Cost-Effectiveness of Focal Mass Drug Administration and Mass Drug Administration with Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Malaria Prevention in Southern Province, Zambia: Results of a Community-Randomized Controlled Trial

Community-wide administration of antimalarial drugs in therapeutic doses is a potential tool to prevent malaria infection and reduce the malaria parasite reservoir. To measure the effectiveness and cost of using the antimalarial drug combination dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHAp) through differen...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene Vol. 103; no. 2_Suppl; pp. 46 - 53
Main Authors Yukich, Joshua O, Scott, Callie, Silumbe, Kafula, Larson, Bruce A, Bennett, Adam, Finn, Timothy P, Hamainza, Busiku, Conner, Ruben O, Porter, Travis R, Keating, Joseph, Steketee, Richard W, Eisele, Thomas P, Miller, John M
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 01.08.2020
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Community-wide administration of antimalarial drugs in therapeutic doses is a potential tool to prevent malaria infection and reduce the malaria parasite reservoir. To measure the effectiveness and cost of using the antimalarial drug combination dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHAp) through different community-wide distribution strategies, Zambia's National Malaria Control Centre conducted a three-armed community-randomized controlled trial. The trial arms were as follows: 1) standard of care (SoC) malaria interventions, 2) SoC plus focal mass drug administration (fMDA), and 3) SoC plus MDA. Mass drug administration consisted of offering all eligible individuals DHAP, irrespective of a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) result. Focal mass drug administration consisted of offering DHAP to all eligible individuals who resided in a household where anyone tested positive by RDT. Results indicate that the costs of fMDA and MDA per person targeted and reached are similar (US$9.01 versus US$8.49 per person, respectively, = 0.87), but that MDA was superior in all cost-effectiveness measures, including cost per infection averted, cost per case averted, cost per death averted, and cost per disability-adjusted life year averted. Subsequent costing of the MDA intervention in a non-trial, operational setting yielded significantly lower costs per person reached (US$2.90). Mass drug administration with DHAp also met the WHO thresholds for "cost-effective interventions" in the Zambian setting in 90% of simulations conducted using a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on trial costs, whereas fMDA met these criteria in approximately 50% of simulations. A sensitivity analysis using costs from operational deployment and trial effectiveness yielded improved cost-effectiveness estimates. Mass drug administration may be a cost-effective intervention in the Zambian context and can help reduce the parasite reservoir substantially. Mass drug administration was more cost-effective in relatively higher transmission settings. In all scenarios examined, the cost-effectiveness of MDA was superior to that of fMDA.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-News-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
Financial support: The trial was an investigator-initiated study supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Authors’ addresses: Joshua O. Yukich, Timothy P. Finn, Travis R. Porter, Joseph Keating, and Thomas P. Eisele, Department of Tropical Medicine, Center for Applied Malaria Research and Evaluation, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, E-mails: jyukich@tulane.edu, mailto:tfinn2@tulane.edu, tporter1@tulane.edu, jkeating@tulane.edu, and teisele@tulane.edu. Callie Scott, Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, E-mail: calliescott@gmail.com. Kafula Silumbe and John M. Miller, PATH Malaria Control and Elimination Partnership in Africa, Lusaka, Zambia, E-mails: ksilumbe@path.org and jmiller@path.org. Bruce A. Larson, Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, E-mail: blarson@bu.edu. Adam Bennett, Malaria Elimination Initiative, Global Health Group, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, E-mail: adam.bennett@ucsf.edu. Busiku Hamainza, National Malaria Control Centre, Zambia Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia, E-mail: bossbusk@gmail.com. Ruben O. Conner, PATH Malaria Control and Elimination Partnership in Africa, Seattle, WA, E-mail: rconner@path.org. Richard W. Steketee, President’s Malaria Initiative, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, E-mail: ris1@cdc.gov.
Disclosure: The funding source had no role in the conduct, analysis, or interpretation of results of the study. All authors had full access to all the data in the study.
ISSN:0002-9637
1476-1645
DOI:10.4269/ajtmh.19-0661