Y. LubellS. YeungA. M. DondorpN. P. DayF. NostenE. TjitraMd Abul FaizE. Bin YunusN. M. AnsteyS. K. MishraS. MohantyN. J. WhiteA. J. MillsLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineMahidol UniversityShoklo Malaria Research UnitBadan Penelitian Dan Pengembangan Kesehatan, Kementerian Kesehatan Republik IndonesiaDhaka Medical CollegeChittagong Medical CollegeIspat General HospitalLondon Schol of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine2018-09-132018-09-132009-03-01Tropical Medicine and International Health. Vol.14, No.3 (2009), 332-33713653156136022762-s2.0-60349111924https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/27735Objective: To explore the cost-effectiveness of artesunate against quinine based principally on the findings of a large multi-centre trial carried out in Southeast Asia. Methods: Trial data were used to compare mortality of patients with severe malaria, treated with either artesunate or quinine. This was combined with retrospectively collected cost data to estimate the incremental cost per death averted with the use of artesunate instead of quinine. Results: The incremental cost per death averted using artesunate was approximately 140 USD. Artesunate maintained this high level of cost-effectiveness also when allowing for the uncertainty surrounding the cost and effectiveness assessments. Conclusion: This analysis confirms the vast superiority of artesunate for treatment of severe malaria from an economic as well as a clinical perspective. © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Mahidol UniversityImmunology and MicrobiologyMedicineArticleSCOPUS10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02227.x