Dataset Information

Cost effectiveness of strategies to combat breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia: mathematical modelling study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the costs and health effects of interventions to combat breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in order to guide resource allocation decisions in developing countries.

Setting

Two World Health Organization sub-regions of the world: countries in sub-Saharan Africa with very high adult and high child mortality (AfrE); and countries in South East Asia with high adult and high child mortality (SearD).

Design

Cost effectiveness analysis of prevention and treatment strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, using mathematical modelling based on a lifetime population model.

Data sources

Demographic and epidemiological data were taken from the WHO mortality and global burden of disease databases. Estimates of intervention coverage, effectiveness, and resource needs were based on clinical trials, treatment guidelines, and expert opinion. Unit costs were taken from the WHO-CHOICE price database.

Main outcome measures

Cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted, expressed in international dollars ($Int) for the year 2005.

Results

In both regions certain interventions in cervical cancer control (screening through cervical smear tests or visual inspection with acetic acid in combination with treatment) and colorectal cancer control (increasing the coverage of treatment interventions) cost <$Int2000 per DALY averted and can be considered highly cost effective. In the sub-Saharan African region screening for colorectal cancer (by colonoscopy at age 50 in combination with treatment) costs $Int2000-6000 per DALY averted and can be considered cost effective. In both regions certain interventions in breast cancer control (treatment of all cancer stages in combination with mammography screening) cost $Int2000-6000 per DALY averted and can also be considered cost effective. Other interventions, such as campaigns to eat more fruit and vegetable or subsidies in colorectal cancer control, are not cost effective according to the criteria defined.

Conclusion

Highly cost effective interventions to combat cervical and colorectal cancer are available in the African and Asian sub-regions. In cervical cancer control, these include screening through smear tests or visual inspection in combination with treatment. In colorectal cancer, increasing treatment coverage is highly cost effective (screening through colonoscopy is cost effective in the African sub-region). In breast cancer control, mammography screening in combination with treatment of all stages is cost effective.

SUBMITTER: Ginsberg GM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3292522 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the comparative costs and effects of interventions to combat five neuropsychiatric conditions (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, epilepsy, and heavy alcohol use).DesignCost effectiveness analysis based on an epidemiological model.SettingTwo epidemiologically defined World Health Organization sub-regions of the world: countries in sub-Saharan Africa with very high adult and high child mortality (AfrE); and countries in South East Asia with high adult and high child mortality (SearD).Data sourcesPublished studies, costing databases.Main outcome measuresCost per capita and cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted, expressed in international dollars ($Int) for the year 2005.ResultsAcross 44 assessed intervention strategies for the five neuropsychiatric conditions, cost effectiveness values differed by as much as two orders of magnitude (from $Int100-250 to $Int10,000-25,000 for a year of healthy life gained). In both sub-regions, inpatient based treatment of schizophrenia with newer antipsychotic drugs was the most costly and least cost effective strategy. The most cost effective strategies in the African sub-region related to population based alcohol control, while in the South East Asian sub-region the most cost effective intervention was drug treatment of epilepsy in primary care. The cumulative cost per capita of the most cost effective set of interventions covering all five conditions was estimated at $Int4.90-5.70. This package comprises interventions for epilepsy (older first line antiepileptic drugs); depression (generically produced newer antidepressants and psychosocial treatment); bipolar disorder (mood stabiliser drug lithium); schizophrenia (neuroleptic antipsychotic drugs and psychosocial treatment); and heavy alcohol use (increased taxation and its enforcement, reduced access, and, in the African sub-region, advertising bans and brief advice to heavy drinkers in primary care).ConclusionsReallocation of resources to cost effective intervention strategies would increase health gain, save money and help implement much needed expansion of services for neuropsychiatric conditions in low resource settings.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the relative costs and health effects of interventions to combat cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and tobacco related disease in order to guide the allocation of resources in developing countries.DesignCost effectiveness analysis of 123 single or combined prevention and treatment strategies for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and smoking by means of a lifetime population model.SettingTwo World Health Organization sub-regions of the world: countries in sub-Saharan Africa with very high adult and high child mortality (AfrE) and countries in South East Asia with high adult and high child mortality (SearD).Data sourcesDemographic and epidemiological data were taken from the WHO databases of mortality and global burden of disease. Estimates of intervention coverage, effectiveness, and resource needs were drawn from clinical trials, observational studies, and treatment guidelines. Unit costs were taken from the WHO-CHOICE (Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective) price database.Main outcome measuresCost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted, expressed in international dollars ($Int) for the year 2005.ResultsMost of the interventions studied were considered highly cost effective, meaning they generate one healthy year of life at a cost of <$Int2000 (which is the gross domestic product per capita of the two regions considered here). Interventions that offer particularly good monetary value, and which could be considered for prioritised implementation or scale up, include demand reduction strategies of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (<$Int950 and <$Int200 per DALY averted in AfrE and SearD respectively); combination drug therapy for people with a >25% chance of experiencing a cardiovascular event over the next decade, either alone or together with specific multidrug regimens for the secondary prevention of post-acute ischaemic heart disease and stroke (<$Int150 and <$Int230 per DALY averted in AfrE and SearD respectively); and retinopathy screening and glycaemic control for patients with diabetes (<$Int2100 and <$Int950 per DALY averted in AfrE and SearD respectively).ConclusionThis comparative economic assessment has identified a set of population-wide and individual strategies for prevention and control of cardiovascular disease that are inexpensive and cost effective in low resource settings.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the age pattern of under-5 mortality is essential for identifying the most vulnerable ages and underlying causes of death, and for assessing why the decline in child mortality is slower in some countries and subnational areas than others. The aim of this study is to detect age patterns of under-5 mortality that are specific to low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsIn this modelling study, we used data from 277 Demographic and Health Surveys (DHSs), 58 Health and Demographic Surveillance Systems (HDSSs), two cohort studies, and two sample-registration systems. From these sources, we collected child date of birth and date of death (or age at death) from LMICs between 1966 and 2020. We computed 22 deaths rates from each survey with the following age breakdowns: 0, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days; 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 21 months; and 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. We assessed how probabilities of dying estimated for the 22 age groups deviated from predictions generated by a vital registration model that reflects the historical mortality of 25 high-income countries.FindingsWe calculated mortality rates of 81 LMICs between 1966 and 2020. In contrast with the other regions of the world, we found that under-5 mortality in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa was characterised by increased mortality at both ends of the age range (ie, younger than 28 days and older than 6 months) at a given level of mortality. Observed mortality in these regions was up to 2 times higher than predicted by the vital registration model for the younger-than-28 days age bracket, and up to 10 times higher than predicted for the older-than-6 months age bracket. This age pattern of under-5 mortality is significant in 17 countries in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Excess mortality in children older than 6 months without excess mortality in children younger than 28 days was found in 38 countries. In south Asia, results were consistent across data sources. In sub-Saharan Africa, excess mortality in children younger than 28 days was found mostly in DHSs; the majority of HDSSs did not show this excess mortality. We have attributed this difference in data sources mainly to omissions of early deaths in HDSSs.InterpretationIn countries with age patterns of under-5 mortality that diverge from predictions, evidence-based public health interventions should focus on the causes of excess of mortality; notably, the effect of fetal growth restriction and infectious diseases. The age pattern of under-5 mortality will be instrumental in assessing progress towards the decline of under-5 mortality and the Sustainable Development Goals.FundingEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundInformation on cost-effectiveness allows policy-makers to evaluate if they are using currently available resources effectively and efficiently. Our objective is to examine the cost-effectiveness of health interventions to improve maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) outcomes, to provide global evidence relative to the context of two geographic regions.MethodsWe consider interventions across the life course from adolescence to pregnancy and for children up to 5 years old. Interventions included are those that fall within the areas of immunization, child healthcare, nutrition, reproductive health, and maternal/newborn health, and for which it is possible to model impact on MNCH mortality outcomes using the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) was used to derive average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) for individual interventions and combinations (packages). Costs were assessed from the health system perspective and reported in international dollars. Health outcomes were estimated and reported as the gain in healthy life years (HLYs) due to the specific intervention or combination. The model was run for 2 regions: Eastern sub-Saharan Africa (SSA-E) and South-East Asia (SEA).ResultsThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommended interventions to improve MNCH are generally considered cost-effective, with the majority of interventions demonstrating ACERs below I$100/HLY saved in the chosen settings (low-and middle-income countries [LMICs]). Best performing interventions are consistent across the two regions, and include family planning, neonatal resuscitation, management of pneumonia and neonatal infection, vitamin A supplementation, and measles vaccine. ACERs below I$100 can be found across all delivery platforms, from community to hospital level. The combination of interventions into packages (such as antenatal care) produces favorable ACERs.ConclusionWithin each region there are interventions which represent very good value for money. There are opportunities to gear investments towards high-impact interventions and packages for MNCH outcomes. Cost-effectiveness tools can be used at national level to inform investment cases and overall priority setting processes.