IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0000818.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Combination Therapies for Visceral Leishmaniasis in the Indian Subcontinent

Author

Listed:
  • Filip Meheus
  • Manica Balasegaram
  • Piero Olliaro
  • Shyam Sundar
  • Suman Rijal
  • Md Abul Faiz
  • Marleen Boelaert

Abstract

Background: Visceral leishmaniasis is a systemic parasitic disease that is fatal unless treated. We assessed the cost and cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in the Indian subcontinent. In particular we examined whether combination therapies are a cost-effective alternative compared to monotherapies. Methods and Findings: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of all possible mono- and combination therapies for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in the Indian subcontinent (India, Nepal and Bangladesh) from a societal perspective using a decision analytical model based on a decision tree. Primary data collected in each country was combined with data from the literature and an expert poll (Delphi method). The cost per patient treated and average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios expressed as cost per death averted were calculated. Extensive sensitivity analysis was done to evaluate the robustness of our estimations and conclusions. With a cost of US$92 per death averted, the combination miltefosine-paromomycin was the most cost-effective treatment strategy. The next best alternative was a combination of liposomal amphotericin B with paromomycin with an incremental cost-effectiveness of $652 per death averted. All other strategies were dominated with the exception of a single dose of 10mg per kg of liposomal amphotericin B. While strategies based on liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) were found to be the most effective, its current drug cost of US$20 per vial resulted in a higher average cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis showed the conclusion to be robust to variations in the input parameters over their plausible range. Conclusions: Combination treatments are a cost-effective alternative to current monotherapy for VL. Given their expected impact on the emergence of drug resistance, a switch to combination therapy should be considered once final results from clinical trials are available. Author Summary: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a serious health problem in the Indian subcontinent affecting the rural poor. It has a significant economic impact on concerned households. The development of drug resistance is a major problem and threatens control efforts under the VL elimination initiative. With an unprecedented choice of antileishmanial drugs (but no newer compound in clinical development), policies that protect these drugs against the emergence of resistance are required. A possible strategy that has been successfully used for malaria and tuberculosis is the use of combination therapies. This study is the first comprehensive assessment of the cost-effectiveness of all possible mono- and combination therapies for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in the Indian subcontinent. The analysis was done from the societal perspective, including both health provider and household costs. The present work shows that combination treatments are a cost-effective alternative to current monotherapy for VL. Given their expected impact on emergence of drug resistance, the use of combination therapy should be considered in the context of the VL elimination programme in the Indian subcontinent.

Suggested Citation

  • Filip Meheus & Manica Balasegaram & Piero Olliaro & Shyam Sundar & Suman Rijal & Md Abul Faiz & Marleen Boelaert, 2010. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Combination Therapies for Visceral Leishmaniasis in the Indian Subcontinent," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(9), pages 1-9, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0000818
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0000818
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0000818&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000818?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liliana Castillo-Rodríguez & Clemencia Ovalle-Bracho & Diana Díaz-Jiménez & Guillermo Sánchez-Vanegas & Sandra Muvdi-Arenas & Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of Mucosal Leishmaniasis diagnosis with PCR-based vs parasitological tests in Colombia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0000818. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.