BACKGROUND: In areas with limited structure in place for microscopy diagnosis, rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) have been demonstrated to be effective. METHOD: The cost-effectiveness of the Optimal® and thick smear microscopy was estimated and compared. Data were collected on remote areas of 12 municipalities in the Brazilian Amazon. Data sources included the National Malaria Control Programme of the Ministry of Health, the National Healthcare System reimbursement table, hospitalization records, primary data collected from the municipalities, and scientific literature. The perspective was that of the Brazilian public health system, the analytical horizon was from the start of fever until the diagnostic results provided to patient and the temporal reference was that of year 2006. The results were expressed in costs per adequately diagnosed cases in 2006 U.S. dollars. Sensitivity analysis was performed considering key model parameters. RESULTS: In the case base scenario, considering 92% and 95% sensitivity for thick smear microscopy to Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax, respectively, and 100% specificity for both species, thick smear microscopy is more costly and more effective, with an incremental cost estimated at US$549.9 per adequately diagnosed case. In sensitivity analysis, when sensitivity and specificity of microscopy for P. vivax were 0.90 and 0.98, respectively, and when its sensitivity for P. falciparum was 0.83, the RDT was more cost-effective than microscopy. CONCLUSION: Microscopy is more cost-effective than OptiMal® in these remote areas if high accuracy of microscopy is maintained in the field. Decision regarding use of rapid tests for diagnosis of malaria in these areas depends on current microscopy accuracy in the field.
BACKGROUND: In areas with limited structure in place for microscopy diagnosis, rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) have been demonstrated to be effective. METHOD: The cost-effectiveness of the Optimal® and thick smear microscopy was estimated and compared. Data were collected on remote areas of 12 municipalities in the Brazilian Amazon. Data sources included the National Malaria Control Programme of the Ministry of Health, the National Healthcare System reimbursement table, hospitalization records, primary data collected from the municipalities, and scientific literature. The perspective was that of the Brazilian public health system, the analytical horizon was from the start of fever until the diagnostic results provided to patient and the temporal reference was that of year 2006. The results were expressed in costs per adequately diagnosed cases in 2006 U.S. dollars. Sensitivity analysis was performed considering key model parameters. RESULTS: In the case base scenario, considering 92% and 95% sensitivity for thick smear microscopy to Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax, respectively, and 100% specificity for both species, thick smear microscopy is more costly and more effective, with an incremental cost estimated at US$549.9 per adequately diagnosed case. In sensitivity analysis, when sensitivity and specificity of microscopy for P. vivax were 0.90 and 0.98, respectively, and when its sensitivity for P. falciparum was 0.83, the RDT was more cost-effective than microscopy. CONCLUSION: Microscopy is more cost-effective than OptiMal® in these remote areas if high accuracy of microscopy is maintained in the field. Decision regarding use of rapid tests for diagnosis of malaria in these areas depends on current microscopy accuracy in the field.
Authors: Samuel Shillcutt; Chantal Morel; Catherine Goodman; Paul Coleman; David Bell; Christopher J M Whitty; A Mills Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Yoel Lubell; Hugh Reyburn; Hilda Mbakilwa; Rose Mwangi; Kini Chonya; Christopher J M Whitty; Anne Mills Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Carol J Palmer; J Alfredo Bonilla; David A Bruckner; Elizabeth D Barnett; Nancy S Miller; M A Haseeb; Joseph R Masci; William M Stauffer Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Estelle Rolland; Francesco Checchi; Loretxu Pinoges; Suna Balkan; Jean-Paul Guthmann; Philippe J Guerin Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Henry M Peixoto; Marcelo A M Brito; Gustavo A S Romero; Wuelton M Monteiro; Marcus V G de Lacerda; Maria Regina F de Oliveira Journal: Malar J Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Henry M Peixoto; Marcelo A M Brito; Gustavo A S Romero; Wuelton M Monteiro; Marcus V G de Lacerda; Maria R F de Oliveira Journal: Malar J Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Laura R Sangaré; Noel S Weiss; Paula E Brentlinger; Barbra A Richardson; Sarah G Staedke; Mpungu S Kiwuwa; Andy Stergachis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Luciana Pereira Sousa; Luis André Morais Mariuba; Rudson Jesus Holanda; João Paulo Pimentel; Maria Edilene Martins Almeida; Yury Oliveira Chaves; Davi Borges; Emerson Lima; James Lee Crainey; Patricia Puccinelli Orlandi; Marcus Vinicius Lacerda; Paulo Afonso Nogueira Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 3.090