Costs and cost-effectiveness of malaria reactive case detection using loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to microscopy in the low transmission setting of Aceh Province, Indonesia

Abstract

BackgroundReactive case detection (RACD) is an active case finding strategy where households and neighbours of a passively identified case (index case) are screened to identify and treat additional malaria infections with the goal of gathering surveillance information and potentially reducing further transmission. Although it is widely considered a key strategy in low burden settings, little is known about the costs and the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic methods used for RACD. The aims of this study were to measure the cost of conducting RACD and compare the cost-effectiveness of microscopy to the more sensitive diagnostic method loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP).MethodsThe study was conducted in RACD surveillance sites in five sub-districts in Aceh Besar, Indonesia. The cost inputs and yield of implementing RACD with microscopy and/or LAMP were collected prospectively over a 20 months study period between May 2014 and December 2015. Costs and cost-effectiveness (USD) of the different strategies were examined. The main cost measures were cost per RACD event, per person screened, per population at risk (PAR); defined as total population in each sub-district, and per infection found. The main cost-effectiveness measure was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per malaria infection detected by LAMP versus microscopy. The effects of varying test positivity rate or diagnostic yield on cost per infection identified and ICER were also assessed.ResultsAmong 1495 household members and neighbours screened in 36 RACD events, two infections were detected by microscopy and confirmed by LAMP, and four infections were missed by microscopy but detected by LAMP. The average total cost of conducting RACD using microscopy and LAMP was $1178 per event with LAMP-specific consumables and personnel being the main cost drivers. The average cost of screening one individual during RACD was $11, with an additional cost of diagnostics at $0.62 and $16 per person for microscopy and LAMP, respectively. As a public health intervention, RACD using both diagnostics cost an average of $0.42 per PAR per year. Comparing RACD using microscopy only versus RACD using LAMP only, the cost per infection found was $8930 and $6915, respectively. To add LAMP as an additional intervention accompanying RACD would cost $9 per individual screened annually in this setting. The ICER was estimated to be $5907 per additional malaria infection detected by LAMP versus microscopy. Cost per infection identified and ICER declined with increasing test positivity rate and increasing diagnostic yield.ConclusionsThis study provides the first estimates on the cost and cost-effectiveness of RACD from a low transmission setting. Costs per individual screened were high, though costs per PAR were low. Compared to microscopy, the use of LAMP in RACD was more costly but more cost-effective for the detection of infections, with diminishing returns observed when findings were extrapolated to scenarios with higher prevalence of infect...

Microscopic and submicroscopic Plasmodium infections in indigenous and non-indigenous communities in Colombia

“…However, due the low prevalence of infection in this region of Colombia, there is also a need to evaluate the costs per assay comparing to conventional test, including equipment, reagents, staff, training, and maintenance in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molecular test for their potential integration into surveillance strategies and explore alternatives as serological surveillance. A previous study in a low transmission setting in Indonesia, suggested that reactive-active detection of cases in the community using molecular test had high costs per individual screened, however, compared to microscopy, molecular test was most cost-effective for the detection of infections [43]. Also, another study in a low transmission setting in Africa concludes that standards test, such as rapid diagnosis test (RDTs), are not useful to detect infections in the community and suggest that the achievement of malaria elimination may require active case detection using more sensitive pointof-care diagnostics, especially in high-risk groups [44], that in our cases are the indigenous communities among others.…”

Cost-benefit analysis of the monitoring measures for the malaria elimination stage in Fujian, China

“…This focus on infectious sources is quite different from that in parts of Africa that are still in the epidemic stage. Malaria-endemic areas in Africa mainly concentrate on epidemic surveillance, which emphasizes blocking infectious sources, controlling transmission routes, and protecting susceptible populations (19,22,23). In the malaria elimination phase, on the other hand, staff should adopt more targeted surveillance measures, focusing on the screening and detection of imported infectious sources.…”

Improving the efficiency of reactive case detection for malaria elimination in southern Zambia: a cross-sectional study

“…The application of RCD in many of these settings differs in important features, such as the optimal screening radius and the number of households investigated [10]. In each instance, however, RCD is labour and time-intensive, requiring significant human resources, many rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), and often long travel times between households [10,11]. The utility of RCD in low transmission settings has been debated in part due to operational challenges during implementation and the use of less sensitive diagnostic tools such as RDTs and microscopy, which miss low density infections [1,2,10,12].…”