| Literature DB >> 20090933 |
Jacklin F Mosha1, Lesong Conteh, Fabrizio Tediosi, Samwel Gesase, Jane Bruce, Daniel Chandramohan, Roly Gosling.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over diagnosis of malaria contributes to improper treatment, wastage of drugs and resistance to the few available drugs. This paper attempts to estimate the rates of over diagnosis of malaria among children attending dispensaries in rural Tanzania and examines the potential cost implications of improving the quality of diagnosis. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20090933 PMCID: PMC2806838 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008707
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Study sites.
Comparison of RDT confirmed malaria vs. clinically diagnosed in routine health care system (July–August 2007).
| HEALTH FACILITIES | UNDER 5 YEARS | OVER 5 YEARS | ||||||||||||
| RDT SURVEY | Routine Health Care System | P- VALUE | RDT SURVEY | Routine Health Care System | P- VALUE | |||||||||
| N* | % positive for malaria | 95% CI | N° | % diagnosed as malaria | 95% CI | N* | % positive for malaria | 95% CI | N° | % diagnosed as malaria | 95% CI | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19.3 |
|
| 51.4 |
|
| 10.6 |
|
| 55.1 |
| ||
|
|
| 6.6 |
|
| 37.2 |
|
| 2.8 |
|
| 55.3 |
| ||
|
|
| 29.8 |
|
| 34.8 |
|
| 18.5 |
|
| 37.9 |
| ||
|
|
| 15.2 |
|
| 37.8 |
|
| 15.2 |
|
| 38.0 |
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.0 |
|
| 21.4 |
|
| 1.8 |
|
| 15.9 |
| ||
|
|
| 1.7 |
|
| 0.0 |
|
| 2.3 |
|
| 27.9 |
| ||
|
|
| 1.1 |
|
| 44.0 |
|
| 1.9 |
|
| 50.9 |
| ||
|
|
| 0 |
|
| 18.5 |
|
| 1.3 |
|
| 26.5 |
| ||
N* Number of patients tested with RDT.
N° Number of patients treated for malaria.
Comparison of causes of morbidity in <2 year old children in the IPTi study cohort and in <5 old children seen in the routine heath care system in 2007 in the study health facilities.
| Diagnosis | KOROGWE (Moderate transmission site) | SAME (Low transmission site) | ||||||
| IPTi cohort | Routine health care system | IPTi cohort | Routine health care system | |||||
| % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costing assumptions.
| Categories of causes of morbidity and Drugs Prescribed | Estimated Proportion of children receiving this prescription | Cost of treatment per category of morbidity per child (US $ 2007) |
|
|
| |
|
| ||
| (ALU) COARTEM | 100% | |
| Paracetamol | 100% | |
| RDT (IPTi group) | 100% | |
| Microscopy (HMIS/routine group) | 50% | |
|
|
| |
| AMOXYCILINE SYRUP | 76% | |
| Cotrimoxazole Syrup | 11% | |
| Erythromycin Syrup | 6% | |
| Chloromphenical | 7% | |
| COUGH SYRUP | 78% | |
| Paracetamol | 44% | |
|
|
| |
| AMPICILLIN/GENTER | 100% | |
|
|
| |
| ORS | 100% | |
| Ringer lactate intravenous fluid | 100% | |
| Cotrimoxazole | 48% | |
| Erythromycin | 13% | |
| Amoxycillin | 9% | |
| Ceftriaxone | 6% | |
| Ampicillin and gentamycin injection | 24% | |
|
|
| |
| ORS | 100% | |
| Erythromycin Tabs | 61% | |
| Ampicillin injection and gentamycin injection | 8% | |
| Cotrimoxazole Syrup | 22% | |
| Amoxycillin syrup | 6% | |
| Metronidazole Syrup | 3% | |
|
|
| |
| Tetracycline eye ointment | 100% | |
|
|
| |
| Amoxycillin syrup | 34% | |
| ampiclox syrup | 74% | |
| Erythromycin Syrup | 6% | |
| Boric acid/gentamycin ear drops | 81% | |
|
|
| |
| G.V PAINT | 54% | |
| Cloxacillin syrup | 67% | |
| Ampiclox syrup | 33% | |
|
|
| |
| Amoxycillin syrup | 61% | |
| Chloromphenical | 11% | |
| Ampicillin injection and gentamycin injection | 18% | |
| Erythromycin | 4% | |
| Cotrimoxazole | 6% | |
| Paracetamol | 100% | |
|
|
| |
| Cost per infant is an average of other intervention costs | ||
Cost per infant – IPTi Cohort (all suspected cases of malaria received an RDT).
Cost per infant routine health system (50% of all malaria diagnoses identified using a microscopy and the other 50% were treated presumptively).
Drug and diagnostic costs (per 100 infants treated).
| Costs | KOROGWE | SAME | ||||
| (Moderate transmission site) | (Low transmission site) | |||||
| IPTi Cohort | Routine Health Care | Cost Comparison | IPTi Cohort | Routine Health Care | Cost Comparison | |
| Total Costs | Total Costs | Total Costs | Total Costs | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Routine Health Care represents data from HMIS.
IPTi cohort costs/Routine health care system costs.
Figure 2Sensitivity Analysis on cost implications.
Figure 2a: Cost Implications on Changing the Cost of RDTs. Figure 2b: Cost Implications on Changing the Cost of ACT. Figure 2c: Cost Implications on Changing the Rates of Routine Microscopy.