Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 18;9(4):e95681. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095681. eCollection 2014.

Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine vs. artemether-lumefantrine for first-line treatment of uncomplicated malaria in African children: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Author information

1
Centre for Childhood and Adolescent Medicine and Department of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), Heidelberg, Germany.
2
Kenyan Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kilifi, Kenya; Institute of Tropical Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
3
Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America; Institute of Public Health, Ruprecht-Karls-University, Heidelberg, Germany.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Recent multi-centre trials showed that dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) was as efficacious and safe as artemether-lumefantrine (AL) for treatment of young children with uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria across diverse transmission settings in Africa. Longitudinal follow-up of patients in these trials supported previous findings that DP had a longer post-treatment prophylactic effect than AL, reducing the risk of reinfection and conferring additional health benefits to patients, particularly in areas with moderate to high malaria transmission.

METHODS:

We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of DP versus AL for first-line treatment of uncomplicated malaria in young children from the provider perspective, taking into consideration the post-treatment prophylactic effects of the drugs as reported by a recent multi-centre trial in Africa and using the maximum manufacturer drug prices for artemisinin-based combination therapies set by the Global Fund in 2013. We estimated the price per course of treatment threshold above which DP would cease to be a cost-saving alternative to AL as a first-line antimalarial drug.

RESULTS:

First-line treatment with DP compared to AL averted 0.03 DALYs (95% CI: 0.006-0.07) and 0.001 deaths (95% CI: 0.00-0.002) and saved $0.96 (95% CI: 0.33-2.46) per child over one year. The results of the threshold analysis showed that DP remained cost-saving over AL for any DP cost below $1.23 per course of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS:

DP is superior to AL from both the clinical and economic perspectives for treatment of uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria in young children. A paediatric dispersible formulation of DP is under development and should facilitate a targeted deployment of this antimalarial drug. The use of DP as first-line antimalarial drug in paediatric malaria patients in moderate to high transmission areas of Africa merits serious consideration by health policymakers.

PMID:
24748395
PMCID:
PMC3991722
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0095681
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center