Achieving malaria testing and treatment targets for children under five in Mozambique: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Artemisinin combination therapy
Cost-effectiveness
Malaria
Rapid diagnostic testing
Testing
Treatment
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Nov 2022
07 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
23
03
2022
accepted:
27
10
2022
entrez:
7
11
2022
pubmed:
8
11
2022
medline:
10
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The entire population of Mozambique is at risk for malaria, which remains one of the leading causes of death. The 2017-2022 National Malaria Strategic Plan focuses on reducing malaria morbidity and mortality in high- and low-transmission areas. This study aimed to estimate the costs and health benefits of six variations of the World Health Organization's "test-and-treat" strategy among children under five. A decision tree model was developed that estimates the costs and health outcomes for children under five. Data on probabilities, costs, weights for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on peer-reviewed, grey literature, and primary data analysis of the 2018 Malaria Indicator Survey. Six scenarios were compared to the status quo and calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per QALY gained, DALY averted, and life saved. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to understand the effect of parameter uncertainty on the findings. In the base case, reaching the target of 100% testing with rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs; Scenario 1) is more cost-effective than improving the testing rate alone by 10% (Scenario 2). Achieving a 100% (Scenario 3) or a 10% increase in treatment rate (Scenario 4) have ICERs that are lower than Scenarios 1 and 2. Both Scenarios 5 and 6, which represent combinations of Scenarios 1-4, have lower ICERs than their constituent strategies on their own, which suggests that improvements in treatment are more cost-effective than improvements in testing alone. These results held when DALYs averted or lives saved were used as health outcomes. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of Scenarios 1-6 are subject sensitive to parameter uncertainty, though Scenarios 4 and 5 are the optimal choice when DALYs averted or QALYs gained were used as the measure of health outcomes across all cost-effectiveness thresholds. Improving testing rates alone among children at risk for malaria has the potential to improve health but may not be the most efficient use of limited resources. Instead, small or large improvements in treatment, whether alone or in conjunction with improvements in testing, are the most cost-effective strategies for children under five in Mozambique.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The entire population of Mozambique is at risk for malaria, which remains one of the leading causes of death. The 2017-2022 National Malaria Strategic Plan focuses on reducing malaria morbidity and mortality in high- and low-transmission areas. This study aimed to estimate the costs and health benefits of six variations of the World Health Organization's "test-and-treat" strategy among children under five.
METHODS
METHODS
A decision tree model was developed that estimates the costs and health outcomes for children under five. Data on probabilities, costs, weights for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on peer-reviewed, grey literature, and primary data analysis of the 2018 Malaria Indicator Survey. Six scenarios were compared to the status quo and calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per QALY gained, DALY averted, and life saved. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to understand the effect of parameter uncertainty on the findings.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the base case, reaching the target of 100% testing with rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs; Scenario 1) is more cost-effective than improving the testing rate alone by 10% (Scenario 2). Achieving a 100% (Scenario 3) or a 10% increase in treatment rate (Scenario 4) have ICERs that are lower than Scenarios 1 and 2. Both Scenarios 5 and 6, which represent combinations of Scenarios 1-4, have lower ICERs than their constituent strategies on their own, which suggests that improvements in treatment are more cost-effective than improvements in testing alone. These results held when DALYs averted or lives saved were used as health outcomes. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of Scenarios 1-6 are subject sensitive to parameter uncertainty, though Scenarios 4 and 5 are the optimal choice when DALYs averted or QALYs gained were used as the measure of health outcomes across all cost-effectiveness thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Improving testing rates alone among children at risk for malaria has the potential to improve health but may not be the most efficient use of limited resources. Instead, small or large improvements in treatment, whether alone or in conjunction with improvements in testing, are the most cost-effective strategies for children under five in Mozambique.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36344998
doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04354-9
pii: 10.1186/s12936-022-04354-9
pmc: PMC9641811
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
320Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Value Health. 2016 Jul-Aug;19(5):558-66
pubmed: 27565273
PLoS Med. 2018 Jul 17;15(7):e1002607
pubmed: 30016316
J Prim Care Community Health. 2015 Oct;6(4):227-32
pubmed: 25858899
Malar J. 2014 Aug 10;13:309
pubmed: 25108397
Nature. 2017 Oct 26;550(7677):515-518
pubmed: 29019978
Malar J. 2019 Nov 11;18(1):360
pubmed: 31711489
Malar J. 2018 May 18;17(1):206
pubmed: 29776359
Health Policy Plan. 2017 Jun 1;32(5):676-689
pubmed: 28453718
Malar J. 2019 May 6;18(1):162
pubmed: 31060605
Gates Open Res. 2020 Nov 30;4:176
pubmed: 33575544
BMC Public Health. 2017 May 18;17(1):470
pubmed: 28521798
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Nov;93(5):961-6
pubmed: 26240155
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2021 Feb 4;19(1):7
pubmed: 33541364
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Nov 5;3(6):e000964
pubmed: 30483412
Malar J. 2015 Feb 05;14:55
pubmed: 25653121
Bull World Health Organ. 2008 Feb;86(2):101-10
pubmed: 18297164
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Nov;3(11):e712-23
pubmed: 26475018
Value Health. 2009 Mar;12 Suppl 1:S5-9
pubmed: 19250132
BMJ Glob Health. 2016 Sep 28;1(2):e000101
pubmed: 28588946
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 22;11(12):e0168512
pubmed: 28005986
MDM Policy Pract. 2019 Dec 21;4(2):2381468319893986
pubmed: 31903421
Lancet. 2010 Nov 13;376(9753):1647-57
pubmed: 21062666
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Jun;96(6):1430-1440
pubmed: 28719286
Malar J. 2008 Feb 26;7:37
pubmed: 18302771
Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Jul 15;47(2):158-60
pubmed: 18564928
Arch Intern Med. 2003 Jul 28;163(14):1637-41
pubmed: 12885677
Malar J. 2011 Dec 19;10:372
pubmed: 22182735
Malar J. 2015 May 20;14:211
pubmed: 25985992
Value Health. 2016 Dec;19(8):929-935
pubmed: 27987642
Malar J. 2017 Mar 9;16(1):108
pubmed: 28274257
Malar J. 2013 May 10;12:159
pubmed: 23663437
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 15;12(12):e0189758
pubmed: 29244829
PLoS One. 2010 Aug 27;5(8):e12439
pubmed: 20805977
J Glob Health. 2017 Jun;7(1):010402
pubmed: 28400951
Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2010 May;12(3):165-73
pubmed: 21308525
Malar J. 2015 Dec 01;14:483
pubmed: 26628068
BMJ. 2013 Mar 25;346:f1049
pubmed: 23529982
Malar J. 2008 Feb 18;7:33
pubmed: 18282270
Malar J. 2011 Jun 09;10:158
pubmed: 21651827
J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Aug 26;57(9):
pubmed: 31270184
Malar J. 2016 Dec 12;15(1):593
pubmed: 27955665
Malar J. 2010 Apr 09;9:92
pubmed: 20380717
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Jan;4(1):e12-3
pubmed: 26577842