Cost and cost effectiveness of reactive case detection (RACD), reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) to reduce malaria in the low endemic setting of Namibia: an analysis alongside a 2×2 factorial design cluster randomised controlled trial. Issue 6 (23rd June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ntuku, Henry; Smith-Gueye, Cara; Scott, Valerie; Njau, Joseph; Whittemore, Brooke; Zelman, Brittany; Tambo, Munyaradzi; Prach, Lisa M; Wu, Lindsey; Schrubbe, Leah; Kang Dufour, Mi-Suk; Mwilima, Agnes; Uusiku, Petrina; Sturrock, Hugh; Bennett, Adam; Smith, Jennifer; Kleinschmidt, Immo; Mumbengegwi, Davis; Gosling, Roly; Hsiang, Michelle
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 12:Issue 6(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-06-23
• Subjects: EPIDEMIOLOGY -- HEALTH ECONOMICS -- Health policy -- Public health; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049050
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To estimate the cost and cost effectiveness of reactive case detection (RACD), reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) to reduce malaria in a low endemic setting. Setting: The study was part of a 2×2 factorial design cluster randomised controlled trial within the catchment area of 11 primary health facilities in Zambezi, Namibia. Participants: Cost and outcome data were collected from the trial, which included 8948 community members that received interventions due to their residence within 500 m of malaria index cases. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per in incident case averted. ICER per prevalent case and per disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted were secondary outcomes, as were per unit interventions costs and personnel time. Outcomes were compared as: (1) rfMDA versus RACD, (2) RAVC versus no RAVC and (3) rfMDA+RAVC versus RACD only. Results: rfMDA cost 1.1× more than RACD, and RAVC cost 1.7× more than no RAVC. Relative to RACD only, the cost of rfMDA+RAVC was double ($3082 vs $1553 per event). The ICERs for rfMDA versus RACD, RAVC versus no RAVC and rfMDA+RAVC versus RACD only were $114, $1472 and $842, per incident case averted, respectively. Using prevalent infections and DALYs as outcomes, trends were similar. The median personnel time to implement rfMDA was 20% lower than for RACD (30 vs 38 min per person). The median personnel time for RAVC was 34 min per structure sprayed. Conclusion: Implemented alone or in combination, rfMDA and RAVC were cost effective in reducing malaria incidence and prevalence despite higher implementation costs in the intervention compared with control arms. Compared with RACD, rfMDA was time saving. Cost and time requirements for the combined intervention could be decreased by implementing rfMDA and RAVC simultaneously by a single team. Trial registration number: NCT02610400; Post-results .