Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Temperley M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2564968 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Malaria in pregnancy is a public health problem for endemic countries. Economic evaluations of malaria preventive strategies in pregnancy are needed to guide health policies.This 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.IPTp-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.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00209781.

Project description:BackgroundPrevention 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.

Project description: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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The World Health Organization recommends intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) alongside long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLIN) and case management for reducing the risks associated with malaria in pregnancy in areas of moderate-to-high transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. Due to increasing Plasmodium falciparum resistance to SP, the search for alternative drugs or strategies to control malaria in pregnancy is a priority. We assessed the acceptability among pregnant women and health providers of intermittent screening and treatment (ISTp) and IPTp with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) as alternative strategies in the context of an un-blinded clinical trial. METHODS:Qualitative data were collected through ten focus group discussions with women participating in a randomized controlled trial to evaluate ISTp or IPTp with DP (multi-day regimen) versus IPTp with SP (single dose) in western Kenya. Individual in-depth interviews were conducted with 26 health providers working in the trial facilities and trial staff. RESULTS:Women appreciated the advantages of being tested with a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) at every ANC visit (although a few women disliked finger pricks) and accepted that they would not receive any antimalarial when tested RDT-negative. There were differences in women's experiences of the efficacy of antimalarials between the trial arms, with more women in the IPTp-SP arm reporting they had experienced malaria episodes. Side effects were experienced among women taking DP and SP. Although women and trial staff reported adherence to the full DP regimen within the trial, health providers were not confident that women would adhere to multi-day regimens in non-trial settings. Health providers recognized the advantages of ISTp in reducing unnecessary exposure to drugs, but lacked confidence in the reliability of RDTs compared to microscopy. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings indicate that, within a trial context, ISTp-DP and IPTp-DP were generally acceptable among both users and providers and were regarded as potentially valuable alternatives to IPTp-SP. Several challenges were identified the most important of which was concerns with achieving adherence to DP in non-trial settings, requiring operational feasibility studies in routine health systems. Policy adoption of ISTp with RDTs would require a major shift in thinking among health providers due to lack of confidence in RDTs.

Project description: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.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.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.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.

Project description:IntroductionTools that allow for in silico optimization of available malaria control strategies can assist the decision-making process for prioritizing interventions. The OpenMalaria stochastic simulation modeling platform can be applied to simulate the impact of interventions singly and in combination as implemented in Rachuonyo South District, western Kenya, to support this goal.MethodsCombinations of malaria interventions were simulated using a previously-published, validated model of malaria epidemiology and control in the study area. An economic model of the costs of case management and malaria control interventions in Kenya was applied to simulation results and cost-effectiveness of each intervention combination compared to the corresponding simulated outputs of a scenario without interventions. Uncertainty was evaluated by varying health system and intervention delivery parameters.ResultsThe intervention strategy with the greatest simulated health impact employed long lasting insecticide treated net (LLIN) use by 80% of the population, 90% of households covered by indoor residual spraying (IRS) with deployment starting in April, and intermittent screen and treat (IST) of school children using Artemether lumefantrine (AL) with 80% coverage twice per term. However, the current malaria control strategy in the study area including LLIN use of 56% and IRS coverage of 70% was the most cost effective at reducing disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over a five year period.ConclusionsAll the simulated intervention combinations can be considered cost effective in the context of available resources for health in Kenya. Increasing coverage of vector control interventions has a larger simulated impact compared to adding IST to the current implementation strategy, suggesting that transmission in the study area is not at a level to warrant replacing vector control to a school-based screen and treat program. These results have the potential to assist malaria control program managers in the study area in adding new or changing implementation of current interventions.

Project description:BackgroundAnnually, 125.2 million pregnant women worldwide risk contracting malaria, including 30.3 million and 1.5 million in Sub-Saharan Africa and Kenya respectively. At least three doses of sulphadoxine pyrimethamine for intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy (IPTp-SP) is recommended for optimal benefit. Kenya recorded low IPTp-SP optimal uptake in 2015. This study investigated the prevalence of and factors influencing IPTp-SP optimal uptake in Sabatia Sub County, Western Kenya.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Sabatia Sub County from April to October 2020. Using a validated semi-structured questionnaire, data were obtained from 372 randomly sampled post-delivery women aged 15-49 years with live birth within one year preceding the study. Women on cotrimoxazole prophylaxis during pregnancy were excluded. Pearson Chi-square and Fisher's Exact test were measures of association used. Binary logistic regression analysed predictors of optimal IPTp-SP uptake.ResultsOptimal IPTp-SP uptake was 79.6%, 95% CI 75.5%-83.7%. Predictors of IPTp-SP optimization were gestational age at first antenatal care (ANC) visit (P = 0.04), frequency of ANC visits (P < 0.001), maternal knowledge of IPTp-SP benefits (P < 0.001), maternal knowledge of optimal sulphadoxine pyrimethamine (SP) dose (P = 0.03) and SP administration at ANC clinic (P = 0.03). Late ANC initiators were less likely to receive optimal IPTp-SP (aOR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9). Odds of optimizing IPTp-SP increased among women with ≥ 4 ANC visits (aOR = 16.7, 95% CI 7.9-35.3), good knowledge of IPTp-SP benefits (aOR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.5) and good knowledge of optimal SP dose (aOR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.4). Women who never missed being administered SP were highly likely to receive optimal IPTp-SP (aOR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.1-7.2) CONCLUSIONS: This study has found high IPTp-SP optimal uptake in the study area. Efforts should be directed towards early and more frequent ANC visits. Intensive and targeted health education is required. It's fundamental to adequately stock and consistently administer SP. Future studies considering larger samples and health workers' perspectives of the health system delivery factors are recommended.