The cost-effectiveness of banning highly hazardous pesticides to prevent suicides due to pesticide self-ingestion across 14 countries: an economic modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Reducing suicides is a key Sustainable Development Goal target for improving global health. Highly hazardous pesticides are among the leading causes of death by suicide in low-income and middle-income countries. National bans of acutely toxic highly hazardous pesticides have led to substantial reductions in pesticide-attributable suicides across several countries. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of implementing national bans of highly hazardous pesticides to reduce the burden of pesticide suicides. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to examine the costs and health effects of implementing a national ban of highly hazardous pesticides to prevent suicides due to pesticide self-poisoning, compared with a null comparator. We used WHO cost-effectiveness and strategic planning (WHO-CHOICE) methods to estimate pesticide-attributable suicide rates for 100 years from 2017. Country-specific costs were obtained from the WHO-CHOICE database and denominated in 2017 international dollars (I$), discounted at a 3% annual rate, and health effects were measured in healthy life-years gained (HLYGs). We used a demographic projection model beginning with the country population in the baseline year (2017), split by 1-year age group and sex. Country-specific data on overall suicide rates were obtained for 2017 by age and sex from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 Data Resources. The analysis involved 14 countries spanning low-income to high-income settings, and cost-effectiveness ratios were analysed at the country-specific level and aggregated according to country income group and the proportion of suicides due to pesticides. FINDINGS: Banning highly hazardous pesticides across the 14 countries studied could result in about 28 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 24 000-32 000) fewer suicide deaths each year at an annual cost of I$0·007 per capita (95% UI 0·006-0·008). In the population-standardised results for the base case analysis, national bans produced cost-effectiveness ratios of $94 per HLYG (95% UI 73-123) across low-income and lower-middle-income countries and $237 per HLYG (95% UI 191-303) across upper-middle-income and high-income countries. Bans were more cost-effective in countries where a high proportion of suicides are attributable to pesticide self-poisoning, reaching a cost-effectiveness ratio of $75 per HLYG (95% UI 58-99) in two countries with proportions of more than 30%. INTERPRETATION: National bans of highly hazardous pesticides are a potentially cost-effective and affordable intervention for reducing suicide deaths in countries with a high burden of suicides attributable to pesticides. However, our study findings are limited by imperfect data and assumptions that could be improved upon by future studies. FUNDING: WHO.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of drug and lifestyle intervention following opportunistic screening for pre-diabetes in primary care.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a screening programme for pre-diabetes, which was followed up by treatment with pharmaceutical interventions (acarbose, metformin, orlistat) or lifestyle interventions (diet, exercise, diet and exercise) in order to prevent or slow the onset of diabetes in those at high risk. METHODS: To approximate the experience of individuals with pre-diabetes in the Australian population, we used a microsimulation approach, following patient progression through diabetes, cardiovascular disease and renal failure. The model compares costs and disability-adjusted life years lived in people identified through an opportunistic screening programme for each intervention compared with a 'do nothing' scenario, which is representative of current practice. It is assumed that the effect of a lifestyle change will decay by 10% per year, while the effect of a pharmaceutical intervention remains constant throughout use. RESULTS: The most cost-effective intervention options are diet and exercise combined, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of AUD 22,500 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted, and metformin with a cost-effectiveness ratio of AUD 21,500 per DALY averted. The incremental addition of one intervention to the other is not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Screening for pre-diabetes followed by diet and exercise, or metformin treatment is cost-effective and should be considered for incorporation into current practice. The number of dietitians and exercise physiologists needed to deliver such lifestyle change interventions will need to be increased to appropriately support the intervention.