The Costs of Drugs in Infectious Diseases: Branded, Generics, and Why We Should Care.

While health care providers have largely turned a blind eye, the cost of health care in the US has been skyrocketing, in part as a result of rising drug prices. Patent protections and market exclusivity, while serving to incentivize targeted new drug development, have exacerbated inequitable outcomes and reduced access, sometimes fueling national epidemics. Branded drug manufacturers face few barriers to exorbitant pricing of drugs with exclusivity-as in the cases of Sovaldi, Zyvox, and Truvada. Furthermore, albendazole, pyrimethamine, and penicillin demonstrate that generic medications without patent exclusivity are not guaranteed to have durably low costs, especially where manufacturer competition is lacking. There is a way forward: through education and awareness, cost-conscious guideline development, government regulation, and market-level incentives, health care providers can collaborate to contain drug prices, curbing expenditures overall while expanding health care access to patients.

Higher Drug Prices from Anticompetitive Conduct: Three Case Studies.

U.S. consumers pay high drug prices. Brand-name drug companies claim that these prices are justified by pathbreaking research and development. But, sometimes the prices result from anticompetitive conduct. This article offers three case studies of how such behavior can increase price based on wakefulness drug Provigil, the allergic-reaction-treating EpiPen, and infection-treating Daraprim. The article contends that behavior that makes no sense other than by harming a competitor, that undercuts a regulatory regime, or that involves collusive conduct should not be protected. In targeting this behavior, antitrust scrutiny promises to lower drug prices.

Cost-effectiveness of malaria preventive treatment for HIV-infected pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Malaria is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among HIV-infected pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa: at least 1 million pregnancies among HIV-infected women are complicated by co-infection with malaria annually, leading to increased risk of premature delivery, severe anaemia, delivery of low birth weight infants, and maternal death. Current guidelines recommend either daily cotrimoxazole (CTX) or intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) for HIV-infected pregnant women to prevent malaria and its complications. The cost-effectiveness of CTX compared to IPTp-SP among HIV-infected pregnant women was assessed. METHODS: A microsimulation model of malaria and HIV among pregnant women in five malaria-endemic countries in sub-Saharan Africa was constructed. Four strategies were compared: (1) 2-dose IPTp-SP at current IPTp-SP coverage of the country ("2-IPT Low"); (2) 3-dose IPTp-SP at current coverage ("3-IPT Low"); (3) 3-dose IPTp-SP at the same coverage as antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the country ("3-IPT High"); and (4) daily CTX at ART coverage. Outcomes measured include maternal malaria, anaemia, low birth weight (LBW), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Sensitivity analyses assessed the effect of adherence to CTX. RESULTS: Compared with the 2-IPT Low Strategy, women receiving CTX had 22.5% fewer LBW infants (95% CI 22.3-22.7), 13.5% fewer anaemia cases (95% CI 13.4-13.5), and 13.6% fewer maternal malaria cases (95% CI 13.6-13.7). In all simulated countries, CTX was the preferred strategy, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from cost-saving to $3.9 per DALY averted from a societal perspective. CTX was less effective than the 3-IPT High Strategy when more than 18% of women stopped taking CTX during the pregnancy. CONCLUSION: In malarious regions of sub-Saharan Africa, daily CTX for HIV-infected pregnant women regardless of CD4 cell count is cost-effective compared with 3-dose IPTp-SP as long as more than 82% of women adhere to daily dosing.

Large-scale delivery of seasonal malaria chemoprevention to children under 10 in Senegal: an economic analysis.

Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention (SMC) is recommended for children under 5 in the Sahel and sub-Sahel. The burden in older children may justify extending the age range, as has been done effectively in Senegal. We examine costs of door-to-door SMC delivery to children up to 10 years by community health workers (CHWs). We analysed incremental financial and economic costs at district level and below from a health service perspective. We examined project accounts and prospectively collected data from 405 CHWs, 46 health posts, and 4 district headquarters by introducing questionnaires in advance and completing them after each monthly implementation round. Affordability was explored by comparing financial costs of SMC to relevant existing health expenditure levels. Costs were disaggregated by administration month and by health service level. We used linear regression models to identify factors associated with cost variation between health posts. The financial cost to administer SMC to 180 000 children over one malaria season, reaching ∼93% of children with all three intended courses of SMC was $234 549 (constant 2010 USD) or $0.50 per monthly course administered. Excluding research-participation incentives, the financial cost was $0.32 per resident (all ages) in the catchment area, which is 1.2% of Senegal's general government expenditure on health per capita. Economic costs were 18.7% higher than financial costs at $278 922 or $0.59 per course administered and varied widely between health posts, from $0.38 to $2.74 per course administered. Substantial economies of scale across health posts were found, with the smallest health posts incurring highest average costs per monthly course administered. SMC for children up to 10 is likely to be affordable, particularly where it averts substantial curative care costs. Estimates of likely costs and cost-effectiveness of SMC in other contexts must account for variation in average costs across delivery months and health posts.

Scaling-up the use of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for the preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy: results and lessons on scalability, costs and programme impact from three local government areas in Sokoto State, Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy with 3+ doses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) reduces maternal mortality and stillbirths in malaria endemic areas. Between December 2014 and December 2015, a project to scale up IPTp-SP to all pregnant women was implemented in three local government areas (LGA) of Sokoto State, Nigeria. The intervention included community education and mobilization, household distribution of SP, and community health information systems that reminded mothers of upcoming SP doses. Health facility IPTp-SP distribution continued in three intervention (population 661,606) and one counterfactual (population 167,971) LGAs. During the project lifespan, 31,493 pregnant women were eligible for at least one dose of IPTp-SP. METHODS: Community and facility data on IPTp-SP distribution were collected in all four LGAs. Data from a subset of 9427 pregnant women, who were followed through 42 days postpartum, were analysed to assess associations between SP dosages and newborn status. Nominal cost and expense data in 2015 Nigerian Naira were obtained from expenditure records on the distribution of SP. RESULTS: Eighty-two percent (n = 25,841) of eligible women received one or more doses of IPTp-SP. The SP1 coverage was 95% in the intervention LGAs; 26% in the counterfactual. Measurable SP3+ coverage was 45% in the intervention and 0% in the counterfactual LGAs. The mean number of SP doses in the intervention LGAs was 2.1; 0.4 in the counterfactual. Increased doses of IPTp-SP were associated with linear increases in newborn head circumference and lower odds of stillbirth. Any antenatal care utilization predicted larger newborn head circumference and lower odds of stillbirth. The cost of delivering three doses of SP, inclusive of the cost of medicines, was US$0.93-$1.20. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible, safe, and affordable to scale up the delivery of high impact IPTp-SP interventions in low resource malaria endemic settings, where few women access facility-based maternal health services. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02758353. Registered 29 April 2016, retrospectively registered.

Economic evaluation of an alternative drug to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine as intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is recommended in HIV-negative women to avert malaria, while this relies on cotrimoxazole prophylaxis (CTXp) in HIV-positive women. Alternative antimalarials are required in areas where parasite resistance to antifolate drugs is high. The cost-effectiveness of IPTp with alternative drugs is needed to inform policy. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of 2-dose IPTp-mefloquine (MQ) was compared with IPTp-SP in HIV-negative women (Benin, Gabon, Mozambique and Tanzania). In HIV-positive women the cost-effectiveness of 3-dose IPTp-MQ added to CTXp was compared with CTXp alone (Kenya, Mozambique and Tanzania). The outcomes used were maternal clinical malaria, anaemia at delivery and non-obstetric hospital admissions. The poor tolerability to MQ was included as the value of women's loss of working days. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and threshold analysis undertaken. RESULTS: For HIV-negative women, the ICER for IPTp-MQ versus IPTp-SP was 136.30 US$ (2012 US$) (95%CI 131.41; 141.18) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, or 237.78 US$ (95%CI 230.99; 244.57), depending on whether estimates from Gabon were included or not. For HIV-positive women, the ICER per DALY averted for IPTp-MQ added to CTXp, versus CTXp alone was 6.96 US$ (95%CI 4.22; 9.70). In HIV-negative women, moderate shifts of variables such as malaria incidence, drug cost, and IPTp efficacy increased the ICERs above the cost-effectiveness threshold. In HIV-positive women the intervention remained cost-effective for a substantial (up to 21 times) increase in cost per tablet. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of IPTp with an effective antimalarial to CTXp was very cost-effective in HIV-positive women. IPTp with an efficacious antimalarial was more cost-effective than IPTp-SP in HIV-negative women. However, the poor tolerability of MQ does not favour its use as IPTp. Regardless of HIV status, prevention of malaria in pregnancy with a highly efficacious, well tolerated antimalarial would be cost-effective despite its high price. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 00811421; Pan African Trials Registry PACTR2010020001429343 and PACTR2010020001813440.

Cost-effectiveness of two versus three or more doses of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria during pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa: a modelling study of meta-analysis and cost data.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, WHO changed its recommendation for intermittent preventive treatment of malaria during pregnancy (IPTp) from two doses to monthly doses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine during the second and third trimesters, but noted the importance of a cost-effectiveness analysis to lend support to the decision of policy makers. We therefore estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of IPTp with three or more (IPTp-SP3+) versus two doses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP2). METHODS: For this analysis, we used data from a 2013 meta-analysis of seven studies in sub-Saharan Africa. We developed a decision tree model with a lifetime horizon. We analysed the base case from a societal perspective. We did deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses with appropriate parameter ranges and distributions for settings with low, moderate, and high background risk of low birthweight, and did a separate analysis for HIV-negative women. Parameters in the model were obtained for all countries included in the original meta-analysis. We did simulations in hypothetical cohorts of 1000 pregnant women receiving either IPTp-SP3+ or IPTp-SP2. We calculated disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for low birthweight, severe to moderate anaemia, and clinical malaria. We calculated cost estimates from data obtained in observational studies, exit surveys, and from public procurement databases. We give financial and economic costs in constant 2012 US$. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost per DALY averted. FINDINGS: The delivery of IPTp-SP3+ to 1000 pregnant women averted 113·4 DALYs at an incremental cost of $825·67 producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $7·28 per DALY averted. The results remained robust in the deterministic sensitivity analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was $7·7 per DALY averted for moderate risk of low birthweight, $19·4 per DALY averted for low risk, and $4·0 per DALY averted for high risk. The ICER for HIV-negative women was $6·2 per DALY averted. INTERPRETATION: Our findings lend strong support to the WHO guidelines that recommend a monthly dose of IPTp-SP from the second trimester onwards. FUNDING: Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The association between price, competition, and demand factors on private sector anti-malarial stocking and sales in western Kenya: considerations for the AMFm subsidy.

BACKGROUND: Households in sub-Saharan Africa are highly reliant on the retail sector for obtaining treatment for malaria fevers and other illnesses. As donors and governments seek to promote the use of artemisinin combination therapy in malaria-endemic areas through subsidized anti-malarials offered in the retail sector, understanding the stocking and pricing decisions of retail outlets is vital. METHODS: A survey of all medicine retailers serving Bungoma East District in western Kenya was conducted three months after the launch of the AMFm subsidy in Kenya. The survey obtained information on each anti-malarial in stock: brand name, price, sales volume, outlet characteristics and GPS co-ordinates. These data were matched to household-level data from the Webuye Health and Demographic Surveillance System, from which population density and fever prevalence near each shop were determined. Regression analysis was used to identify the factors associated with retailers' likelihood of stocking subsidized artemether lumefantrine (AL) and the association between price and sales for AL, quinine and sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP). RESULTS: Ninety-seven retail outlets in the study area were surveyed; 11% of outlets stocked subsidized AL. Size of the outlet and having a pharmacist on staff were associated with greater likelihood of stocking subsidized AL. In the multivariable model, total volume of anti-malarial sales was associated with greater likelihood of stocking subsidized AL and competition was important; likelihood of stocking subsidized AL was considerably higher if the nearest neighbour stocked subsidized AL. Price was a significant predictor of sales volume for all three types of anti-malarials but the relationship varied, with the largest price sensitivity found for SP drugs. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that helping small outlets overcome the constraints to stocking subsidized AL should be a priority. Competition between retailers and prices can play an important role in greater adoption of AL.

Drug dispensing practices during implementation of artemisinin-based combination therapy at health facilities in rural Tanzania, 2002-2005.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree to which policy changes to artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) as first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria translate into effective ACT delivery. METHODS: Prospective observational study of drug dispensing practices at baseline and during the 3 years following introduction of ACT with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) plus artesunate (AS) in Rufiji District, compared with two neighbouring districts where SP monotherapy remained the first-line treatment, was carried out. Demographic and dispensing data were collected from all patients at the dispensing units of selected facilities for 1 month per quarter, documenting a total of 271, 953 patient encounters in the three districts. RESULTS: In Rufiji, the proportion of patients who received a clinical diagnosis of malaria increased from 47.6% to 57.0%. A majority (75.9%) of these received SP + AS during the intervention period. Of patients who received SP + AS, 94.6% received the correct dose of both. Among patients in Rufiji who received SP, 14.2% received SP monotherapy, and among patients who received AS, 0.3% received AS monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of SP + AS in Rufiji was rapid and sustained. Although some SP monotherapy occurred, AS monotherapy was rare, and most received the correct dose of both drugs. These results suggest that implementation of an artemisinin combination therapy, accompanied by training, job aids and assistance in stock management, can rapidly increase access to effective antimalarial treatment.

Cost effectiveness of seasonal intermittent preventive treatment using amodiaquine & artesunate or sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine in Ghanaian children.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in children (IPTc) involves the administration of a full course of an anti-malarial treatment to children under 5 years old at specified time points regardless of whether or not they are known to be infected, in areas where malaria transmission is seasonal. It is important to determine the costs associated with IPTc delivery via community based volunteers and also the potential savings to health care providers and caretakers due to malaria episodes averted as a consequence of IPTc. METHODS: Two thousand four hundred and fifty-one children aged 3-59 months were randomly allocated to four groups to receive: three days of artesunate plus amodiaquine (AS+AQ) monthly, three days of AS+AQ bimonthly, one dose of sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) bi-monthly or placebo. This paper focuses on incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the three IPTc drug regimens as delivered by community based volunteers (CBV) in Hohoe, Ghana compared to current practice, i.e. case management in the absence of IPTc. Financial and economic costs from the publicly funded health system perspective are presented. Treatment costs borne by patients and their caretakers are also estimated to present societal costs. The costs and effects of IPTc during the intervention period were considered with and without a one year follow up. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for uncertainty. RESULTS: Economic costs per child receiving at least the first dose of each course of IPTc show SP bimonthly, at US$8.19, is the cheapest to deliver, followed by AS+AQ bimonthly at US$10.67 and then by AS+AQ monthly at US$14.79. Training, drug delivery and supervision accounted for approximately 20-30% each of total unit costs. During the intervention period AS & AQ monthly was the most cost effective IPTc drug regimen at US$67.77 (61.71-74.75, CI 95%) per malaria case averted based on intervention costs only, US$64.93 (58.92-71.92, CI 95%) per malaria case averted once the provider cost savings are included and US$61.00 (54.98, 67.99, CI 95%) when direct household cost savings are also taken into account. SP bimonthly was US$105.35 (75.01-157.31, CI 95%) and AS & AQ bimonthly US$211.80 (127.05-399.14, CI 95%) per malaria case averted based on intervention costs only. The incidence of malaria in the post intervention period was higher in children who were <1 year old when they received AS+AQ monthly compared to the placebo group leading to higher cost effectiveness ratios when one year follow up is included. The cost per child enrolled fell considerably when modelled to district level as compared to those encountered under trial conditions. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate how cost-effective IPTc is using three different drug regimens and the possibilities for reducing costs further if the intervention was to be scaled up to the district level. The need for effective training, drug delivery channels and supervision to support a strong network of community based volunteers is emphasised.

The cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in infants in Sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi) has been shown to decrease clinical malaria by approximately 30% in the first year of life and is a promising malaria control strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa which can be delivered alongside the Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI). To date, there have been limited data on the cost-effectiveness of this strategy using sulfadoxine pyrimethamine (SP) and no published data on cost-effectiveness using other antimalarials. METHODS: We analysed data from 5 countries in sub-Saharan Africa using a total of 5 different IPTi drug regimens; SP, mefloquine (MQ), 3 days of chlorproguanil-dapsone (CD), SP plus 3 days of artesunate (SP-AS3) and 3 days of amodiaquine-artesunate (AQ3-AS3).The cost per malaria episode averted and cost per Disability-Adjusted Life-Year (DALY) averted were modeled using both trial specific protective efficacy (PE) for all IPTi drugs and a pooled PE for IPTi with SP, malaria incidence, an estimated malaria case fatality rate of 1.57%, IPTi delivery costs and country specific provider and household malaria treatment costs. FINDINGS: In sites where IPTi had a significant effect on reducing malaria, the cost per episode averted for IPTi-SP was very low, USD 1.36-4.03 based on trial specific data and USD 0.68-2.27 based on the pooled analysis. For IPTi using alternative antimalarials, the lowest cost per case averted was for AQ3-AS3 in western Kenya (USD 4.62) and the highest was for MQ in Korowge, Tanzania (USD 18.56). Where efficacious, based only on intervention costs, IPTi was shown to be cost effective in all the sites and highly cost-effective in all but one of the sites, ranging from USD 2.90 (Ifakara, Tanzania with SP) to USD 39.63 (Korogwe, Tanzania with MQ) per DALY averted. In addition, IPTi reduced health system costs and showed significant savings to households from malaria cases averted. A threshold analysis showed that there is room for the IPTi-efficacy to fall and still remain highly cost effective in all sites where IPTi had a statistically significant effect on clinical malaria. CONCLUSIONS: IPTi delivered alongside the EPI is a highly cost effective intervention against clinical malaria with a range of drugs in a range of malaria transmission settings. Where IPTi did not have a statistically significant impact on malaria, generally in low transmission sites, it was not cost effective.

Piloting the global subsidy: the impact of subsidized artemisinin-based combination therapies distributed through private drug shops in rural Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: WHO estimates that only 3% of fever patients use recommended artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs), partly reflecting their high prices in the retail sector from where many patients seek treatment. To overcome this challenge, a global ACT subsidy has been proposed. We tested this proposal through a pilot program in rural Tanzania. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Three districts were assigned to serve either as a control or to receive the subsidy plus a package of supporting interventions. From October 2007, ACTs were sold at a 90% subsidy through the normal private supply chain to intervention district drug shops. Data were collected at baseline and during intervention using interviews with drug shop customers, retail audits, mystery shoppers, and audits of public and NGO facilities. The proportion of consumers in the intervention districts purchasing ACTs rose from 1% at baseline to 44.2% one year later (p<0.001), and was significantly higher among consumers purchasing for children under 5 than for adults (p = 0.005). No change in ACT usage was observed in the control district. Consumers paid a mean price of $0.58 for ACTs, which did not differ significantly from the price paid for sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine, the most common alternative. Drug shops in population centers were significantly more likely to stock ACTs than those in more remote areas (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A subsidy introduced at the top of the private sector supply chain can significantly increase usage of ACTs and reduce their retail price to the level of common monotherapies. Additional interventions may be needed to ensure access to ACTs in remote areas and for poorer individuals who appear to seek treatment at drug shops less frequently. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN39125414.

Cost-effectiveness of malaria intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi) in Mozambique and the United Republic of Tanzania.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of malaria intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi) using sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP). METHODS: In two previous IPTi trials in Ifakara (United Republic of Tanzania) and Manhiça (Mozambique), SP was administered three times to infants before 9 months of age through the Expanded Programme on Immunization. Based on the efficacy results of the intervention and on malaria incidence in the target population, an estimate was made of the number of clinical malaria episodes prevented. This number and an assumed case-fatality rate of 1.57% were used, in turn, to estimate the number of disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted and the number of deaths averted. The cost of the intervention, including start-up and recurrent costs, was then assessed on the basis of these figures. FINDINGS: The cost per clinical episode of malaria averted was US$ 1.57 (range: US$ 0.8-4.0) in Ifakara and US$ 4.73 (range: US$ 1.7-30.3) in Manhiça; the cost per DALY averted was US$ 3.7 (range: US$ 1.6-12.2) in Ifakara and US$ 11.2 (range: US$ 3.6-92.0) in Manhiça; and the cost per death averted was US$ 100.2 (range: US$ 43.0-330.9) in Ifakara and US$ 301.1 (range: US$ 95.6-2498.4) in Manhiça. CONCLUSION: From the health system and societal perspectives, IPTi with SP is expected to produce health improvements in a cost-effective way. From an economic perspective, it offers good value for money for public health programmes.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of delivering intermittent preventive treatment through schools in western Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of the potential impact of malaria among school-age children has stimulated investigation into malaria interventions that can be delivered through schools. However, little evidence is available on the costs and cost-effectiveness of intervention options. This paper evaluates the costs and cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) as delivered by teachers in schools in western Kenya. METHODS: Information on actual drug and non-drug associated costs were collected from expenditure and salary records, government budgets and interviews with key district and national officials. Effectiveness data were derived from a cluster-randomised-controlled trial of IPT where a single dose of sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine and three daily doses of amodiaquine were provided three times in year (once termly). Both financial and economic costs were estimated from a provider perspective, and effectiveness was estimated in terms of anaemia cases averted. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the impact of key assumptions on estimated cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The delivery of IPT by teachers was estimated to cost US$ 1.88 per child treated per year, with drug and teacher training costs constituting the largest cost components. Set-up costs accounted for 13.2% of overall costs (equivalent to US$ 0.25 per child) whilst recurrent costs accounted for 86.8% (US$ 1.63 per child per year). The estimated cost per anaemia case averted was US$ 29.84 and the cost per case of Plasmodium falciparum parasitaemia averted was US$ 5.36, respectively. The cost per case of anaemia averted ranged between US$ 24.60 and 40.32 when the prices of antimalarial drugs and delivery costs were varied. Cost-effectiveness was most influenced by effectiveness of IPT and the background prevalence of anaemia. In settings where 30% and 50% of schoolchildren were anaemic, cost-effectiveness ratios were US$ 12.53 and 7.52, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first evidence that IPT administered by teachers is a cost-effective school-based malaria intervention and merits investigation in other settings.

Should countries implementing an artemisinin-based combination malaria treatment policy also introduce rapid diagnostic tests?

BACKGROUND: Within the context of increasing antimalarial costs and or decreasing malaria transmission, the importance of limiting antimalarial treatment to only those confirmed as having malaria parasites becomes paramount. This motivates for this assessment of the cost-effectiveness of routine use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) as an integral part of deploying artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs). METHODS: The costs and cost-effectiveness of using RDTs to limit the use of ACTs to those who actually have Plasmodium falciparum parasitaemia in two districts in southern Mozambique were assessed. To evaluate the potential impact of introducing definitive diagnosis using RDTs (costing $0.95), five scenarios were considered, assuming that the use of definitive diagnosis would find that between 25% and 75% of the clinically diagnosed malaria patients are confirmed to be parasitaemic. The base analysis compared two ACTs, artesunate plus sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (AS+SP) costing $1.77 per adult treatment and artemether-lumefantrine (AL) costing $2.40 per adult treatment, as well as the option of restricting RDT use to only those older than six years. Sensitivity analyses considered lower cost ACTs and RDTs and different population age distributions. RESULTS: Compared to treating patients on the basis of clinical diagnosis, the use of RDTs in all clinically diagnosed malaria cases results in cost savings only when 29% and 52% or less of all suspected malaria cases test positive for malaria and are treated with AS+SP and AL, respectively. These cut-off points increase to 41.5% (for AS+SP) and to 74% (for AL) when the use of RDTs is restricted to only those older than six years of age. When 25% of clinically diagnosed patients are RDT positive and treated using AL, there are cost savings per malaria positive patient treated of up to $2.12. When more than 29% of clinically diagnosed cases are malaria test positive, the incremental cost per malaria positive patient treated is less than US$1. When relatively less expensive ACTs are introduced (e.g. current WHO preferential price for AL of $1.44 per adult treatment), the RDT price to the healthcare provider should be $0.65 or lower for RDTs to be cost saving in populations with between 30 and 52% of clinically diagnosed malaria cases being malaria test positive. CONCLUSION: While the use of RDTs in all suspected cases has been shown to be cost-saving when parasite prevalence among clinically diagnosed malaria cases is low to moderate, findings show that targeting RDTs at the group older than six years and treating children less than six years on the basis of clinical diagnosis is even more cost-saving. In semi-immune populations, young children carry the highest risk of severe malaria and many healthcare providers would find it harder to deny antimalarials to those who test negative in this age group.