Cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus single screening and treatment for the control of malaria in pregnancy in Papua, Indonesia: a provider perspective analysis from a cluster-randomised trial

Abstract

Background Malaria infection during pregnancy is associated with serious adverse maternal and birth outcomes. A randomised controlled trial in Papua, Indonesia, comparing the efficacy of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine with the current strategy of single screening and treatment showed that intermittent preventive treatment is a promising alternative treatment for the reduction of malaria in pregnancy. We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine compared with single screening and treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. Methods We did a provider perspective analysis. A decision tree model was analysed from a health provider perspective over a lifetime horizon. Model parameters were used in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Simulations were run in hypothetical cohorts of 1000 women who received intermittent preventive treatment or single screening and treatment. Disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for fetal loss or neonatal death, low birthweight, moderate or severe maternal anaemia, and clinical malaria were calculated from trial data and cost estimates in 2016 US dollars from observational studies, health facility costings and public procurement databases. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost per DALY averted. Findings Relative to single screening and treatment, intermittent preventive treatment resulted in an incremental cost of US$5657 (95% CI 1827 to 9448) and 107•4 incremental DALYs averted (-719•7 to 904•1) per 1000 women; the average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $53 per DALY averted. Interpretation Intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine offers a cost-effective alternative to single screening and treatment for the prevention of the adverse effects of malaria infection in pregnancy in the context of the moderate malaria transmission setting of Papua. The higher cost of intermittent preventive treatment was driven by monthly administration, as compared with single-administration single screening and treatment. However, acceptability and feasibility considerations will also be needed to inform decision making.

Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage III Colon Cancer in South African Public Hospitals

“…An annual global discounting rate of 5% was applied to all costs and utilities, as recommended by the National Department of Health and used in previous cost-effectiveness analyses done in ZA. 12 , 14 , 42 …”

“…All other analyses of cost-effectiveness are discounted and adjusted for disability, without age-weighting. 13 , 14 , 44 …”

Disabilities concessions in Indonesia: fundamental problems and solutions

“…In Indonesia, few policies specifically regulate social protection in the form of concessions (reductions). Thus, concessions are deemed necessary because they are part of a form of social protection for disabilities so that persons with disabilities are far from the poverty line (Paintain et al 2020).…”

Cost‐effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for high‐risk stage II and stage III colon cancer in South Africa

“…All other cost-effectiveness analyses are discounted using a 5% annual rate and adjusted for disability, without age weighting. 27,28,54 A secondary model output for each treatment strategy was the net monetary benefit (NMB), calculated using the formula:…”

“…Overall survival (OS) is reported as undiscounted and unadjusted life years. All other cost‐effectiveness analyses are discounted using a 5% annual rate and adjusted for disability, without age weighting 27,28,54 …”