Search

Background: Intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is recommended in HIV-negative women to avert malaria, while this relies on cotrimoxazole prophylaxis (CTXp) in HIV-positive women. Alternative antimalarials are required in areas where parasite resistance to antifolate drugs is high. The cost-effectiveness of IPTp with alternative drugs is needed to inform policy., Methods: The cost-effectiveness of 2-dose IPTp-mefloquine (MQ) was compared with IPTp-SP in HIV-negative women (Benin, Gabon, Mozambique and Tanzania). In HIV-positive women the cost-effectiveness of 3-dose IPTp-MQ added to CTXp was compared with CTXp alone (Kenya, Mozambique and Tanzania). The outcomes used were maternal clinical malaria, anaemia at delivery and non-obstetric hospital admissions. The poor tolerability to MQ was included as the value of women's loss of working days. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and threshold analysis undertaken., Results: For HIV-negative women, the ICER for IPTp-MQ versus IPTp-SP was 136.30 US$ (2012 US$) (95%CI 131.41; 141.18) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, or 237.78 US$ (95%CI 230.99; 244.57), depending on whether estimates from Gabon were included or not. For HIV-positive women, the ICER per DALY averted for IPTp-MQ added to CTXp, versus CTXp alone was 6.96 US$ (95%CI 4.22; 9.70). In HIV-negative women, moderate shifts of variables such as malaria incidence, drug cost, and IPTp efficacy increased the ICERs above the cost-effectiveness threshold. In HIV-positive women the intervention remained cost-effective for a substantial (up to 21 times) increase in cost per tablet., Conclusions: Addition of IPTp with an effective antimalarial to CTXp was very cost-effective in HIV-positive women. IPTp with an efficacious antimalarial was more cost-effective than IPTp-SP in HIV-negative women. However, the poor tolerability of MQ does not favour its use as IPTp. Regardless of HIV status, prevention of malaria in pregnancy with a highly efficacious, well tolerated antimalarial would be cost-effective despite its high price., Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 00811421; Pan African Trials Registry PACTR2010020001429343 and PACTR2010020001813440.

The prevailing model for encouraging innovation based on patents and market-oriented raises at least two economic and ethical issues: it imposes barriers on individuals and developing countries governments' access to medicines by defining prices that do not match their income, and the unavailability of new or appropriate products to address the health problems of these populations. In the last decade, this scenario has undergone some changes due to the emergence of new actors, the contribution of aid resources, the introduction to the market of new products against neglected diseases, the development of new governmental healthcare policies and research programs, etc. One example of such initiatives is the Fixed-Dose Artesunate Combination Therapy (FACT) project consortium, which brought together institutions with different natures from both the North and the South, for the development of two antimalarial fixed-dose combinations recommended by the WHO - artesunate-amodiaquine (ASAQ) and artesunate-mefloquine (ASMQ). This paper proposes to describe and analyze the ASMQ consortium, which is the result of a new pharmaceutical development approach, based on a different paradigm - needs-driven instead of market-driven -, collaborative, with strategic participation of institutions from the South, funded by alternative resources (public and philanthropic). Thus, it represents an interesting object of study for bioethical debates on intellectual property and innovation, and its analysis is justified in light of the current debate on ways of stimulating needs-driven pharmaceutical innovation., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Long-term travelers to areas where malaria is endemic are at risk for this potentially fatal disease; however, malaria can be prevented through the use of insecticide-treated bednets, mosquito repellents, and chemoprophylaxis. Three options for chemoprophylaxis are available in the Africa region: mefloquine, doxycycline, and atovaquone-proguanil. These options differ by dosing regimen, cost, and side effect profile. Long-term adverse effects of these drugs have been reported rarely.

Background: The importation of malaria to non-endemic countries remains a major cause of travel-related morbidity and a leading cause of travel-related hospitalizations. Currently they are three priority medications for malaria prophylaxis to West Africa: mefloquine, atovaquone/proguanil and doxycycline. We investigate the cost effectiveness of a partial reimbursement of the cheapest effective malaria chemoprophylaxis (mefloquine) for travellers to high risk areas of malaria transmission compared with the current situation of no reimbursement., Methods: This study is a cost-effectiveness analysis based on malaria cases imported from West Africa to Switzerland from the perspective of the Swiss health system. We used a decision tree model and made a literature research on the components of travel related malaria. The main outcome measure was the cost effectiveness of malaria chemoprophylaxis reimbursement based on malaria and deaths averted., Results: Using a program where travellers would be reimbursed for 80% of the cost of the cheapest malaria chemoprophylaxis is dominant (i.e. cost saving and more effective than the current situation) using the assumption that currently 68.7% of travellers to West Africa use malaria chemoprophylaxis. If the current usage of malaria chemoprophylaxis would be higher, 82.4%, the incremental cost per malaria case averted is € 2'302. The incremental cost of malaria death averted is € 191'833.The most important factors influencing the model were: the proportion of travellers using malaria chemoprophylaxis, the probability of contracting malaria without malaria chemoprophylaxis, the cost of the mefloquine regimen, the decrease in the number of travellers without malaria chemoprophylaxis in the reimbursement strategy., Conclusions: This study suggests that a reimbursement of 80% of the cost of the cheapest effective malaria chemoprophylaxis (mefloquine) for travellers from Switzerland to West Africa is highly effective in terms of malaria cases averted and is cost effective to the Swiss health system. These data are relevant to discussions about the cost effectiveness of malaria chemoprophylaxis reimbursement for vulnerable groups such as those visiting friends and relatives who have the highest risk of malaria, who are least likely to use chemoprophylaxis.

This study analyzed the approximate cost of treatment of patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of imported malaria in Slovakia. Between 2003 and 2007, 15 patients with imported malaria were hospitalized. The mean direct cost of the treatment was 970.75 euros and the mean indirect cost was 53.15 euros. For the patient with the highest cost of treatment, the use of mefloquine prophylaxis would have represented only 0.5% of the total direct cost of treating the disease. Despite the partial resistance of plasmodia, malaria chemoprophylaxis is unequivocally a cheaper choice than subsequent treatment of malaria.

Three different drugs (mefloquine, atovaquone/proguanil, doxycycline) are recommended for malaria chemoprophylaxis, each with approximately the same efficacy but various adverse event profiles, regimens, and prices. We investigated which medication the travelers would have chosen on the basis of written evidence-based information and the impact that pretravel consultation had on their decision. A prospective study was performed in a travel clinic and private practice, and 1073 travelers were included; 45% chose mefloquine (Lariam or Mephaquine), 21% atovaquone/proguanil (Malarone), 18% doxycycline (Supracycline), 5% "no prophylaxis," and 11% "do not know." Lariam was principally chosen because of prior experience (38%), Mephaquine because of low price (34%), and doxycycline and Malarone because of the profile of adverse events (55% and 43%, respectively). Based on objective written information, travelers most frequently chose mefloquine for chemoprophylaxis. This suggests that evidence-based information weighs more heavily than negative publicity. Taking into account the perspective of the user should improve appropriateness of the pretravel advice.

Mefloquine has been one of the more valuable antimalarial drugs but has never reached its full clinical potential due to concerns about its neurologic side effects, its greater expense than that of other antimalarials, and the emergence of resistance. The commercial development of mefloquine superseded that of another quinolinyl methanol, WR030090, which was used as an experimental antimalarial drug by the U.S. Army in the 1970s. We evaluated a series of related 2-phenyl-substituted alkylaminoquinolinyl methanols (AAQMs) for their potential as mefloquine replacement drugs based on a series of appropriate in vitro and in vivo efficacy and toxicology screens and the theoretical cost of goods. Generally, the AAQMs were less neurotoxic and exhibited greater antimalarial potency, and they are potentially cheaper than mefloquine, but they showed poorer metabolic stability and pharmacokinetics and the potential for phototoxicity. These differences in physiochemical and biological properties are attributable to the "opening" of the piperidine ring of the 4-position side chain. Modification of the most promising compound, WR069878, by substitution of an appropriate N functionality at the 4 position, optimization of quinoline ring substituents at the 6 and 7 positions, and deconjugation of quinoline and phenyl ring systems is anticipated to yield a valuable new antimalarial drug.

Background: Malaria is a major public health problem representing 2.3% of the overall global disease burden. The cost of treatment of malaria continues to rise as older drugs and insecticides become less effective and are replaced by more effective, but also more expensive products., Methods: A post-hoc pharmacoeconomic analysis (direct and indirect costs only) of three antimalarials, chloroquine, mefloquine and co-artemether, was carried out to address the problem of switch to a more expensive first-line antimalarial in the face of growing chloroquine resistance., Results: From the perspective of a large public hospital, it was seen that in an area of high grade chloroquine resistance, the total expenditure on patients who fail chloroquine would exceed the excess expenditure on mefloquine when the RII + RIII resistance exceeded 9%., Conclusions: Switch to a more expensive drug like mefloquine as a first-line option would be cost-effective when the moderate-severe chloroquine resistance exceeded 9%.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 300 million cases of malaria exist worldwide each year, resulting in more than 3 million deaths, with more than 1 million deaths of children in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Malaria is also a reemerging disease in some parts of Africa, including South Africa. Malaria prevention is multi-faceted with no single precaution offering complete protection. Taking chemoprophylaxis decreases the severity and frequency of death from malaria due to Plasmodium falciparum when compared with taking no chemoprophylaxis.

The most-prescribed malaria drug could produce psychiatric side effects in more than one-quarter of all travelers who take it.

A cross sectional study was carried out in a rural area of Myanmar to identify malaria patients' acceptance of artesunate plus mefloquine drug combination and to determine the cost borne by patients. The majority (88.5%) preferred this new regimen rather than the other ones they had used before; conviction of drug efficacy was the reason given for the preference by most of them. Traveling on foot to rural health centers or a health assistant's residence for getting the drugs was found to be the main route. Average cost incurred by a patient to get the drug was found to be 274.22 Kyats. Among the cost items, drug cost was the highest item that they had used.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the currently used antimalarial drugs in six African countries., Design: A meta-analysis., Main Outcome Measures: The role of efficacy, safety and cost on the selection of antimalarial drugs., Results: The comparative efficacy study showed that amodiaquine (with > 90% cure rate) was superior to chloroquine and sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine at seven days schedule. The efficacy of amodiaquine was also observed to be comparable to that of mefloquine and halofantrine. The parasite clearance time (PCT) of these drugs ranged between two days and a week and the fever clearance time (FCT) was within 48 hours. The recrudescence rate at D14-D21 was found to be 12-17% in chloroquine and amodiaquine, while sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine showed a trend similar to halofantrine and mefloquine (0-12% recrudescence rate). Similarly, a big difference was also noted in the cost of the different antimalarial drugs. The pharmacokinetic data, however, showed that they are of similar profile, except in adverse features and contraindications, and values like their half-life (t1/2) where the long (t1/2) in drugs like sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine endows them with suppressive-cure feature, especially against recrudescent strains. Nevertheless, as these data are obtained from resident population in Africa, who however naive are exposed to few malaria challenges in their life, the results should not be directly extrapolated to total non immunes such as visitors from Europe., Conclusion: The choice of alternative antimalarial drugs should be mainly based on their relative efficacy, safety and cost.