Article thumbnail

Design of the Incremental economic evaluation.

By Elisa Sicuri (247271), Silke Fernandes (730327), Eusebio Macete (3233295), Raquel González (490071), Ghyslain Mombo-Ngoma (265164), Achille Massougbodgi (632983), Salim Abdulla (76158), August Kuwawenaruwa (730328), Abraham Katana (434113), Meghna Desai (422151), Michel Cot (197041), Michael Ramharter (297552), Peter Kremsner (229101), Laurence Slustker (730329), John Aponte (730330), Kara Hanson (44607) and Clara Menéndez (2265757)

Abstract

<p>HIV = Human Immunodeficiency Virus; LLITNs = Long-Lasting Insecticide Treated Nets; CTX = Cotrimoxazole; IPTp = Intermittent Preventive Treatment of malaria in pregnancy; SP = Sulphadoxine-Pyrimethamine; MQ = Mefloquine. The figure shows that for both Trials the cost of LLITNs was not considered in the economic evaluation performed as women in both arms were administered with this preventative tool. The same applies for CTX in Trial on HIV-positive women. IPTp-placebo in Trial on HIV-positive women was considered as “doing nothing” option with no costs associated. Incremental net costs were calculated, which included the incremental costs of the intervention minus treatment savings due to its efficacy.</p

Topics: Uncategorised, antifolate drugs, Pregnancy BackgroundIntermittent, Alternative Drug, economic evaluation, alternative drugs, HIV status, Trials Registry PACTR 2010020001429343, icer, ci, parasite resistance, sp, drug cost, 21 times, CTXp, daly, mq, malaria incidence, cotrimoxazole prophylaxis, IPTp efficacy, nct, Alternative antimalarials
Year: 2015
DOI identifier: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125072.g001
OAI identifier: oai:figshare.com:article/1395068
Provided by: FigShare
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • https://figshare.com/articles/... (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.