Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of measles control during elimination in Ontario, Canada, 2015.

ABSTRACT: BackgroundGiven that measles is eliminated in Canada and measles immunisation coverage in Ontario is high, it has been questioned whether Ontario's measles outbreak response is worthwhile.AimOur objective was to determine cost-effectiveness of measles containment protocols in Ontario from the healthcare payer perspective.MethodsWe developed a decision-analysis model comparing Ontario's measles containment strategy (based on actual 2015 outbreak data) with a hypothetical 'modified response'. The modified scenario assumed 10% response costs with reduced case and contact tracing and no outbreak-associated vaccinations; it was based on local and provincial administrative and laboratory data and parameters from peer-reviewed literature. Short- and long-term health outcomes, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs discounted at 1.5%, were estimated. We conducted one- and two-way sensitivity analyses.ResultsThe 2015 outbreak in Ontario comprised 16 measles cases and an estimated 3,369 contacts. Predictive modelling suggested that the outbreak response prevented 16 outbreak-associated cases at a cost of CAD 1,213,491 (EUR 861,579). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CAD 739,063 (EUR 524,735) per QALY gained for the outbreak response vs modified response. To meet the commonly accepted cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD 50,000 (EUR 35,500) per QALY gained, the outbreak response would have to prevent 94 measles cases. In sensitivity analyses, the findings were robust.ConclusionsOntario's measles outbreak response exceeds generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds and may not be the most efficient use of public health resources from a healthcare payer perspective. These findings should be balanced against benefits of increased vaccine coverage and maintaining elimination status.

SUBMITTER: Ramsay LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6425553 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of measles control during elimination in Ontario, Canada, 2015.

Ramsay Lauren C LC Crowcroft Natasha S NS Thomas Shari S Aruffo Elena E Teslya Alexandra A Heffernan Jane M JM Gournis Effie E Hiebert Joanne J Jaeger Valerie V Jiaravuthisan Manisa M Sharron Jennifer J Severini Alberto A Deeks Shelley L SL Gubbay Jonathan J Mazzulli Tony T Sander Beate B

Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin 20190301 11

BackgroundGiven that measles is eliminated in Canada and measles immunisation coverage in Ontario is high, it has been questioned whether Ontario's measles outbreak response is worthwhile.AimOur objective was to determine cost-effectiveness of measles containment protocols in Ontario from the healthcare payer perspective.MethodsWe developed a decision-analysis model comparing Ontario's measles containment strategy (based on actual 2015 outbreak data) with a hypothetical 'modified response'. The ...[more]

PMID: 30892178

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIdentifying conditions that could be prioritized for research based on health care system burden is important for developing a research agenda for the care of hospitalized children. However, existing prioritization studies are decades old or do not include data from both pediatric and general hospitals.ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence, cost, and variation in cost of pediatric hospitalizations at all general and pediatric hospitals in Ontario, Canada, with the aim of identifying conditions that could be prioritized for future research.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cross-sectional study used health administrative data from 165 general and pediatric hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Children younger than 18 years with an inpatient hospital encounter between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2019, were included.Main outcomes and measuresCondition-specific prevalence, cost of pediatric hospitalizations, and condition-specific variation in cost per inpatient encounter across hospitals. Variation in cost was evaluated using (1) intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and (2) number of outlier hospitals. Costs were adjusted for inflation to 2018 US dollars.ResultsOverall, 627 314 inpatient hospital encounters (44.8% among children younger than 30 days and 53.0% among boys) at 165 hospitals (157 general and 8 pediatric) costing $3.3 billion were identified. A total of 408 003 hospitalizations (65.0%) and $1.4 billion (43.8%) in total costs occurred at general hospitals. Among the 50 most prevalent and 50 most costly conditions (of 68 total conditions), the top 10 highest-cost conditions accounted for 55.5% of all costs and 48.6% of all encounters. The conditions with highest prevalence and cost included low birth weight (86.2 per 1000 encounters; $676.3 million), preterm newborn (38.0 per 1000 encounters; $137.4 million), major depressive disorder (20.7 per 1000 encounters; $78.3 million), pneumonia (27.3 per 1000 encounters; $71.6 million), other perinatal conditions (68.0 per 1000 encounters; $65.8 million), bronchiolitis (25.4 per 1000 encounters; $54.6 million), and neonatal hyperbilirubinemia (47.9 per 1000 encounters; $46.7 million). The highest variation in cost per encounter among the most costly medical conditions was observed for 2 mental health conditions (other mental health disorders [ICC, 0.28] and anxiety disorders [ICC, 0.19]) and 3 newborn conditions (intrauterine hypoxia and birth asphyxia [ICC, 0.27], other perinatal conditions [ICC, 0.17], and surfactant deficiency disorder [ICC, 0.17]).Conclusions and relevanceThis population-based cross-sectional study of hospitalized children identified several newborn and mental health conditions as having the highest prevalence, cost, and variation in cost across hospitals. Findings of this study can be used to develop a research agenda for the care of hospitalized children that includes general hospitals and to ultimately build a more substantial evidence base and improve patient outcomes.

Project description:Ontario, Canada, immunizes against influenza using a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) under a Universal Influenza Immunization Program (UIIP). The UIIP offers IIV3 free-of-charge to all Ontarians over 6 months of age. A newly approved quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) offers wider protection against influenza B disease. We explored the expected cost-utility and budget impact of replacing IIV3 with IIV4, within the context of Ontario's UIIP, using a probabilistic and static cost-utility model. Wherever possible, epidemiological and cost data were obtained from Ontario sources. Canadian or U.S. sources were used when Ontario data were not available. Vaccine efficacy for IIV3 was obtained from the literature. IIV4 efficacy was derived from meta-analysis of strain-specific vaccine efficacy. Conservatively, herd protection was not considered. In the base case, we used IIV3 and IIV4 prices of $5.5/dose and $7/dose, respectively. We conducted a sensitivity analysis on the price of IIV4, as well as standard univariate and multivariate statistical uncertainty analyses. Over a typical influenza season, relative to IIV3, IIV4 is expected to avert an additional 2,516 influenza cases, 1,683 influenza-associated medical visits, 27 influenza-associated hospitalizations, and 5 influenza-associated deaths. From a societal perspective, IIV4 would generate 76 more Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and a net societal budget impact of $4,784,112. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for this comparison was $63,773/QALY. IIV4 remains cost-effective up to a 53% price premium over IIV3. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that IIV4 was cost-effective with a probability of 65% for a threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. IIV4 is expected to achieve reductions in influenza-related morbidity and mortality compared to IIV3. Despite not accounting for herd protection, IIV4 is still expected to be a cost-effective alternative to IIV3 up to a price premium of 53%. Our conclusions were robust in the face of sensitivity analyses.

Project description:ImportanceScreening for amblyopia in primary care visits is recommended for young children, yet screening rates are poor. Although the prevalence of amblyopia is low (3%-5%) among young children, universal screening in schools and mandatory optometric examinations may improve vision care, but the cost-effectiveness of these vision testing strategies compared with the standard in primary care is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of universal school screening and mandated optometric examinations compared with standard care vision screening in primary care visits in Toronto, Canada, with the aim of detecting and facilitating treatment of amblyopia and amblyopia risk factors from the Ontario government's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsAn economic evaluation was conducted from July 2019 to May 2021 using a Markov model to compare 15-year costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between school screening and optometric examination compared with primary care screening in Toronto, Canada. Parameters were derived from published literature, the Ontario Schedule of Benefits and Fees, and the Kindergarten Vision Testing Program. A hypothetical cohort of 25 000 children aged 3 to 5 years was simulated. It was assumed that children in the cohort had irreversible vision impairment if not diagnosed by an optometrist. In addition, incremental costs and outcomes of 0 were adjusted to favor the reference strategy. Vision testing programs were designed to detect amblyopia and amblyopia risk factors.Main outcomes and measuresFor each strategy, the mean costs per child included the costs of screening, optometric examinations, and treatment. The mean health benefits (QALYs) gained were informed by the presence of vision impairment and the benefits of treatment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for each alternative strategy relative to the standard primary care screening strategy as the additional cost required to achieve an additional QALY at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 Canadian dollars (CAD) ($37 690) per QALY gained.ResultsSchool screening relative to primary care screening yielded cost savings of CAD $84.09 (95% CI, CAD $82.22-$85.95) (US $63.38 [95% CI, US $61.97-$64.78]) per child and an incremental gain of 0.0004 (95% CI, -0.0047 to 0.0055) QALYs per child. Optometric examinations relative to primary care screening yielded cost savings of CAD $74.47 (95% CI, CAD $72.90-$76.03) (US $56.13 [95% CI, $54.95-$57.30]) per child and an incremental gain of 0.0508 (95% CI, 0.0455-0.0561) QALYs per child. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD $50 000 (US $37 690) per QALY gained, school screening and optometric examinations were cost-effective relative to primary care screening in only 20% and 29% of iterations, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, because amblyopia prevalence is low among young children and most children in the hypothetical cohort had healthy vision, universal school screening and optometric examinations were not cost-effective relative to primary care screening for detecting amblyopia in young children in Toronto, Canada. The mean added health benefits of school screening and optometric examinations compared with primary care screening did not warrant the resources used.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of measles control during elimination in Ontario, Canada, 2015.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of measles control during elimination in Ontario, Canada, 2015.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets