Ministry of Public Health), Dominique Baabo (UNICEF, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo), Fatima El Kadiri El Yamini (World Bank Group), Patrick Hoang-Vu Eozenou (Health, Nutrition and Population, World Bank Group, Washington, District of Columbia, USA), Patrick Eozenou (0000-0001-7460-0760, World Bank Group), Sylvain Yuma (Ministry of Public Health), Linda Mobula (Health, Nutrition and Population, World Bank Group, Washington, District of Columbia, USA), Linda Meta Mobula (0000-0003-4319-2308, World Bank Group)
Year2025
Volume10
Issue4
Pagese015822
Publication date2025-04-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBMJ Global Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2059-7908 • E-ISSN: 2059-7908
PublisherBMJ (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015822
PMID40234051
OpenAlexW4409472186
LanguageEN
References cited15

INTRODUCTION: The 10th outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 2018-2020 was the largest in DRC's history and the second largest worldwide. Different strategic response plans (SRPs) were implemented, and the outbreak was eventually stopped after a large scale-up of operations with the SRP 4, which benefited from all public health measures deployed during SRPs 1-3, upon which it developed a more holistic approach including community engagement, logistics and security. METHODS: We used modelling to characterise EVD transmission and assess the epidemiological impact of the two main response strategies (SRPs 1-3 vs SRP 4). We simulated potential future epidemics with different intervention scenarios, combined with a costing model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of different strategies. RESULTS: of 1.19 (credible interval (95% CrI) = (1.13 ; 1.25)). The spatial spread was moderate with an average 4.4% (95% CrI = (3.5%; 5.4%)) of transmissions moving to different health zones. The scale-up of operations in SRP 4 coincided with a threefold reduction in transmission, and 30% faster control of EVD waves. In simulations, SRP 4 appears cost-saving, although most simulated outbreaks remain small even with SRPs 1-3. CONCLUSION: Most EVD outbreaks are expected to be small and can be contained with SRPs 1-3. In outbreaks with increased transmissibility or in the presence of insecurity, rapid scale-up to SRP 4 is likely to save lives and be cost-effective

Activity-based costing · Business · Cartography · Democracy · Ebola virus · Environmental health · Geography · Outbreak · Political science · Public health · Telecommunications · Computer Science · COVID-19 epidemiological studies · Disaster Response and Management · Medicine · Nursing · Viral Infections and Outbreaks Research · Virology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access