OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of cotrimoxazole prophylaxis in HIV-infected children in Zambia, as implementation at the local health centre level has yet to be undertaken in many resource-limited countries despite recommendations in recent updated World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. DESIGN: A probabilistic decision analytical model of HIV/AIDS progression in children based on the CD4 cell percentage (CD4%) was populated with data from the placebo-controlled Children with HIV Antibiotic Prophylaxis trial that had reported a 43% reduction in mortality with cotrimoxazole prophylaxis in HIV-infected children aged 1-14 years. METHODS: Unit costs (US$ in 2006) were measured at University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka. Cost-effectiveness expressed as cost per life-year saved, cost per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) saved, cost per disability adjusted life-year (DALY) averted was calculated across a number of different scenarios at tertiary and primary healthcare centres. RESULTS: : Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of US$72 per life-year saved, US$94 per QALY saved and US$53 per DALY averted, i.e. substantially less than a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$1019 per outcome (gross domestic product per capita, Zambia 2006). ICERs of US$5 or less per outcome demonstrate that cotrimoxazole prophylaxis is even more cost-effective at the local healthcare level. The intervention remained cost-effective in all sensitivity analyses including routine haematological and CD4% monitoring, varying starting age, AIDS status, cotrimoxazole formulation, efficacy duration and discount rates. CONCLUSION: Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis in HIV-infected children is an inexpensive low technology intervention that is highly cost-effective in Zambia, strongly supporting the adoption of WHO guidelines into essential healthcare packages in low-income countries.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of cotrimoxazole prophylaxis in HIV-infectedchildren in Zambia, as implementation at the local health centre level has yet to be undertaken in many resource-limited countries despite recommendations in recent updated World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. DESIGN: A probabilistic decision analytical model of HIV/AIDS progression in children based on the CD4 cell percentage (CD4%) was populated with data from the placebo-controlled Children with HIV Antibiotic Prophylaxis trial that had reported a 43% reduction in mortality with cotrimoxazole prophylaxis in HIV-infectedchildren aged 1-14 years. METHODS: Unit costs (US$ in 2006) were measured at University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka. Cost-effectiveness expressed as cost per life-year saved, cost per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) saved, cost per disability adjusted life-year (DALY) averted was calculated across a number of different scenarios at tertiary and primary healthcare centres. RESULTS: : Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of US$72 per life-year saved, US$94 per QALY saved and US$53 per DALY averted, i.e. substantially less than a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$1019 per outcome (gross domestic product per capita, Zambia 2006). ICERs of US$5 or less per outcome demonstrate that cotrimoxazole prophylaxis is even more cost-effective at the local healthcare level. The intervention remained cost-effective in all sensitivity analyses including routine haematological and CD4% monitoring, varying starting age, AIDS status, cotrimoxazole formulation, efficacy duration and discount rates. CONCLUSION:Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis in HIV-infectedchildren is an inexpensive low technology intervention that is highly cost-effective in Zambia, strongly supporting the adoption of WHO guidelines into essential healthcare packages in low-income countries.
Authors: Pamela K Kohler; Michael H Chung; Christine J McGrath; Sarah F Benki-Nugent; Joan W Thiga; Grace C John-Stewart Journal: AIDS Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Nyanyiwe M Mbeye; Feiko O ter Kuile; Mary-Ann Davies; Kamija S Phiri; Matthias Egger; Gilles Wandeler Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: C Giaquinto; M Penazzato; R Rosso; S Bernardi; O Rampon; P Nasta; A Ammassari; A Antinori; R Badolato; G Castelli Gattinara; A d'Arminio Monforte; M De Martino; A De Rossi; P Di Gregorio; S Esposito; F Fatuzzo; S Fiore; A Franco; C Gabiano; L Galli; O Genovese; V Giacomet; A Giannattasio; C Gotta; A Guarino; A Martino; F Mazzotta; N Principi; M B Regazzi; P Rossi; R Russo; M Saitta; F Salvini; S Trotta; A Viganò; G Zuccotti; G Carosi Journal: Infection Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 7.455
Authors: Eleanor Hutchinson; Justin Parkhurst; Sam Phiri; Di M Gibb; Nathaniel Chishinga; Benson Droti; Susan Hoskins Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2011-06-16
Authors: Rebecca L Brander; Marcia R Weaver; Patricia B Pavlinac; Grace C John-Stewart; Stephen E Hawes; Judd L Walson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Olufunke Fasawe; Carlos Avila; Nathan Shaffer; Erik Schouten; Frank Chimbwandira; David Hoos; Olive Nakakeeto; Paul De Lay Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Francine Noel; Sapna Mehta; Yuwei Zhu; Patricia De Matteis Rouzier; Abdias Marcelin; Jian R Shi; Claudine Nolte; Linda Severe; Marie Marcelle Deschamps; Daniel W Fitzgerald; Warren D Johnson; Peter F Wright; Jean W Pape Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-11-14 Impact factor: 3.240