Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccinating children in Malawi with RTS,S vaccines in comparison with long-lasting insecticide-treated nets

BACKGROUND: New RTS,S malaria vaccines may soon be licensed, yet its cost-effectiveness is unknown. Before the widespread introduction of RTS,S vaccines, cost-effectiveness studies are needed to help inform governments in resource-poor settings about how best to prioritize between the new vaccine and existing malaria interventions. METHODS: A Markov model simulated malaria progression in a hypothetical Malawian birth cohort. Parameters were based on published data. Three strategies were compared: no intervention, vaccination at one year, and long-lasting, insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) at birth. Both health service and societal perspectives were explored. Health outcomes were measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted and costed in 2012 US$. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Three times GDP per capita ($1,095) per DALY averted was used for a cost-effectiveness threshold, whilst one times GDP ($365) was considered ‘very cost-effective’. RESULTS: From a societal perspective the vaccine strategy was dominant. It averted 0.11 more DALYs than LLINs and 0.372 more DALYs than the no intervention strategy per person, while costing$10.04 less than LLINs and $59.74 less than no intervention. From a health service perspective the vaccine’s ICER was$145.03 per DALY averted, and thus can be considered very cost-effective. The results were robust to changes in all variables except the vaccine and LLINs’ duration of efficacy. Vaccines remained cost-effective even at the lowest assumed efficacy levels of 49.6% (mild malaria) and 14.2% (severe malaria), and the highest price of $15. However, from a societal perspective, if the vaccine duration efficacy was set below 2.69 years or the LLIN duration of efficacy was greater than 4.24 years then LLINs became the more cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSION: The results showed that vaccinating Malawian children with RTS,S vaccines was very cost-effective from both a societal and a health service perspective. This result was robust to changes in most variables, including vaccine price and vaccine efficacy, but was sensitive to the duration of efficacy of the vaccine and LLINs. Given the best evidence currently available, vaccines can be considered as a very cost-effective component of Malawi’s future malaria control programmes. However, long-term follow-up studies on both interventions are needed

Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine on functional outcome after acute stroke (AFFINITY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Trials of fluoxetine for recovery after stroke report conflicting results. The Assessment oF FluoxetINe In sTroke recoverY (AFFINITY) trial aimed to show if daily oral fluoxetine for 6 months after stroke improves functional outcome in an ethnically diverse population. Methods AFFINITY was a randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (four), and Vietnam (ten). Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of acute stroke in the previous 2–15 days, brain imaging consistent with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, and a persisting neurological deficit that produced a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 1 or more. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 via a web-based system using a minimisation algorithm to once daily, oral fluoxetine 20 mg capsules or matching placebo for 6 months. Patients, carers, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was functional status, measured by the mRS, at 6 months. The primary analysis was an ordinal logistic regression of the mRS at 6 months, adjusted for minimisation variables. Primary and safety analyses were done according to the patient's treatment allocation. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000774921. Findings Between Jan 11, 2013, and June 30, 2019, 1280 patients were recruited in Australia (n=532), New Zealand (n=42), and Vietnam (n=706), of whom 642 were randomly assigned to fluoxetine and 638 were randomly assigned to placebo. Mean duration of trial treatment was 167 days (SD 48·1). At 6 months, mRS data were available in 624 (97%) patients in the fluoxetine group and 632 (99%) in the placebo group. The distribution of mRS categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·76–1·15; p=0·53). Compared with patients in the placebo group, patients in the fluoxetine group had more falls (20 [3%] vs seven [1%]; p=0·018), bone fractures (19 [3%] vs six [1%]; p=0·014), and epileptic seizures (ten [2%] vs two [<1%]; p=0·038) at 6 months. Interpretation Oral fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome and increased the risk of falls, bone fractures, and epileptic seizures. These results do not support the use of fluoxetine to improve functional outcome after stroke

Socializing One Health: an innovative strategy to investigate social and behavioral risks of emerging viral threats

In an effort to strengthen global capacity to prevent, detect, and control infectious diseases in animals and people, the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Emerging Pandemic Threats (EPT) PREDICT project funded development of regional, national, and local One Health capacities for early disease detection, rapid response, disease control, and risk reduction. From the outset, the EPT approach was inclusive of social science research methods designed to understand the contexts and behaviors of communities living and working at human-animal-environment interfaces considered high-risk for virus emergence. Using qualitative and quantitative approaches, PREDICT behavioral research aimed to identify and assess a range of socio-cultural behaviors that could be influential in zoonotic disease emergence, amplification, and transmission. This broad approach to behavioral risk characterization enabled us to identify and characterize human activities that could be linked to the transmission dynamics of new and emerging viruses. This paper provides a discussion of implementation of a social science approach within a zoonotic surveillance framework. We conducted in-depth ethnographic interviews and focus groups to better understand the individual- and community-level knowledge, attitudes, and practices that potentially put participants at risk for zoonotic disease transmission from the animals they live and work with, across 6 interface domains. When we asked highly-exposed individuals (ie. bushmeat hunters, wildlife or guano farmers) about the risk they perceived in their occupational activities, most did not perceive it to be risky, whether because it was normalized by years (or generations) of doing such an activity, or due to lack of information about potential risks. Integrating the social sciences allows investigations of the specific human activities that are hypothesized to drive disease emergence, amplification, and transmission, in order to better substantiate behavioral disease drivers, along with the social dimensions of infection and transmission dynamics. Understanding these dynamics is critical to achieving health security--the protection from threats to health-- which requires investments in both collective and individual health security. Involving behavioral sciences into zoonotic disease surveillance allowed us to push toward fuller community integration and engagement and toward dialogue and implementation of recommendations for disease prevention and improved health security

Twelve-Month Outcomes of the AFFINITY Trial of Fluoxetine for Functional Recovery After Acute Stroke: AFFINITY Trial Steering Committee on Behalf of the AFFINITY Trial Collaboration

Background and Purpose: The AFFINITY trial (Assessment of Fluoxetine in Stroke Recovery) reported that oral fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome and increased the risk of falls, bone fractures, and seizures. After trial medication was ceased at 6 months, survivors were followed to 12 months post-randomization. This preplanned secondary analysis aimed to determine any sustained or delayed effects of fluoxetine at 12 months post-randomization. Methods: AFFINITY was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults (n=1280) with a clinical diagnosis of stroke in the previous 2 to 15 days and persisting neurological deficit who were recruited at 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (4), and Vietnam (10) between 2013 and 2019. Participants were randomized to oral fluoxetine 20 mg once daily (n=642) or matching placebo (n=638) for 6 months and followed until 12 months after randomization. The primary outcome was function, measured by the modified Rankin Scale, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes for these analyses included measures of the modified Rankin Scale, mood, cognition, overall health status, fatigue, health-related quality of life, and safety at 12 months. Results: Adherence to trial medication was for a mean 167 (SD 48) days and similar between randomized groups. At 12 months, the distribution of modified Rankin Scale categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76–1.14]; P =0.46). Compared with placebo, patients allocated fluoxetine had fewer recurrent ischemic strokes (14 [2.18%] versus 29 [4.55%]; P =0.02), and no longer had significantly more falls (27 [4.21%] versus 15 [2.35%]; P =0.08), bone fractures (23 [3.58%] versus 11 [1.72%]; P =0.05), or seizures (11 [1.71%] versus 8 [1.25%]; P =0.64) at 12 months. Conclusions: Fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke had no delayed or sustained effect on functional outcome, falls, bone fractures, or seizures at 12 months poststroke. The lower rate of recurrent ischemic stroke in the fluoxetine group is most likely a chance finding. REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au/ ; Unique identifier: ACTRN12611000774921