Cost-effectiveness Of Intermittent Preventive Treatment Research Articles

Cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus single screening and treatment for the control of malaria in pregnancy in Papua, Indonesia: a provider perspective analysis from a cluster-randomised trial

Malaria infection during pregnancy is associated with serious adverse maternal and birth outcomes. A randomised controlled trial in Papua, Indonesia, comparing the efficacy of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine with the current strategy of single screening and treatment showed that intermittent preventive treatment is a promising alternative treatment for the reduction of malaria in pregnancy. We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine compared with single screening and treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. We did a provider perspective analysis. A decision tree model was analysed from a health provider perspective over a lifetime horizon. Model parameters were used in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Simulations were run in hypothetical cohorts of 1000 women who received intermittent preventive treatment or single screening and treatment. Disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for fetal loss or neonatal death, low birthweight, moderate or severe maternal anaemia, and clinical malaria were calculated from trial data and cost estimates in 2016 US dollars from observational studies, health facility costings and public procurement databases. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost per DALY averted. Relative to single screening and treatment, intermittent preventive treatment resulted in an incremental cost of US$5657 (95% CI 1827 to 9448) and 107·4 incremental DALYs averted (-719·7 to 904·1) per 1000 women; the average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $53 per DALY averted. Intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine offers a cost-effective alternative to single screening and treatment for the prevention of the adverse effects of malaria infection in pregnancy in the context of the moderate malaria transmission setting of Papua. The higher cost of intermittent preventive treatment was driven by monthly administration, as compared with single-administration single screening and treatment. However, acceptability and feasibility considerations will also be needed to inform decision making. Medical Research Council, Department for International Development, and Wellcome Trust.

Cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine for malaria during pregnancy: an analysis using efficacy results from Uganda and Kenya, and pooled data

SummaryBackgroundPrevention of malaria infection during pregnancy in HIV-negative women currently relies on the use of long-lasting insecticidal nets together with intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP). Increasing sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine resistance in Africa threatens current prevention of malaria during pregnancy. Thus, a replacement for IPTp-SP is urgently needed, especially for locations with high sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine resistance. Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine is a promising candidate. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine (IPTp-DP) versus IPTp-SP to prevent clinical malaria infection (and its sequelae) during pregnancy.MethodsWe did a cost-effectiveness analysis using meta-analysis and individual trial results from three clinical trials done in Kenya and Uganda. We calculated disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) arising from stillbirths, neonatal death, low birthweight, mild and moderate maternal anaemia, and clinical malaria infection, associated with malaria during pregnancy. Cost estimates were obtained from data collected in observational studies, health-facility costings, and from international drug procurement databases. The cost-effectiveness analyses were done from a health-care provider perspective using a decision tree model with a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using appropriate parameter ranges and distributions were also done. Results are presented as the incremental cost per DALY averted and the likelihood that an intervention is cost-effective for different cost-effectiveness thresholds.FindingsCompared with three doses of sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine, three doses of dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine, delivered to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 pregnant women, averted 892 DALYs (95% credibility interval 274 to 1517) at an incremental cost of US$7051 (2653 to 13 038) generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8 (2 to 29) per DALY averted. Compared with monthly doses of sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine, monthly doses of dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine averted 534 DALYS (−141 to 1233) at a cost of $13 427 (4994 to 22 895), resulting in an ICER of $25 (−151 to 224) per DALY averted. Both results were highly robust to most or all variations in the deterministic sensitivity analysis.InterpretationOur findings suggest that among HIV-negative pregnant women with high uptake of long-lasting insecticidal nets, IPTp-DP is cost-effective in areas with high malaria transmission and high sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine resistance. These data provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of IPTp-DP. Nevertheless, before a policy change is advocated, we recommend further research into the effectiveness and costs of different regimens of IPTp-DP in settings with different underlying sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine resistance.FundingMalaria in Pregnancy Consortium, which is funded through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to the Liverpool School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Intermittent screening and treatment or intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine versus intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine for the control of malaria during pregnancy in western Kenya: an open-label, three-group, randomised controlled superiority trial

Every year, more than 32 million pregnancies in sub-Saharan Africa are at risk of malaria infection and its adverse consequences. The effectiveness of the intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine strategy recommended by WHO is threatened by high levels of parasite resistance. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two alternative strategies: intermittent screening with malaria rapid diagnostic tests and treatment of women who test positive with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, and intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. We did this open-label, three-group, randomised controlled superiority trial at four sites in western Kenya with high malaria transmission and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance. HIV-negative pregnant women between 16 and 32 weeks' gestation were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via computer-generated permuted-block randomisation (block sizes of three, six, and nine), to receive intermittent screening and treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, or intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. Study participants, study clinic nurses, and the study coordinator were aware of treatment allocation, but allocation was concealed from study investigators, delivery unit nurses, and laboratory staff. The primary outcome was malaria infection at delivery, defined as a composite of peripheral or placental parasitaemia detected by placental histology, microscopy, or rapid diagnostic test. The primary analysis was by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01669941. Between Aug 21, 2012, and June 19, 2014, we randomly assigned 1546 women to receive intermittent screening and treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (n=515), intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (n=516), or intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (n=515); 1368 (88%) women comprised the intention-to-treat population for the primary endpoint. Prevalence of malaria infection at delivery was lower in the intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine group than in the intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine group (15 [3%] of 457 women vs 47 [10%] of 459 women; relative risk 0·32, 95% CI 0·18-0·56; p<0·0001), but not in the intermittent screening and treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine group (57 [13%] of 452 women; 1·23, 0·86-1·77; p=0·26). Compared with intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine was associated with a lower incidence of malaria infection during pregnancy (192·0 vs 54·4 events per 100 person-years; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·28, 95% CI 0·22-0·36; p<0·0001) and clinical malaria during pregnancy (37·9 vs 6·1 events; 0·16, 0·08-0·33; p<0·0001), whereas intermittent screening and treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine was associated with a higher incidence of malaria infection (232·0 events; 1·21, 1·03-1·41; p=0·0177) and clinical malaria (53·4 events; 1·41, 1·00-1·98; p=0·0475). We recorded 303 maternal and infant serious adverse events, which were least frequent in the intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine group. At current levels of rapid diagnostic test sensitivity, intermittent screening and treatment is not a suitable alternative to intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in the context of high sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance and malaria transmission. However, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine is a promising alternative drug to replace sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for intermittent preventive treatment. Future studies should investigate the efficacy, safety, operational feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. The Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium, which is funded through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of three health interventions to prevent malaria in pregnancy in an area of low transmission in Uganda

Pregnant women and their unborn children are vulnerable to malaria, increasing the risk of maternal anaemia, low birthweight (LBW) and intrauterine growth retardation. There is little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) and insecticide-treated bednets (ITN) in areas of low transmission. A randomised controlled trial with three arms was conducted in antenatal clinics in Kabale District (Uganda), an epidemic-prone highland area of low malaria transmission. The interventions were: (i) IPTp with sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP) given twice during pregnancy (IPTp-SP); (ii) ITNs alone; and (iii) a combined intervention with both ITNs and IPTp-SP. Primary health outcomes were LBW and maternal anaemia. The costs of providing IPTp-SP and ITNs as well as treatment of malaria episodes were captured from all health centres in the study area. There were no significant differences in health outcomes among the three interventions. The cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analyses performed did not provide convincing support for replacing IPTp-SP (current policy) by ITNs alone or by a combined intervention in this low-transmission setting on economic grounds. The cost per pregnant woman of providing the services was lowest for the IPTp-SP intervention (US$0.79 per woman) followed by ITNs (US$1.71) and the combined intervention of IPTp-SP+ITNs (US$2.48). The relative cost-effectiveness of antenatal distribution of ITNs might improve if the cost savings accruing from continued use of a long-lasting insecticidal net after pregnancy as well as positive externalities were also taken into account, and this warrants further study. [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00142207].

Malaria Treatment and Prophylaxis in Endemic and Nonendemic Countries: Evidence on Strategies and Their Cost–Effectiveness

Artemisinin combination treatment is currently the preferred treatment strategy to combat malaria. However, the drug costs are considerably higher than for previously used therapies. This review discusses the cost-effectiveness of current malaria treatment and prophylaxis in endemic and nonendemic countries. For endemic countries, a systematic search for economic evaluations (i.e., cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses) was conducted, looking at the use of Artemisinin combination treatments in children, pregnant women and other adults. In total, 24 studies were identified investigating the cost-effectiveness of malaria treatments with the focus on uncomplicated malaria, severe or prereferral treatment, all in combination with adequate diagnosis, and malaria prevention by intermittent preventive treatment, respectively. In areas with both Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax transmission, artemether-lumefantrine and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, respectively, are currently the most cost-effective treatment options. Treatment of severe malaria with artesunate is more cost effective compared with treatment with quinine. For patients that live more than 6 h away from an appropriate healthcare facility, prereferral treatment proved to be more cost-effective compared with no prereferral intervention. Cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment in pregnant women (IPTp) was dependent an clinical attendance. IPT in infants with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is cost effective in sites with high malaria transmission. IPT in children with artesunate (AS + SP), amodiaquine (AQ) + SPQ or SP alone is a cost effective and safe intervention for reducing the burden of malaria in children in areas with markedly seasonal malaria transmission. Although there is a need for it, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of current approaches to malaria therapy in nonendemic countries and the cost-effectiveness of antimalarial chemoprophylaxis.

Cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in infants (IPTi) for averting anaemia in Gabon: a comparison between intention to treat and according to protocol analyses

BackgroundIn Gabon, the impact of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in infants (IPTi) was not statistically significant on malaria reduction, but the impact on moderate anaemia was, with some differences between the intention to treat (ITT) and the according to protocol (ATP) trial analyses. Specifically, ATP was statistically significant, while ITT analysis was borderline. The main reason for the difference between ITT and ATP populations was migration.MethodsThis study estimates the cost-effectiveness of IPTi on the reduction of anaemia in Gabon, comparing results of the ITT and the ATP clinical trial analyses. Threshold analysis was conducted to identify when the intervention costs and protective efficacy of IPTi for the ATP cohort equalled the ITT cost-effectiveness ratio.ResultsBased on IPTi intervention costs, the cost per episode of moderate anaemia averted was US$12.88 (CI 95% 4.19, 30.48) using the ITT analysis and US$11.30 (CI 95% 4.56, 26.66) using the ATP analysis. In order for the ATP results to equal the cost-effectiveness of ITT, total ATP intervention costs should rise from 118.38 to 134 US$ ATP or the protective efficacy should fall from 27% to 18.1%. The uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness ratio using ITT trial results was higher than using ATP results.ConclusionsMigration implies great challenges in the organization of health interventions that require repeat visits in Gabon. This was apparent in the study as the cost-effectiveness of IPTp-SP worsened when drop out from the prevention was taken into account. Despite such challenges, IPTi was both inexpensive and efficacious in averting cases of moderate anaemia in infants.

Determinants of the cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in infants and children.

BackgroundTrials of intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi) and children (IPTc) have shown promising results in reducing malaria episodes but with varying efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The effects of different intervention and setting characteristics are not well known. We simulate the effects of the different target age groups and delivery channels, seasonal or year-round delivery, transmission intensity, seasonality, proportions of malaria fevers treated and drug characteristics.MethodsWe use a dynamic, individual-based simulation model of Plasmodium falciparum malaria epidemiology, antimalarial drug action and case management to simulate DALYs averted and the cost per DALY averted by IPTi and IPTc. IPT cost components were estimated from economic studies alongside trials.ResultsIPTi and IPTc were predicted to be cost-effective in most of the scenarios modelled. The cost-effectiveness is driven by the impact on DALYs, particularly for IPTc, and the low costs, particularly for IPTi which uses the existing delivery strategy, EPI. Cost-effectiveness was predicted to decrease with low transmission, badly timed seasonal delivery in a seasonal setting, short-acting and more expensive drugs, high frequencies of drug resistance and high levels of treatment of malaria fevers. Seasonal delivery was more cost-effective in seasonal settings, and year-round in constant transmission settings. The difference was more pronounced for IPTc than IPTi due to the different proportions of fixed costs and also different assumed drug spacing during the transmission season. The number of DALYs averted was predicted to decrease as a target five-year age-band for IPTc was shifted from children under 5 years into older ages, except at low transmission intensities.ConclusionsModelling can extend the information available by predicting impact and cost-effectiveness for scenarios, for outcomes and for multiple strategies where, for practical reasons, trials cannot be carried out. Both IPTi and IPTc are generally cost-effective but could be rendered cost-ineffective by characteristics of the setting, drug or implementation.

Cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy in southern Mozambique.

BackgroundMalaria in pregnancy is a public health problem for endemic countries. Economic evaluations of malaria preventive strategies in pregnancy are needed to guide health policies.Methods and FindingsThis analysis was carried out in the context of a trial of malaria intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP), where both intervention groups received an insecticide treated net through the antenatal clinic (ANC) in Mozambique. The cost-effectiveness of IPTp-SP on maternal clinical malaria and neonatal survival was estimated. Correlation and threshold analyses were undertaken to assess the main factors affecting the economic outcomes and the cut-off values beyond which the intervention is no longer cost-effective. In 2007 US$, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for maternal malaria was 41.46 US$ (95% CI 20.5, 96.7) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted. The ICER per DALY averted due to the reduction in neonatal mortality was 1.08 US$ (95% CI 0.43, 3.48). The ICER including both the effect on the mother and on the newborn was 1.02 US$ (95% CI 0.42, 3.21) per DALY averted. Efficacy was the main factor affecting the economic evaluation of IPTp-SP. The intervention remained cost-effective with an increase in drug cost per dose up to 11 times in the case of maternal malaria and 183 times in the case of neonatal mortality.ConclusionsIPTp-SP was highly cost-effective for both prevention of maternal malaria and reduction of neonatal mortality in Mozambique. These findings are likely to hold for other settings where IPTp-SP is implemented through ANC visits. The intervention remained cost-effective even with a significant increase in drug and other intervention costs. Improvements in the protective efficacy of the intervention would increase its cost-effectiveness. Provision of IPTp with a more effective, although more expensive drug than SP may still remain a cost-effective public health measure to prevent malaria in pregnancy.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00209781

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

BackgroundIntermittent 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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsIn 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.ConclusionsIPTi 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.

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

BackgroundAwareness 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.MethodsInformation 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThis study provides the first evidence that IPT administered by teachers is a cost-effective school-based malaria intervention and merits investigation in other settings.