Abstract
Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) is coordinating two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) across three sites in Africa (Ethiopia, Nigeria and Tanzania) and four in Asia [Bangladesh, India (two) and Pakistan] to generate evidence on the optimal place of treatment for young infants with a single low-mortality risk sign of possible serious bacterial infection (PSBI) and switching antibiotic therapy from injectable to oral in young infants with moderate-mortality risk signs of PSBI. This paper presents the framework and methodology used to compare the costs and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these strategies. Methods: Cost analysis will be conducted from societal (both hospital and household) perspectives. Hospital direct medical costs (staff, medicines, consumables), direct non-medical costs (inpatient bed costs and transport expenses), and indirect operational costs (management, administration, non-consumables, training, and communication) will be gathered using hospital surveys. Household costs, including direct medical payments for treatment (registration, consultation, medications, consumables, and laboratory tests) and non-medical costs of transport, food and boarding, will be collected using household surveys. In both RCTs, combined hospital and household costs (for medical and non-medical) will be used to calculate the cost per sick young infant in each study arm. Effectiveness measures, based on the absence of adverse outcomes, will be used to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Household wage loss will estimate the household burden per treated child, and indirect hospital costs will highlight additional health system burdens. Discussion: This cost-effectiveness framework evaluates PSBI treatment in young infants, integrating health system and household perspectives. It seeks to identify safe, economical regimes to reduce economic burdens, inform national budget impact, and potentially prompt WHO guideline revisions for better infant care in low-resource settings globally.
Competing Interest Statement
All other authors declare no competing interests. YBN is staff members of the World Health Organization. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article, and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated.
Clinical Trial
This is a methodology paper on clinical trials, hence N/A
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approvals have been obtained from the WHO and institutional ethics committees at each site and from households for household survey.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos