BackgroundThe Ministry of Health in Malawi is implementing a pragmatic and innovative approach for the management of all HIV-infected pregnant women, termed Option B+, which consists of providing life-long antiretroviral treatment, regardless of their CD4 count or clinical stage. Our objective was to determine if Option B+ represents a cost-effective option.MethodsA decision model simulates the disease progression of a cohort of HIV-infected pregnant women receiving prophylaxis and antiretroviral therapy, and estimates the number of paediatric infections averted and maternal life years gained over a ten-year time horizon. We assess the cost-effectiveness from the Ministry of Health perspective while taking into account the practical realities of implementing ART services in Malawi.ResultsIf implemented as recommended by the World Health Organization, options A, B and B+ are equivalent in preventing new infant infections, yielding cost effectiveness ratios between US$ 37 and US$ 69 per disability adjusted life year averted in children. However, when the three options are compared to the current practice, the provision of antiretroviral therapy to all mothers (Option B+) not only prevents infant infections, but also improves the ten-year survival in mothers more than four-fold. This translates into saving more than 250,000 maternal life years, as compared to mothers receiving only Option A or B, with savings of 153,000 and 172,000 life years respectively. Option B+ also yields favourable incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) of US$ 455 per life year gained over the current practice.ConclusionIn Malawi, Option B+ represents a favorable policy option from a cost-effectiveness perspective to prevent future infant infections, save mothers' lives and reduce orphanhood. Although Option B+ would require more financial resources initially, it would save societal resources in the long-term and represents a strategic option to simplify and integrate HIV services into maternal, newborn and child health programmes.
Introduction Nigeria contributes more obstetric, postpartum and neonatal deaths and stillbirths globally than any other country. The Clinton Health Access Initiative in partnership with the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Health and the state Governments of Kano, Katsina, and Kaduna implemented an integrated Maternal and Neonatal Health program from July 2014. Up to 90% women deliver at home in Northern Nigeria, where maternal mortality ratio and neonatal mortality rates (MMR and NMR) are high and severe challenges to improving survival exist. Methods Community-based leaders (“key informants”) reported monthly vital events. Pre-post comparisons of later (months 16–18) with conservative baseline (months 7–9) rates were used to assess change in MMR, NMR, perinatal mortality (PMR) and stillbirth. Two-tailed cross-tabulations and unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results Data on 147,455 births (144,641 livebirths and 4275 stillbirths) were analyzed. At endline (months 16–18), MMR declined 37% (OR 0.629, 95% CI 0.490–0.806, p ≤ 0.0003) vs. baseline 440/100,000 births (months 7–9). NMR declined 43% (OR 0.574, 95% CI 0.503–0.655, p < 0.0001 vs. baseline 15.2/1000 livebirths. Stillbirth rates declined 15% (OR 0.850, 95% CI 0.768–0.941, p = 0.0018) vs. baseline 21.1/1000 births. PMR declined 27% (OR 0.733, 95% CI 0.676–0.795, p < 0.0001) vs. baseline 36.0/1000 births. Adjusted results were similar. Discussion The findings are similar to the Cochrane Review effects of community-based interventions and indicate large survival improvements compared to much slower global and flat national trends. Key informant data have limitations, however, their limitations would have little effect on the results magnitude or significance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.