291037
Insecticide treated wall liner: Cost-effectiveness of a new tool for malaria prevention
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
: 10:45 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
George Olang,
Centre for Global Health Research, KEMRI/CDC, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya
Nabie Bayoh, PhD,
Centre for Global Health Research, KEMRI/CDC, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya
Frank Odhiambo, PhD,
Centre for Global Health Research, KEMRI/CDC, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya
Vincent Were,
Centre for Global Health Research, KEMRI/CDC, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya
Peter Otieno,
Centre for Global Health Research, KEMRI/CDC, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya
Simon Kariuki, PhD,
Centre for Global Health Research, KEMRI/CDC, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kenya
Meghna Desai, PhD,
Centre for Global Health Research, KEMRI/CDC, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)/US Centers for Disease Control, Kisumu, Kenya
John Gimnig, PhD,
Malaria Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Atlanta, GA
Mary Hamel, MD,
USAID Global Health Bureau; Medical epidemiologist, Malaria Branch, CDC., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Washington, DC
While insecticide treated nets (ITNs) and other strategies have reduced the burden of malaria, the disease remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality across sub-Saharan Africa. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a promising new malaria prevention tool, the insecticide treated wall liner (ITWL). Its manufacturer projects a useful life of 3-4 years. The efficacy of ITWL is based on a 6-month cluster randomized trial by Gimnig et al of 1,592 children (aged 6 months-11 years) in 12 rural villages in Nyanza Province, Kenya during 2010. Control villages had only ITNs; experimental villages had both ITNs and ITWLs. The cost-effectiveness analysis considered unit costs and quantities of each input, demographic records, and published literature. The adjusted protective efficacy for ITWL was 38% (95% CI: 23%-50%), or 1.1 infection averted per child per year. The added cost of ITWL was US$64.23 per person covered, consisting of ITWL's projected factory price (44.9%), shipping and offloading (5.1%), management and supervisory personnel (24.5%), installation materials (0.4%), local transportation (13.9%), and installation labor (11.1%). Under the least favorable assumption (ITWL protection ends at 3 months, the average follow up in the previous trial), the cost per discounted life-year gained (DLYG) is US$4,837. Under the most favorable assumption (ITWL remains effective for 4 years), the cost per DLYG is US$482. Kenya's per capita GDP in 2010 was US$795. WHO considers interventions with cost-effectiveness ratios below a country's GDP highly cost-effective. As long as ITWL remains effective for at least 2.2 years, it will be highly cost-effective.
Learning Areas:
Biostatistics, economics
Public health or related research
Learning Objectives:
Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a new tool for malaria prevention
Discuss key factors affecting the results.
Keyword(s): Cost-Effectiveness, Prevention
Presenting author's disclosure statement:Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: Doanld Shepard is the Principal Investigator of a study on this topic sponsored by the Gates Foundation. Elizabeth Glaser is the Project Manager on this study.
Any relevant financial relationships? No
I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines,
and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed
in my presentation.