Cost-effectiveness of mass drug administration for control of scabies in Ethiopia: a decision-analytic model.

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frontiers in health services Pub Date : 2024-09-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frhs.2024.1279762
Natalia Hounsome, Robel Yirgu, Jo Middleton, Jackie A Cassell, Abebaw Fekadu, Gail Davey
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of mass drug administration for control of scabies in Ethiopia: a decision-analytic model.","authors":"Natalia Hounsome, Robel Yirgu, Jo Middleton, Jackie A Cassell, Abebaw Fekadu, Gail Davey","doi":"10.3389/frhs.2024.1279762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The strategies to control scabies in highly endemic populations include individual case/household management and mass drug administration (MDA). We used a decision-analytic model to compare ivermectin-based MDA and individual case/household management (referred to as \"usual care\") for control of scabies in Ethiopia at different prevalence thresholds for commencing MDA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A decision-analytic model was based on a repeated population survey conducted in Northern Ethiopia in 2018-2020, which aimed to evaluate the secondary impact of single-dose ivermectin MDA for the control of onchocerciasis on scabies prevalence. The model estimates the number of scabies cases and costs of two treatment strategies (MDA and usual care) based on their effectiveness, population size, scabies prevalence, compliance with MDA, medication cost, and other parameters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base-case analysis with a population of 100,000 and scabies prevalence of 15%, the MDA strategy was both more effective and less costly than usual care. The probability of MDA being cost-effective at the current cost-effectiveness threshold (equivalent to the cost of usual care) was 85%. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the MDA strategy remained dominant (less costly and more effective) in 22 out of 26 scenarios. MDA was not cost-effective at scabies prevalence <10%, MDA effectiveness <85% and population size <5,000. An increase in the cost of ivermectin from 0 (donated) to 0.54 US$/dose resulted in a decrease in the probability of MDA being cost-effective from 85% to 17%. At 0.25 US$/dose, the MDA strategy was no longer cost-effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The model provides robust estimates of the costs and outcomes of MDA and usual care and can be used by decision-makers for planning and implementing scabies control programmes. Results of our analysis suggest that single-dose ivermectin MDA is cost-effective in scabies control and can be initiated at a scabies prevalence >10%.</p>","PeriodicalId":73088,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in health services","volume":"4 ","pages":"1279762"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11445614/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2024.1279762","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The strategies to control scabies in highly endemic populations include individual case/household management and mass drug administration (MDA). We used a decision-analytic model to compare ivermectin-based MDA and individual case/household management (referred to as "usual care") for control of scabies in Ethiopia at different prevalence thresholds for commencing MDA.

Methods: A decision-analytic model was based on a repeated population survey conducted in Northern Ethiopia in 2018-2020, which aimed to evaluate the secondary impact of single-dose ivermectin MDA for the control of onchocerciasis on scabies prevalence. The model estimates the number of scabies cases and costs of two treatment strategies (MDA and usual care) based on their effectiveness, population size, scabies prevalence, compliance with MDA, medication cost, and other parameters.

Results: In the base-case analysis with a population of 100,000 and scabies prevalence of 15%, the MDA strategy was both more effective and less costly than usual care. The probability of MDA being cost-effective at the current cost-effectiveness threshold (equivalent to the cost of usual care) was 85%. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the MDA strategy remained dominant (less costly and more effective) in 22 out of 26 scenarios. MDA was not cost-effective at scabies prevalence <10%, MDA effectiveness <85% and population size <5,000. An increase in the cost of ivermectin from 0 (donated) to 0.54 US$/dose resulted in a decrease in the probability of MDA being cost-effective from 85% to 17%. At 0.25 US$/dose, the MDA strategy was no longer cost-effective.

Conclusions: The model provides robust estimates of the costs and outcomes of MDA and usual care and can be used by decision-makers for planning and implementing scabies control programmes. Results of our analysis suggest that single-dose ivermectin MDA is cost-effective in scabies control and can be initiated at a scabies prevalence >10%.

埃塞俄比亚大规模用药控制疥疮的成本效益:决策分析模型。
背景:在疥疮高度流行的人群中,控制疥疮的策略包括个案/家庭管理和大规模用药(MDA)。我们使用决策分析模型,比较了埃塞俄比亚在不同流行阈值下开始使用伊维菌素进行大规模给药和个体病例/家庭管理(称为 "常规护理")以控制疥疮的情况:基于 2018-2020 年在埃塞俄比亚北部进行的重复人口调查,建立了一个决策分析模型,旨在评估单剂量伊维菌素 MDA 用于控制盘尾丝虫病对疥疮流行的次要影响。该模型根据两种治疗策略(MDA 和常规护理)的效果、人口规模、疥疮流行率、MDA 的依从性、药物成本和其他参数,估算了疥疮病例数和成本:结果:在人口为 100,000 人、疥疮流行率为 15%的基础案例分析中,MDA 策略比常规护理更有效、成本更低。在目前的成本效益阈值(相当于常规护理的成本)下,MDA 具有成本效益的概率为 85%。单向敏感性分析表明,在 26 种方案中的 22 种方案中,MDA 策略仍占主导地位(成本更低、更有效)。在疥疮流行情况下,MDA 不具成本效益 结论:该模型对 MDA 和常规护理的成本和结果进行了可靠的估算,可供决策者在规划和实施疥疮控制计划时使用。我们的分析结果表明,单剂量伊维菌素 MDA 在疥疮控制中具有成本效益,可在疥疮流行率大于 10% 时启动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信