Figure 1.Global distribution of P. falciparum and P. vivax malaria burden in 2000 (in the absence of insecticide-treated nets) obtained from the Malaria Atlas Project (Weiss et al., 2019, Battle et al., 2019). A) The annual number of clinical cases and B) the population at risk of malaria across settings with different transmission intensities and endemic for P. falciparum, P. vivax or co-endemic for both species. The number of countries in each setting is indicated below the figure.Figure 2.Modelled impact of insecticide-treated net (ITN) usage on malaria epidemiology by the setting-specific transmission intensity, represented by the baseline entomological inoculation rate. The impact on the clinical incidence and prevalence of P. falciparum malaria (panels A and B) and on the clinical incidence and prevalence of P. vivax malaria (panels C and D) is shown. Panels A and C represent the clinical incidence for all ages.Figure 3.Global clinical cases and population at risk of malaria under different allocation strategies at varying budgets. The impact on total malaria cases (panel A), total population at risk (panel B), individual P. falciparum and P. vivax cases (panel C) and population at risk of either species (panel D) are shown. Budget levels range from 0, representing no usage of insecticide-treated nets, to the budget required to achieve the maximum possible impact. Optimizing for case reduction generally leads to declining populations at risk as the budget increases, but this is not guaranteed due to the possibility of redistribution of funding between settings to minimize cases. The strategy optimizing case reduction and pre-elimination shown here places the same weighting (1:1) on reaching pre-elimination in a setting as on averting total cases, but conclusions were the same for weights of 0.5-100 on pre-elimination.Table 1.Relative reduction in malaria cases and population at risk under different allocation strategies.Reductions are shown relative to the baseline of 321 million clinical cases and 4.1 billion persons at risk in the absence of interventions. Low, intermediate and high budget levels represent 25%, 50% and 75% of the maximum budget, respectively. The strategy optimizing case reduction and pre-elimination shown here places the same weighting (1:1) on reaching pre-elimination in a setting as on averting total cases.Figure 4.Optimal strategy for funding allocation across settings to minimize malaria case burden at varying budgets. Panels show optimized allocation patterns across settings of different transmission intensity (panels A and B) and different endemic parasite species (panels C and D). The proportion of the total budget allocated to each setting (panels A and C) and the resulting mean population usage of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) (panels B and D) are shown.Table 2.Overview of modelled scenarios for allocation of funding to different transmission settings.Strategies 1A-1E compare resource allocation scenarios using clinical incidence values from each transmission setting at equilibrium after ITN coverage has been introduced. Strategies 2A-2B are compared as part of the allocation over time sub-analysis. EIR: entomological inoculation rate.