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

Johannes Pfeil, Steffen Borrmann, Yesim Tozan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere95681
JournalPLoS One
Volume9
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 18 2014

Fingerprint

dihydroartemisinin
cost effectiveness
Cost effectiveness
malaria
Malaria
Cost-Benefit Analysis
antimalarials
Antimalarials
Therapeutics
Pediatrics
Falciparum Malaria
Costs and Cost Analysis
artemether
lumefantrine
piperaquine
Health
Costs
artemisinin
drugs

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine vs. artemether-lumefantrine for first-line treatment of uncomplicated malaria in African children : A cost-effectiveness analysis. / Pfeil, Johannes; Borrmann, Steffen; Tozan, Yesim.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 9, No. 4, e95681, 18.04.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d30c45f662ee41e8a2fe9330db5c6391,
title = "Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine vs. artemether-lumefantrine for first-line treatment of uncomplicated malaria in African children: A cost-effectiveness analysis",
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.",
author = "Johannes Pfeil and Steffen Borrmann and Yesim Tozan",
year = "2014",
month = "4",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0095681",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine vs. artemether-lumefantrine for first-line treatment of uncomplicated malaria in African children

T2 - A cost-effectiveness analysis

AU - Pfeil, Johannes

AU - Borrmann, Steffen

AU - Tozan, Yesim

PY - 2014/4/18

Y1 - 2014/4/18

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84899667928&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84899667928&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0095681

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0095681

M3 - Article

C2 - 24748395

AN - SCOPUS:84899667928

VL - 9

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 4

M1 - e95681

ER -