Search

Objectives: To describe the state of the public and private malaria diagnostics market shortly after WHO updated its guidelines for testing all suspected malaria cases prior to treatment., Methods: Ten nationally representative cross-sectional cluster surveys were conducted in 2011 among public and private health facilities, community health workers and retail outlets (pharmacies and drug shops) in nine countries (Tanzania mainland and Zanzibar surveyed separately). Eligible outlets had antimalarials in stock on the day of interview or had stocked antimalarials in the past 3 months., Results: Three thousand four hundred and thirty-nine rapid diagnostic test (RDT) products from 39 manufacturers were audited among 12,197 outlets interviewed. Availability was typically highest in public health facilities, although availability in these facilities varied greatly across countries, from 15% in Nigeria to >90% in Madagascar and Cambodia. Private for-profit sector availability was 46% in Cambodia, 20% in Zambia, but low in other countries. Median retail prices for RDTs in the private for-profit sector ranged from $0.00 in Madagascar to $3.13 in Zambia. The reported number of RDTs used in the 7 days before the survey in public health facilities ranged from 3 (Benin) to 50 (Zambia)., Conclusions: Eighteen months after WHO updated its case management guidelines, RDT availability remained poor in the private sector in sub-Saharan Africa. Given the ongoing importance of the private sector as a source of fever treatment, the goal of universal diagnosis will not be achievable under current circumstances. These results constitute national baselines against which progress in scaling-up diagnostic tests can be assessed., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Artesunate-amodiaquine (AS-AQ) is one of the most widely used artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Africa. We investigated the impact of different dosing strategies on the efficacy of this combination for the treatment of falciparum malaria., Methods: Individual patient data from AS-AQ clinical trials were pooled using the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) standardised methodology. Risk factors for treatment failure were identified using a Cox regression model with shared frailty across study sites., Results: Forty-three studies representing 9,106 treatments from 1999-2012 were included in the analysis; 4,138 (45.4%) treatments were with a fixed dose combination with an AQ target dose of 30 mg/kg (FDC), 1,293 (14.2%) with a non-fixed dose combination with an AQ target dose of 25 mg/kg (loose NFDC-25), 2,418 (26.6%) with a non-fixed dose combination with an AQ target dose of 30 mg/kg (loose NFDC-30), and the remaining 1,257 (13.8%) with a co-blistered non-fixed dose combination with an AQ target dose of 30 mg/kg (co-blistered NFDC). The median dose of AQ administered was 32.1 mg/kg [IQR: 25.9-38.2], the highest dose being administered to patients treated with co-blistered NFDC (median = 35.3 mg/kg [IQR: 30.6-43.7]) and the lowest to those treated with loose NFDC-25 (median = 25.0 mg/kg [IQR: 22.7-25.0]). Patients treated with FDC received a median dose of 32.4 mg/kg [IQR: 27-39.0]. After adjusting for reinfections, the corrected antimalarial efficacy on day 28 after treatment was similar for co-blistered NFDC (97.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 97.0-98.8%]) and FDC (98.1% [95% CI: 97.6%-98.5%]; P = 0.799), but significantly lower for the loose NFDC-25 (93.4% [95% CI: 91.9%-94.9%]), and loose NFDC-30 (95.0% [95% CI: 94.1%-95.9%]) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). After controlling for age, AQ dose, baseline parasitemia and region; treatment with loose NFDC-25 was associated with a 3.5-fold greater risk of recrudescence by day 28 (adjusted hazard ratio, AHR = 3.51 [95% CI: 2.02-6.12], P < 0.001) compared to FDC, and treatment with loose NFDC-30 was associated with a higher risk of recrudescence at only three sites., Conclusions: There was substantial variation in the total dose of amodiaquine administered in different AS-AQ combination regimens. Fixed dose AS-AQ combinations ensure optimal dosing and provide higher antimalarial treatment efficacy than the loose individual tablets in all age categories.

Improving access to quality-assured artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs) is an important component of malaria control in low- and middle-income countries. In 2010 the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria launched the Affordable Medicines Facility--malaria (AMFm) program in seven African countries. The goal of the program was to decrease malaria morbidity and delay drug resistance by increasing the use of ACTs, primarily through subsidies intended to reduce costs. We collected data on price and retail markups on antimalarial medicines from 19,625 private for-profit retail outlets before and 6-15 months after the program's implementation. We found that in six of the AMFm pilot programs, prices for quality-assured ACTs decreased by US$1.28-$4.34, and absolute retail markups on these therapies decreased by US$0.31-$1.03. Prices and markups on other classes of antimalarials also changed during the evaluation period, but not to the same extent. In all but two of the pilot programs, we found evidence that prices could fall further without suppliers' losing money. Thus, concerns may be warranted that wholesalers and retailers are capturing subsidies instead of passing them on to consumers. These findings demonstrate that supranational subsidies can dramatically reduce retail prices of health commodities and that recommended retail prices communicated to a wide audience may be an effective mechanism for controlling the market power of private-sector antimalarial retailers and wholesalers., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Background: The Affordable Medicines Facility - malaria (AMFm), implemented at national scale in eight African countries or territories, subsidized quality-assured artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) and included communication campaigns to support implementation and promote appropriate anti-malarial use. This paper reports private for-profit provider awareness of key features of the AMFm programme, and changes in provider knowledge of appropriate malaria treatment., Methods: This study had a non-experimental design based on nationally representative surveys of outlets stocking anti-malarials before (2009/10) and after (2011) the AMFm roll-out., Results: Based on data from over 19,500 outlets, results show that in four of eight settings, where communication campaigns were implemented for 5-9 months, 76%-94% awareness of the AMFm 'green leaf' logo, 57%-74% awareness of the ACT subsidy programme, and 52%-80% awareness of the correct recommended retail price (RRP) of subsidized ACT were recorded. However, in the remaining four settings where communication campaigns were implemented for three months or less, levels were substantially lower. In six of eight settings, increases of at least 10 percentage points in private for-profit providers' knowledge of the correct first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria were seen; and in three of these the levels of knowledge achieved at endline were over 80%., Conclusions: The results support the interpretation that, in addition to the availability of subsidized ACT, the intensity of communication campaigns may have contributed to the reported levels of AMFm-related awareness and knowledge among private for-profit providers. Future subsidy programmes for anti-malarials or other treatments should similarly include communication activities.

Background: The Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) is a not-for profit organization committed to providing affordable medicines and access to treatments in resource-poor settings. Traditionally drug development has happened "in house" within pharmaceutical companies, with research and development costs ultimately recuperated through drug sales. The development of drugs for the treatment of neglected tropical diseases requires a completely different model that goes beyond the scope of market-driven research and development. Artesunate and mefloquine are well-established drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria, with a strong safety record based on many years of field-based studies and use. The administration of such artemisinin-based combination therapy in a fixed-dose combination is expected to improve patient compliance and to reduce the risk of emerging drug resistance., Case Description: DNDi developed an innovative approach to drug development, reliant on strong collaborations with a wide range of partners from the commercial world, academia, government institutions and NGOs, each of which had a specific role to play in the development of a fixed dose combination of artesunate and mefloquine., Discussion and Evaluation: DNDi undertook the development of a fixed-dose combination of artesunate with mefloquine. Partnerships were formed across five continents, addressing formulation, control and production through to clinical trials and product registration, resulting in a safe and efficacious fixed dose combination treatment which is now available to treat patients in resource-poor settings. The south-south technology transfer of production from Farmanguinhos/Fiocruz in Brazil to Cipla Ltd in India was the first of its kind. Of additional benefit was the increased capacity within the knowledge base and infrastructure in developing countries., Conclusions: This collaborative approach to drug development involving international partnerships and independent funding mechanisms is a powerful new way to develop drugs for tropical diseases.

Background: Malaria is one of the greatest causes of mortality worldwide. Use of the most effective treatments for malaria remains inadequate for those in need, and there is concern over the emergence of resistance to these treatments. In 2010, the Global Fund launched the Affordable Medicines Facility--malaria (AMFm), a series of national-scale pilot programmes designed to increase the access and use of quality-assured artemisinin based combination therapies (QAACTs) and reduce that of artemisinin monotherapies for treatment of malaria. AMFm involves manufacturer price negotiations, subsidies on the manufacturer price of each treatment purchased, and supporting interventions such as communications campaigns. We present findings on the effect of AMFm on QAACT price, availability, and market share, 6-15 months after the delivery of subsidised ACTs in Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Niger, Nigeria, Uganda, and Tanzania (including Zanzibar)., Methods: We did nationally representative baseline and endpoint surveys of public and private sector outlets that stock antimalarial treatments. QAACTs were identified on the basis of the Global Fund's quality assurance policy. Changes in availability, price, and market share were assessed against specified success benchmarks for 1 year of AMFm implementation. Key informant interviews and document reviews recorded contextual factors and the implementation process., Findings: In all pilots except Niger and Madagascar, there were large increases in QAACT availability (25·8-51·9 percentage points), and market share (15·9-40·3 percentage points), driven mainly by changes in the private for-profit sector. Large falls in median price for QAACTs per adult equivalent dose were seen in the private for-profit sector in six pilots, ranging from US$1·28 to $4·82. The market share of oral artemisinin monotherapies decreased in Nigeria and Zanzibar, the two pilots where it was more than 5% at baseline., Interpretation: Subsidies combined with supporting interventions can be effective in rapidly improving availability, price, and market share of QAACTs, particularly in the private for-profit sector. Decisions about the future of AMFm should also consider the effect on use in vulnerable populations, access to malaria diagnostics, and cost-effectiveness., Funding: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Malaria remains the leading burden of disease in post-conflict Sierra Leone. To overcome the challenge of anti-malarial drug resistance and improve effective treatment, Sierra Leone adopted artemisinin-combination therapy artesunate-amodiaquine (AS+AQ) as first-line treatment for uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria. Other national policy anti-malarials include artemether-lumefantrine (AL) as an alternative to AS+AQ, quinine and artemether for treatment of complicated malaria; and sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) for intermittent preventive treatment (IPTp). This study was conducted to evaluate access to national policy recommended anti-malarials. A cross-sectional survey of 127 medicine outlets (public, private and NGO) was conducted in urban and rural areas. The availability on the day of the survey, median prices, and affordability policy and available non-policy anti-malarials were calculated. Anti-malarials were stocked in 79% of all outlets surveyed. AS+AQ was widely available in public medicine outlets; AL was only available in the private and NGO sectors. Quinine was available in nearly two-thirds of public and NGO outlets and over one-third of private outlets. SP was widely available in all outlets. Non-policy anti-malarials were predominantly available in the private outlets. AS+AQ in the public sector was widely offered for free. Among the anti-malarials sold at a cost, the same median price of a course of AS+AQ (US$1.56), quinine tablets (US$0.63), were found in both the public and private sectors. Quinine injection had a median cost of US$0.31 in the public sector and US$0.47 in the private sector, while SP had a median cost of US$0.31 in the public sector compared to US$ 0.63 in the private sector. Non-policy anti-malarials were more affordable than first-line AS+AQ in all sectors. A course of AS+AQ was affordable at nearly two days' worth of wages in both the public and private sectors.

Background: Malaria is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in post-conflict Burundi. To counter the increasing challenge of anti-malarial drug resistance and improve highly effective treatment Burundi adopted artesunate-amodiaquine (AS-AQ) as first-line treatment for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria and oral quinine as second-line treatment in its national treatment policy in 2003. Uptake of this policy in the public, private and non-governmental (NGO) retail market sectors of Burundi is relatively unknown. This study was conducted to evaluate access to national policy recommended anti-malarials., Methods: Adapting a standardized methodology developed by Health Action International/World Health Organization (HAI/WHO), a cross-sectional survey of 70 (24 public, 36 private, and 10 NGO) medicine outlets was conducted in three regions of Burundi, representing different levels of transmission of malaria. The availability on day of the survey, the median prices, and affordability (in terms of number of days' wages to purchase treatment) of AS-AQ, quinine and other anti-malarials were calculated., Results: Anti-malarials were stocked in all outlets surveyed. AS-AQ was available in 87.5%, 33.3%, and 90% of public, private, and NGO retail outlets, respectively. Quinine was the most common anti-malarial found in all outlet types. Non-policy recommended anti-malarials were mainly found in the private outlets (38.9%) compared to public (4.2%) and NGO (0%) outlets. The median price of a course of AS-AQ was US$0.16 (200 Burundi Francs, FBu) for the public and NGO markets, and 3.5-fold higher in the private sector (US$0.56 or 700 FBu). Quinine tablets were similarly priced in the public (US$1.53 or 1,892.50 FBu), private and NGO sectors (both US$1.61 or 2,000 FBu). Non-policy anti-malarials were priced 50-fold higher than the price of AS-AQ in the public sector. A course of AS-AQ was affordable at 0.4 of a day's wage in the public and NGO sectors, whereas, it was equivalent to 1.5 days worth of wages in the private sector., Conclusions: AS-AQ was widely available and affordable in the public and NGO markets of hard-to-reach post-conflict communities in Burundi. However greater accessibility and affordability of policy recommended anti-malarials in the private market sector is needed to improve country-wide policy uptake.

At a recent meeting (Sept 18, 2009) in which reasons for the limited access to artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) in sub-Saharan Africa were discussed, policy and market surveys on anti-malarial drug availability and accessibility in Burundi and Sierra Leone were presented in a highly interactive brainstorming session among key stakeholders across private, public, and not-for-profit sectors. The surveys, the conduct of which directly involved the national malaria control programme managers of the two countries, provides the groundwork for evidence-based policy implementation. The results of the surveys could be extrapolated to other countries with similar socio-demographic and malaria profiles. The meeting resulted in recommendations on key actions to be taken at the global, national, and community level for better ACT accessibility. At the global level, both public and private sectors have actions to take to strengthen policies that lead to the replacement of loose blister packs with fixed-dose ACT products, develop strategies to ban inappropriate anti-malarials and regulate those bans, and facilitate technology and knowledge transfer to scale up production of fixed-dose ACT products, which should be readily available and affordable to those patients who are in the greatest need of these medicines. At the national level, policies that regulate the anti-malarial medicines market should be enacted and enforced. The public sector, including funding donors, should participate in ensuring that the private sector is engaged in the ACT implementation process. Research similar to the surveys discussed is important for other countries to develop and evaluate the right incentives at a local level. At the community level, community outreach and education about appropriate preventive and treatment measures must continue and be strengthened, with service delivery systems developed within both public and private sectors, among other measures, to decrease access to ineffective and inappropriate anti-malarial medicines. What was clear during the meeting is that continuing commitment, strengthened interaction and transparency among various stakeholders, with focus on communities, national governments, and evidence-based policy and action are the only way to sustainably address the control of malaria, a disease which continues to have a significant health and socio-economic impact worldwide, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Details on the methodology employed in carrying out the studies discussed at this meeting, as well as more detailed results, data analysis and discussion of the studies are soon to be published.

Objective: To facilitate the choice of the best visceral leishmaniasis (VL) treatment strategy for first-line health services in (VL)-endemic areas, we compared in a formal decision analysis the cost and the cost-effectiveness of the different available options., Methods: We selected four drug regimens for VL on the basis of frequency of use, feasibility and reported efficacy studies. The point estimates and the range of plausible values of effectiveness and cost were retrieved from a literature review. A decision tree was constructed and the strategy minimizing the cost per death averted was selected., Results: Treatment with amphotericin B deoxycholate was the most effective approach in the baseline analysis and averted 87.2% of all deaths attributable to VL. The least expensive and the most cost-effective treatment was the miltefosine regimen, and the most expensive and the least cost-effective was AmBisome treatment. The cost of drug and medical care are the main determinants of the cost-effectiveness ranking of the alternative schemes. Sensitivity analysis showed that antimonial was competitive with miltefosine in the low-resistance regions., Conclusion: In areas with >94% response rates to antimonials, generic sodium stibogluconate remains the most cost-effective option for VL treatment, mainly due to low drug cost. In other regions, miltefosine is the most cost-effective option of treatment, but its use as a first-line drug is limited by its teratogenicity and rapid resistance development. AmBisome in mono- or combination therapy is too expensive to compete in cost-effectiveness with the other regimens.