Corrections

Achieving the millennium development goals for health: Cost effectiveness analysis of strategies to combat malaria in developing countries

BMJ 2006; 333 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.333.7558.86 (Published 06 July 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;333:86

The authors of this paper, by Chantal M Morel and colleagues (BMJ 2005;331:1299-302), have advised us that they made an error in the cost calculations for malaria treatment, resulting in an underestimate of the costs of treatment interventions. A corrected version of table 6 in the full version of this paper (the table in the print version) is now posted on bmj.com (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.38639.702384.AE/DC2) giving the costs, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of the health maximising set of interventions.

All interventions studied remain highly cost effective in both African regions. The principal change is that in the Afr-D region insecticide treated bed nets are now the most cost effective intervention overall, followed by the combination of insecticide treated bed nets, indoor residual spraying, case management with artemisinin based combination therapy, and intermittent presumptive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in pregnancy. In Afr-E, however, artemisinin based combination therapy remains the most cost effective intervention overall, followed by the combination of case management with artemisinin based combination therapy and insecticide treated bed nets; then the combination of case management with artemisinin based combination therapy, insecticide treated bed nets, and indoor residual spraying; and, finally, the combination of case management with artemisinin based combination therapy, insecticide treated bed nets, indoor residual spraying, and intermittent presumptive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in pregnancy. Full details are available from the authors.

Footnotes

View Abstract