A Cost-Effectiveness Tool to Guide the Prioritization of Interventions for Rheumatic Fever and Rheumatic Heart Disease Control in African Nations.
BACKGROUND:Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) prevalence and mortality rates remain especially high in many parts of Africa. While effective prevention and treatment exist, coverage rates of the various interventions are low. Little is known about the comparative cost-effectiveness of different RHD inter...
Published in: | PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2016
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004860 https://doaj.org/article/685db0c6b89b42d6b090a97b8ea3f602 |
Summary: | BACKGROUND:Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) prevalence and mortality rates remain especially high in many parts of Africa. While effective prevention and treatment exist, coverage rates of the various interventions are low. Little is known about the comparative cost-effectiveness of different RHD interventions in limited resource settings. We developed an economic evaluation tool to assist ministries of health in allocating resources and planning RHD control programs. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:We constructed a Markov model of the natural history of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and RHD, taking transition probabilities and intervention effectiveness data from previously published studies and expert opinion. Our model estimates the incremental cost-effectiveness of scaling up coverage of primary prevention (PP), secondary prevention (SP) and heart valve surgery (VS) interventions for RHD. We take a healthcare system perspective on costs and measure outcomes as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), discounting both at 3%. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are also built into the modeling tool. We illustrate the use of this model in a hypothetical low-income African country, drawing on available disease burden and cost data. We found that, in our hypothetical country, PP would be cost saving and SP would be very cost-effective. International referral for VS (e.g., to a country like India that has existing surgical capacity) would be cost-effective, but building in-country VS services would not be cost-effective at typical low-income country thresholds. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:Our cost-effectiveness analysis tool is designed to inform priorities for ARF/RHD control programs in Africa at the national or subnational level. In contrast to previous literature, our preliminary findings suggest PP could be the most efficient and cheapest approach in poor countries. We provide our model for public use in the form of a Supplementary File. Our research has immediate policy relevance and calls for renewed ... |
---|