Cost risk benefit analysis to support chemoprophylaxis policy for travellers to malaria endemic countries

Background: In a number of malaria endemic regions, tourists and travellers face a declining risk of travel associated malaria, in part due to successful malaria control. Many millions of visitors to these regions are recommended, via national and international policy, to use chemoprophylaxis which has a well recognized morbidity profile. To evaluate whether current malaria chemo-prophylactic policy for travellers is cost effective when adjusted for endemic transmission risk and duration of exposure. a framework, based on partial cost-benefit analysis was used Methods: Using a three component model combining a probability component, a cost component and a malaria risk component, the study estimated health costs avoided through use of chemoprophylaxis and costs of disease prevention (including adverse events and pre-travel advice for visits to five popular high and low malaria endemic regions) and malaria transmission risk using imported malaria cases and numbers of travellers to malarious countries. By calculating the minimal threshold malaria risk below which the economic costs of chemoprophylaxis are greater than the avoided health costs we were able to identify the point at which chemoprophylaxis would be economically rational. Results: The threshold incidence at which malaria chemoprophylaxis policy becomes cost effective for UK travellers is an accumulated risk of 1.13% assuming a given set of cost parameters. The period a travellers need to remain exposed to achieve this accumulated risk varied from 30 to more than 365 days, depending on the regions intensity of malaria transmission. Conclusions: The cost-benefit analysis identified that chemoprophylaxis use was not a cost-effective policy for travellers to Thailand or the Amazon region of Brazil, but was cost-effective for travel to West Africa and for those staying longer than 45 days in India and Indonesia.

Comparative epidemiology of chronic fatigue syndrome in Brazilian and British primary care: prevalence and recognition

Background Although fatigue is a ubiquitous symptom across countries, clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome have arisen from a limited number of high-income countries. This might reflect differences in true prevalence or clinical recognition influenced by sociocultural factors. Aims To compare the prevalence, physician recognition and diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome in London and Sao Paulo. Method Primary care patients in London (n=2459) and Sao Paulo n=3914) were surveyed for the prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome. Medical records were reviewed for the physician recognition and diagnosis. Results The prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome according to Centers for Disease Control 1994 criteria was comparable in Britain and Brazil, 2.1% v. 1.6% (P=0.20). Medical records review identified 11 diagnosed cases of chronic fatigue syndrome in Britain, but none in Brazil (P<0.001). Conclusions The primary care prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome was similar in two Culturally and economically distinct nations. However, doctors are unlikely to recognise and label chronic fatigue syndrome as a discrete disorder in Brazil. The recognition of this illness rather than the illness itself may be culturally induced.