↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of artemisinin–naphthoquine versus artemether–lumefantrine for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Papua New Guinean children

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness of artemisinin–naphthoquine versus artemether–lumefantrine for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Papua New Guinean children
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2081-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brioni R. Moore, Wendy A. Davis, Philip M. Clarke, Leanne J. Robinson, Moses Laman, Timothy M. E. Davis

Abstract

A recent randomized trial showed that artemisinin-naphthoquine (AN) was non-inferior to artemether-lumefantrine (AL) for falciparum malaria and superior for vivax malaria in young Papua New Guinean children. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of these two regimens. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using data from 231 children with Plasmodium falciparum and/or Plasmodium vivax infections in an open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial. Recruited children were randomized 1:1 to receive once daily AN for 3 days with water or twice daily AL for 3 days given with fat. World Health Organisation (WHO) definitions were used to determine clinical/parasitological outcomes. The cost of transport between the home and clinic, plus direct health-care costs, served as a basis for determining each regimen's incremental cost per incremental treatment success relative to AL by Day 42 and its cost per life year saved. In the usual care setting, AN was more effective for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in children aged 0.5-5.9 years. AL and AN were equally efficacious for the treatment of falciparum malaria, however AN had increased anti-malarial treatment costs per patient of $10.46, compared with AL. AN was the most effective regimen for treatment of vivax malaria, but had increased treatment costs of $14.83 per treatment success compared with AL. Whilst AN has superior overall efficacy for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in PNG children, AL was the less costly regimen. An indicative extrapolation estimated the cost per life year saved by using AN instead of AL to treat uncomplicated malaria to be $12,165 for girls and $12,469 for boys (discounted), which means AN may not be cost-effective and affordable for PNG at current cost. However, AN may become acceptable should it become WHO prequalified and/or should donated/subsidized drug supply become available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 25%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 11 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 30%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,039,096
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,159
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,063
of 333,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#63
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.