Economic implications of resistance to antimalarial drugs

The widespread evolution of drug resistance in malarial parasites has seriously hampered efforts to control this debilitating disease. Chloroquine, the mainstay of malaria treatment for many decades, is now proving largely ineffective in many parts of the world, particularly against the most severe form of malaria--falciparum. Alternative drugs have been developed, but they are frequently less safe and are all between 50 and 700% more expensive than chloroquine. Choice of drug clearly has important budgetary implications and national malaria control programmes need to weigh up the costs and benefits in deciding whether to change to more effective but more expensive drugs. The growth in drug resistance also has implications for the choice of diagnostic tool. Clinical diagnosis of malaria is relatively cheap, but less specific than some technological approaches. As more expensive drugs are employed, the cost of wasted treatment on suspected cases who do not in fact have malaria rises and the more worthwhile it becomes to invest in more specific diagnostic techniques. This paper presents an economic framework for analysing the various malaria drug and diagnostic tool options available. It discusses the nature of the key factors that need to be considered when making choices of malaria treatment (including treatment costs, drug resistance, the costs of treatment failure and compliance) and diagnosis (including diagnosis cost and accuracy, and the often overlooked costs associated with delayed treatment), and uses some simple equations to illustrate the impact of these on the relative cost effectiveness of the alternatives being considered. On the basis of some simplifying assumptions and illustrative calculations, it appears that in many countries more effective drugs and more specific and rapid diagnostic approaches will be worth adopting even although they imply additional expense.