ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2015
An Economic Evaluation of the Posttreatment Prophylactic Effect of Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine Versus Artemether-Lumefantrine for First-Line Treatment of Plasmodium falciparum Malaria Across Different Transmission Settings in Africa.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiple first-line therapeutic strategies to mitigate artemisinin resistance: cost analysis of a pilot study from a health system perspective in Kaya health district, Burkina Faso.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Achieving malaria testing and treatment targets for children under five in Mozambique: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- Efficacy of Artemether-Lumefantrine on variousParasite epidemiology and control · 2020Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of malaria interventions using disability adjusted life years: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2017Review
- Article
- Failure of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in a traveller coming from Ethiopia.Malaria journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malaria disproportionately affects young children. Clinical trials in African children showed that dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) is an effective antimalarial and has a longer posttreatment prophylactic (PTP) effect against reinfections than other artemisinin-based combination therapies, including artemether-lumefantrine (AL). Using a previously developed Markov model and individual patient data from a multicenter African drug efficacy trial, we assessed the economic value of the PTP effect of DP versus AL in pediatric malaria patients from health-care provider's perspective in low-to-moderate and moderate-to-high transmission settings under different drug co-payment scenarios. In low-to-moderate transmission settings, first-line treatment with DP was highly cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$5 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -76 to 196) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. In moderate-to-high transmission settings, DP first-line treatment led to a mean cost saving of US$1.09 (95% CI = -0.88 to 3.85) and averted 0.05 (95% CI = -0.08 to 0.22) DALYs per child per year. Our results suggested that DP might be superior to AL for first-line treatment of uncomplicated childhood malaria across a range of transmission settings in Africa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.