Abstract
Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) is a major source of mortality for children in low resource settings. Alternative treatment models that improve acceptability and reduce caregiver burden are needed to improve treatment access. We assessed costs and cost-effectiveness of monthly vs. weekly follow-up (standard-of-care) for treating uncomplicated SAM in children 6–59 months of age. To do so, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a cluster-randomized trial of treatment for newly-diagnosed uncomplicated SAM in northwestern Nigeria (clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT03140904). We collected empirical costing data from enrollment up to 3 months post-discharge. We quantified health outcomes as the fraction of children recovered at discharge (primary cost-effectiveness outcome), the fraction recovered 3 months post-discharge, and total DALYs due to acute malnutrition. We estimated cost-effectiveness from both provider and societal perspectives. Costs are reported in 2019 US dollars. Provider costs per child were $67.07 (95% confidence interval: $64.79, $69.29) under standard-of-care, and $78.74 ($77.06, $80.66) under monthly follow-up. Patient costs per child were $21.04 ($18.18, $23.51) under standard-of-care, and $14.16 ($12.79, $15.25) under monthly follow-up. Monthly follow-up performed worse than standard-of-care for each health outcome assessed and was dominated (produced worse health outcomes at higher cost) by the standard-of-care in cost-effectiveness analyses. This result was robust to statistical uncertainty and to alternative costing assumptions. These findings provide evidence against monthly follow-up for treatment of uncomplicated SAM in situations where weekly follow-up of patients is feasible. While monthly follow-up may reduce burdens on caregivers and providers, other approaches are needed to do so while maintaining the effectiveness of care.
