Raymond Hutubessy

Effectiveness and costs of interventions to lower systolic blood pressure and cholesterol: a global and regional analysis on reduction of cardiovascular-disease risk

BACKGROUND Cardiovascular disease accounts for much morbidity and mortality in developed countries and is becoming increasingly important in less developed regions. Systolic blood pressure above 115 mm Hg accounts for two-thirds of strokes and almost half of ischaemic heart disease cases, and cholesterol concentrations exceeding 3.8 mmol/L for 18% and 55%, respectively. We report estimates of the population health effects, and costs of selected interventions to reduce the risks associated with high cholesterol concentrations and blood pressure in areas of the world with differing epidemiological profiles. METHODS Effect sizes were derived from systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and the effect on health outcomes projected over time for populations with differing age, sex, and epidemiological profiles. Incidence data from estimates of burden of disease were used in a four-state longitudinal population model to calculate disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted and patients treated. Costs were taken from previous publications, or estimated by local experts, in 14 regions. FINDINGS Non-personal health interventions, including government action to stimulate a reduction in the salt content of processed foods, are cost-effective ways to limit cardiovascular disease and could avert over 21 million DALYs per year worldwide. Combination treatment for people whose risk of a cardiovascular event over the next 10 years is above 35% is also cost effective leading to substantial additional health benefits by averting an additional 63 million DALYs per year worldwide. INTERPRETATION The combination of personal and non-personal health interventions evaluated here could lower the global incidence of cardiovascular events by as much as 50%.

Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease.The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs) or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness). The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness.Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor.

Programme costs in the economic evaluation of health interventions

Estimating the costs of health interventions is important to policy-makers for a number of reasons including the fact that the results can be used as a component in the assessment and improvement of their health system performance. Costs can, for example, be used to assess if scarce resources are being used efficiently or whether there is scope to reallocate them in a way that would lead to improvements in population health. As part of its WHO-CHOICE project, WHO has been developing a database on the overall costs of health interventions in different parts of the world as an input to discussions about priority setting.Programme costs, defined as costs incurred at the administrative levels outside the point of delivery of health care to beneficiaries, may comprise an important component of total costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis has sometimes omitted them if the main focus has been on personal curative interventions or on the costs of making small changes within the existing administrative set-up. However, this is not appropriate for non-personal interventions where programme costs are likely to comprise a substantial proportion of total costs, or for sectoral analysis where questions of how best to reallocate all existing health resources, including administrative resources, are being considered.This paper presents a first effort to systematically estimate programme costs for many health interventions in different regions of the world. The approach includes the quantification of resource inputs, choice of resource prices, and accounts for different levels of population coverage. By using an ingredients approach, and making tools available on the World Wide Web, analysts can adapt the programme costs reported here to their local settings. We report results for a selected number of health interventions and show that programme costs vary considerably across interventions and across regions, and that they can contribute substantially to the overall costs of interventions.

Cost effectiveness analysis of strategies for child health in developing countries.

Abstract Objective To determine the costs and effectiveness of selected child health interventions—namely, case management of pneumonia, oral rehydration therapy, supplementation or fortification of staple foods with vitamin A or zinc, provision of supplementary food with counselling on nutrition, and immunisation against measles. Design Cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Efficacy data came from published systematic reviews and before and after evaluations of programmes. For resource inputs, quantities came from literature and expert opinion, and prices from the World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE) database Results Cost effectiveness ratios clustered in three groups, with fortification with zinc or vitamin A as the most cost effective intervention, and provision of supplementary food and counselling on nutrition as the least cost effective. Between these were oral rehydration therapy, case management of pneumonia, vitamin A or zinc supplementation, and measles immunisation. Conclusions On the grounds of cost effectiveness, micronutrients and measles immunisation should be provided routinely to all children, in addition to oral rehydration therapy and case management of pneumonia for those who are sick. The challenge of malnutrition is not well addressed by existing interventions. This article is part of a series examining the cost effectiveness of strategies to achieve the millennium development goals for health

Estimating the costs of achieving the WHO-UNICEF Global Immunization Vision and Strategy, 2006-2015

OBJECTIVE To estimate the cost of scaling up childhood immunization services required to reach the WHO-UNICEF Global Immunization Vision and Strategy (GIVS) goal of reducing mortality due to vaccine-preventable diseases by two-thirds by 2015. METHODS A model was developed to estimate the total cost of reaching GIVS goals by 2015 in 117 low- and lower-middle- income countries. Current spending was estimated by analysing data from country planning documents, and scale-up costs were estimated using a bottom-up, ingredients-based approach. Financial costs were estimated by country and year for reaching 90% coverage with all existing vaccines; introducing a discrete set of new vaccines (rotavirus, conjugate pneumococcal, conjugate meningococcal A and Japanese encephalitis); and conducting immunization campaigns to protect at-risk populations against polio, tetanus, measles, yellow fever and meningococcal meningitis. FINDINGS The 72 poorest countries of the world spent US

Health Economics of Dengue: A Systematic Literature Review and Expert Panel's Assessment

2.5 (range: US

Cost-effectiveness of female human papillomavirus vaccination in 179 countries: a PRIME modelling study

1.8-4.2) billion on immunization in 2005, an increase from US

Safety of the Recombinant Cholera Toxin B Subunit, Killed Whole-Cell (rBS-WC) Oral Cholera Vaccine in Pregnancy

1.1 (range: US

Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in low and middle income countries: A systematic review

0.9-1.6) billion in 2000. By 2015 annual immunization costs will on average increase to about US

Effectiveness of an oral cholera vaccine in Zanzibar: findings from a mass vaccination campaign and observational cohort study

4.0 (range US