Operational response to malaria epidemics: are rapid diagnostic tests cost‐effective?
- 23 March 2006
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Tropical Medicine & International Health
- Vol. 11 (4) , 398-408
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01580.x
Abstract
To compare the cost-effectiveness of malaria treatment based on presumptive diagnosis with that of malaria treatment based on rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs).We calculated direct costs (based on experience from Ethiopia and southern Sudan) and effectiveness (in terms of reduced over-treatment) of a free, decentralised treatment programme using artesunate plus amodiaquine (AS + AQ) or artemether-lumefantrine (ART-LUM) in a Plasmodium falciparum epidemic. Our main cost-effectiveness measure was the incremental cost per false positive treatment averted by RDTs.As malaria prevalence increases, the difference in cost between presumptive and RDT-based treatment rises. The threshold prevalence above which the RDT-based strategy becomes more expensive is 21% in the AS + AQ scenario and 55% in the ART-LUM scenario, but these thresholds increase to 58 and 70%, respectively, if the financing body tolerates an incremental cost of 1 euro per false positive averted. However, even at a high (90%) prevalence of malaria consistent with an epidemic peak, an RDT-based strategy would only cost moderately more than the presumptive strategy: +29.9% in the AS + AQ scenario and +19.4% in the ART-LUM scenario. The treatment comparison is insensitive to the age and pregnancy distribution of febrile cases, but is strongly affected by variation in non-biomedical costs. If their unit price were halved, RDTs would be more cost-effective at a malaria prevalence up to 45% in case of AS + AQ treatment and at a prevalence up to 68% in case of ART-LUM treatment.In most epidemic prevalence scenarios, RDTs would considerably reduce over-treatment for only a moderate increase in costs over presumptive diagnosis. A substantial decrease in RDT unit price would greatly increase their cost-effectiveness, and should thus be advocated. A tolerated incremental cost of 1 euro is probably justified given overall public health and financial benefits. The RDTs should be considered for malaria epidemics if logistics and human resources allow.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Malaria misdiagnosis: effects on the poor and vulnerableThe Lancet, 2004
- A REVIEW OF THE CLINICAL AND EPIDEMIOLOGIC BURDENS OF EPIDEMIC MALARIAThe American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2004
- THE BURDEN OF MALARIA EPIDEMICS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS IN EPIDEMIC SITUATIONS IN AFRICAThe American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2004
- Usefulness of an Inexpensive, Paracheck® Test in Detecting Asymptomatic Infectious Reservoir of Plasmodium falciparum During Dry Season in an Inaccessible Terrain in Central IndiaJournal of Infection, 2002
- Relationship between parasite density and fever risk in a community exposed to a low level of malaria transmission in Madagascar highlands.The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2002
- Validity, reliability and ease of use in the field of five rapid tests for the diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Uganda.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2002
- Short communication: Paracheck‐Pf®: a new, inexpensive and reliable rapid test for P. falciparum malariaTropical Medicine & International Health, 2001
- Cost-effectiveness of malaria control in sub-Saharan AfricaThe Lancet, 1999
- Malaria in areas of unstable and seasonal transmission. Lessons from DaraweeshTransactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 1998
- Laboratory diagnosis of malaria by village health workers using the rapid manual ParaSight™-F testTransactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 1994