Cost risk benefit analysis to support chemoprophylaxis policy for travellers to malaria endemic countries

Malaria Journal

Research

Ben C Behrens¹  Ronald H Behrens²  Francisco AB Coutinho³  Eduardo Massad⁴ 

[1] Dept of Economics University of Sheffield, UK;London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK;School of Medicine, University of São Paulo and LIM 01 HCFMUSP, Brazil;School of Medicine, University of São Paulo and LIM 01 HCFMUSP, Brazil;London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK;

关键词: Malaria;    Malaria Transmission;    Malaria Case;    Mefloquine;    Malaria Risk;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1475-2875-10-130

 received in 2011-01-03, accepted in 2011-05-17,  发布年份 2011

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundIn a number of malaria endemic regions, tourists and travellers face a declining risk of travel associated malaria, in part due to successful malaria control. Many millions of visitors to these regions are recommended, via national and international policy, to use chemoprophylaxis which has a well recognized morbidity profile. To evaluate whether current malaria chemo-prophylactic policy for travellers is cost effective when adjusted for endemic transmission risk and duration of exposure. a framework, based on partial cost-benefit analysis was usedMethodsUsing a three component model combining a probability component, a cost component and a malaria risk component, the study estimated health costs avoided through use of chemoprophylaxis and costs of disease prevention (including adverse events and pre-travel advice for visits to five popular high and low malaria endemic regions) and malaria transmission risk using imported malaria cases and numbers of travellers to malarious countries. By calculating the minimal threshold malaria risk below which the economic costs of chemoprophylaxis are greater than the avoided health costs we were able to identify the point at which chemoprophylaxis would be economically rational.ResultsThe threshold incidence at which malaria chemoprophylaxis policy becomes cost effective for UK travellers is an accumulated risk of 1.13% assuming a given set of cost parameters. The period a travellers need to remain exposed to achieve this accumulated risk varied from 30 to more than 365 days, depending on the regions intensity of malaria transmission.ConclusionsThe cost-benefit analysis identified that chemoprophylaxis use was not a cost-effective policy for travellers to Thailand or the Amazon region of Brazil, but was cost-effective for travel to West Africa and for those staying longer than 45 days in India and Indonesia.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Massad et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011