Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Investment Success in Public Health: An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit of the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis.
Turner, Hugo C; Bettis, Alison A; Chu, Brian K; McFarland, Deborah A; Hooper, Pamela J; Mante, Sunny D; Fitzpatrick, Christopher; Bradley, Mark H.
Afiliação
  • Turner HC; London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, UK.
  • Bettis AA; Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, St Marys Campus, Imperial College London, UK.
  • Chu BK; Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Wellcome Trust Major Overseas Programme, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
  • McFarland DA; Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Hooper PJ; London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, UK.
  • Mante SD; Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, St Marys Campus, Imperial College London, UK.
  • Fitzpatrick C; Neglected Tropical Diseases Support Center, Task Force for Global Health, Decatur, Atlanta, GA, USA.
  • Bradley MH; Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Clin Infect Dis ; 64(6): 728-735, 2017 03 15.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27956460
Background: It has been estimated that $154 million per year will be required during 2015-2020 to continue the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF). In light of this, it is important to understand the program's current value. Here, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of the preventive chemotherapy that was provided under the GPELF between 2000 and 2014. In addition, we also investigate the potential cost-effectiveness of hydrocele surgery. Methods: Our economic evaluation of preventive chemotherapy was based on previously published health and economic impact estimates (between 2000 and 2014). The delivery costs of treatment were estimated using a model developed by the World Health Organization. We also developed a model to investigate the number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted by a hydrocelectomy and identified the cost threshold under which it would be considered cost-effective. Results: The projected cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of preventive chemotherapy were very promising, and this was robust over a wide range of costs and assumptions. When the economic value of the donated drugs was not included, the GPELF would be classed as highly cost-effective. We projected that a typical hydrocelectomy would be classed as highly cost-effective if the surgery cost less than $66 and cost-effective if less than $398 (based on the World Bank's cost-effectiveness thresholds for low income countries). Conclusions: Both the preventive chemotherapy and hydrocele surgeries provided under the GPELF are incredibly cost-effective and offer a very good investment in public health.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Filariose Linfática / Saúde Pública / Investimentos em Saúde Tipo de estudo: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Filariose Linfática / Saúde Pública / Investimentos em Saúde Tipo de estudo: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article