Assessing the potential cost-effectiveness of the addition of atezolizumab to first-line platinum chemotherapy in advanced urothelial cancer: Implications for value-based pricing.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5031-5031
Author(s):  
Ali Raza Khaki ◽  
Leonidas Nikolaos Diamantopoulos ◽  
Marita Zimmerman ◽  
Louis P. Garrison ◽  
Petros Grivas
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Urothelial Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Advanced Urothelial Cancer ◽  
The Cost

5031 Background: Data from interim analysis of IMvigor130 trial showed that 1st line treatment of advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) with atezolizumab (Atezo) + platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), but not overall survival (OS), vs PBC. Switch maintenance anti-PD(L)1 after completion of PBC as 1st line therapy is an alternate strategy, recently reported to significantly prolong OS. We aimed to compare cost-effectiveness of combined treatment (Atezo+PBC) vs PBC based on IMvigor130. Methods: We used a partitioned-survival model to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of treatment with A) Atezo+PBC (gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin) or B) PBC alone with checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab at progression (standard-of-care). PFS and OS curves were extracted from IMvigor 130 and parametric models were fit to approximate outcomes with Atezo+PBC with the hazard ratio (HR) from the trial used to project outcomes for PBC alone. We used a health-care payer perspective with a two-year time horizon. Model outputs — costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) — were used to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A scenario analysis evaluated the “value-based price” needed for Atezo+PBC to be cost-effective; a one-way sensitivity analysis was also performed. Results: Results of the cost-effectiveness analysis are summarized in the table. The mean projected incremental cost of Atezo+PBC compared to PBC was $59,604 for a mean incremental gain of 0.09 life-years and 0.07 QALYs. This resulted in an ICER of $629,755/life-year and $895,800/QALY, respectively. A 33% reduction would be needed in the price of atezolizumab to make Atezo+PBC cost-effective at an ICER of $150,000/QALY. Results were sensitive to cost of pembrolizumab at progression, the cost of Atezo+PBC, and the OS HR between Atezo+PBC and PBC. Conclusions: Combined chemoimmunotherapy with atezolizumab and PBC would likely not be cost-effective for the first-line treatment of aUC. However, with a price rebate of 33%, it would approach being cost-effective at a widely used cost-effectiveness threshold. [Table: see text]

Dacomitinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost–effectiveness analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Aguilar-Serra ◽  
Vicente Gimeno-Ballester ◽  
Alfonso Pastor-Clerigues ◽  
Javier Milara ◽  
Ezequiel Marti-Bonmati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
First Line ◽  
Estimate Quality ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Aim: To assess the cost–effectiveness of first-line treatment with dacomitinib compared with gefitinib in patients newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC EGFR-positive in the context of Spain. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed including costs, utilities and disutilities to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost–effectiveness ratio when treating with dacomitinib versus gefitinib. Results: Dacomitinib presented higher QALYs (0.51) compared with gefitinib (0.45). Dacomitinib costs were €33,061 in comparison with €26,692 for gefitinib arm. An incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of €111,048 was obtained for dacomitinib. Conclusion: Dacomitinib was more effective in terms of QALYs gained than gefitinib. However, to obtain a cost–effectiveness alternative, a discount greater than 25% in dacomitinib acquisition cost is required.

Economic evaluation of crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatininb in anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as second-line treatment.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21104-e21104
Author(s):  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Hala Halawah ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Dexter Gulick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Reference Drug ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Life Years

e21104 Background: Crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib are approved as second line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC. Crizotinib was the first ALK inhibitor for first line therapy approved by Food and Drug Administration (2011) then ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015), and brigatinib (2017) were approved as second line drugs. Following more data, these agents were approved as the first line therapy (2017 for ceritinib and alectinib; 2020 for brigatinib). These remain as a treatment option in patients who fail the first line therapy. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted to assess clinical efficacy with varying costs of the agents. Methods: A three state Markov model were assumed (progression free, progression and death). Progression free survival (PFS) curves were digitized and fitted with exponential function. US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were Redbook wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs included were monitoring, adverse events and disease progression from published data (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported >5% in patients were included. Measured outcomes were PFS life years (PFSLY) and quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY). Crizotinib was the reference drug. Incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) and lost were estimated. Base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug for the following outcomes. For alectinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,653 (-$14,712), the incremental PFSLY of 0.16 (0.16) and PFSQALY of 0.05 (0.05) resulted in an ICER / PFSLYG of -$89,337 (-$88,604) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$269,835 (-$266,510). For brigatinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,975 (-$14,954), the incremental PFSLY of 0.01 (0.01) and PFSQALY of ̃0.01 (0.02) yielded an ICER / PFSLYG of -$1,982,962 (-$1,431,631) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$2,140,534 (-$570,538). For ceritinib, with the incremental cost of $7,590 ($7,514), there were decremental PFSLY of -0.01 (-0.01) and PFSQALY of -0.03 (-0.03). Conclusions: As second line treatment, crizotinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib had comparable PFSLYs and PFSQALYs while alectinib had the most PFSLY and PFSQALY and the lowest cost. Therefore, alectinib is the most cost-effective treatment for treating ALK+ NSCLC as the second line therapy.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase for first-line treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a UK-based cost-utility analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xingdi Hu ◽  
Kingsley P. Wildman ◽  
Subham Basu ◽  
Peggy L. Lin ◽  
Clare Rowntree ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
First Line ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Search Trial ◽  
Erwinia Asparaginase ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background L-asparaginase is a key component of treatment for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) in the UK. Commonly used forms of asparaginase are native E. coli-derived asparaginase (native asparaginase) and pegaspargase in first-line combination therapy, and native Erwinia chrysanthemi-derived asparaginase (Erwinia asparaginase) as second-line treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase in first-line combination therapy for patients with newly diagnosed ALL. A combined decision tree and health-state transition Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to assess the relative costs and health outcomes of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase in the UK setting. Results In base case analyses, first-line pegaspargase (followed by Erwinia asparaginase in cases of hypersensitivity) dominated first-line native asparaginase followed by Erwinia asparaginase; i.e. resulted in lower costs and more quality-adjusted life year gain. The favourable hypersensitivity rates and administration profile of pegaspargase led to lifetime cost savings of £4741 versus native asparaginase. Pegaspargase remained cost-effective versus all treatment strategies in all scenario analyses, including use of the 2500 IU/m2 dose, recommended for patients ≤21 years of age. Conclusions Pegaspargase, as part of multi-drug chemotherapy, is a cost-effective option for the treatment of newly diagnosed ALL. Based on this study, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisal Committee concluded that it could recommend pegaspargase as a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources in England & Wales for treating ALL in children, young people and adults with untreated, newly diagnosed disease. Trial registration UKALL 2011, EudraCT number 2010-020924-22; UKALL 2003, EudraCT number 2007-004013-34; UKALL14, EudraCT number 2009-012717-22.

Cost-effectiveness of rituximab plus CVP for first-line treatment of advanced indolent lymphoma

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6583-6583
Author(s):  
J. Hornberger ◽  
C. Reyes ◽  
E. Verhulst ◽  
D. Lubeck ◽  
N. Valente
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

6583 Background: The addition of rituximab (RTX) to CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) in the treatment of advanced follicular lymphoma increases median time to progression by 17 months (15 month v 32 months; p < 0.0001) (Marcus et al, Blood 2005). A societal cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to estimate projected lifetime clinical and economic implications of this treatment. Methods: The cost-effectiveness (CE) of RTX + CVP versus CVP was estimated for a 50 yr old patient. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free and overall survival, up to 4 years, were obtained from the M39021 trial. After 4 years, transition rates from initiation of treatment to progression or death were assumed to be the same in both arms. The clinical and economic implications of relapse and its treatment were included in the model. Incremental costs associated with addition of RTX were estimated using Medicare reimbursement rates and published retail price data. Costs included drug and administration costs, adverse events, treatment of relapses, and end-of-life costs. Utility estimates were derived from the literature and a 3% discount rate was employed. Results: Projected mean overall survival is 1.5 yrs longer for patients assigned to RTX+ CVP versus only CVP (13.7 v 12.2 yrs). The addition of RTX to CVP is estimated to cost an additional $26,439 on average, with an expected gain of 0.85 year of quality-adjusted survival. Over a lifetime, the cost per QALY gained is $31,329. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the variables that most influenced cost-effectiveness were the time horizon (range: $18,800- $31,240) and the unit drug cost of RTX (range: $24,000-$38,000). Conclusion: The model estimates a cost-to-QALY gained ratio that is below that of many treatments used for oncology patients. The use of RTX + CVP for first-line treatment of advanced follicular lymphoma is projected to be cost-effective compared to CVP alone under a range of sensitivity analyses. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in Colombia (ONCOLGroup study)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16150-e16150
Author(s):  
J. Godoy ◽  
A. F. Cardona ◽  
H. Cáceres ◽  
J. M. Otero ◽  
M. Lujan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Average Total Cost ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

e16150 Background: Renal cell carcinoma has increased its incidence by 126% since 1950. A local study developed a complete economic evaluation of sunitinib versus IFN in first-line treatment of mRCC in Colombia, finding that sunitinib was more cost-useful and cost-effective. Methods: A Markov model was developed using 6-week cycles for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of four interventions (IFN, sunitinib, bevacizumab+IFN, sorafenib) approved as first-line treatment for mRCC in Colombia. The model used the third-party payer perspective and a 5-year time-line; it also presumed that all the patients (pts) continued with active treatment until progression when it became acceptable to continue with a second-line treatment or BSC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves of IFN were used as reference framework; they were obtained form a published clinical trial. The hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were estimated for comparing new generation medicaments with IFN. The information about frequency of use and health service cost units consumed in Colombia was taken from a series of 24 pts treated in Manizales, Pereira, Medellín and Bogotá. Service costs were requested from an external consultant and corresponded to the average value billed by the EPSs, calculated from 33 sources of information which were representative of the country's market. The cost of the medicaments was obtained from LCLC. The costs and benefits were discounted annually at 3%. (all cost are presented in Colombian pesos Col$ 2008 with an exchange rate 1 USD = 1836.20 Col$). Results: Incremental analysis indicated a difference of 41.1 million Col$ in the average total cost of treatment when Sunitinib was compared to IFN; in contrast, comparing sorafenib and Bevacizumab+INF to sunitinib demonstrated that the average total cost was less for the sunitinib by 8.3 and 104.2 million Col$, respectively. Additionally, the ratios of incremental cost-effectiveness by life years (LY) gained demonstrated sunitinib's simple dominance over sorafenib and the combination of bevacizumab+IFN, and an average by LY gained of 100.5 million Col$ compared to IFN. Conclusions: Sunitinib is the most cost-effective option as first-line treatment for mRCC pts in Colombia. [Table: see text]

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of hydrogel spacer in radiotherapy (RT) of prostate cancer (PC).

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 43-43
Author(s):  
Rahul Ramesh Khairnar ◽  
Joseph Levy ◽  
Mark Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Credible Interval ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Incremental Effectiveness ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Fee Schedule

43 Background: A hydrogel rectal spacer (HRS) is an FDA-approved medical device used to increase the separation between the rectum and the prostate. A recent phase III trial demonstrated a small reduction in the incidence of RT toxicities associated with use of HRS. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HRS use in PC patients undergoing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods: A multi-state Markov model was constructed to examine the cost-effectiveness of HRS in men with localized PC receiving IMRT in the US (arms: IMRT alone vs. IMRT + HRS). Subgroups included delivery site of IMRT (hospital vs. ambulatory) and baseline sexual function (SF) (general population vs. those with good SF). Based on previous studies, recurrence and survival were assumed equal for both arms. Data on SF, gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities incidence, as well as potential risks associated with HRS implantation were obtained from a recently published clinical trial. Health utilities and costs were derived from the literature and 2018 Physician Fee Schedule. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were modeled for a 5-year period from receipt of RT. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and value-based threshold analysis were conducted. Costs and utilities were discounted at 3% annually. Results: The per-person 5-year incremental cost for HRS administered in a hospital was $4,008 and the incremental effectiveness was 0.0273 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $146,746 (95% credible interval from PSA $125,638 – $178,049) for PC patients undergoing HRS insertion in a hospital vs. $73,359 ($66,732 – $86,767) for patients undergoing HRS insertion in an ambulatory facility. For men with good SF, the ICER was $55,153 ($46,002 – $76,090) and $26,542 ($17,399 – $46,044) in hospital vs. ambulatory facility. Conclusions: This study is the first to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HRS based on long-term toxicity data. Based on the current Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, HRS is cost-effective in men with good SF at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 and it is marginally cost-effective for the entire population depending on the facility where the HRS is inserted.

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness of First-Line Treatment with Doxorubicin/Ifosfamide Compared to Trabectedin Monotherapy in the Management of Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma in Italy, Spain, and Sweden

Sarcoma ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian F. Guest ◽  
Monica Panca ◽  
Erikas Sladkevicius ◽  
Nicholas Gough ◽  
Mark Linch
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Effective Use ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background. Doxorubicin/ifosfamide is a first-line systemic chemotherapy for the majority of advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS) subtypes. Trabectedin is indicated for the treatment of ASTS after failure of anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide; however it is being increasingly used off-label as a first-line treatment. This study estimated the cost effectiveness of these two treatments in the first-line management of ASTS in Italy, Spain, and Sweden.Methods. A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy, defined as the cost per QALY gained, in each country.Results. First-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide resulted in lower two-year healthcare costs and more QALYs than first-line treatment with trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a cost per QALY threshold of €35,000, >90% of a cohort would be cost effectively treated with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries.Conclusion. Within the model’s limitations, first-line treatment of patients with ASTS with doxorubicin/ifosfamide instead of trabectedin monotherapy affords a cost-effective use of publicly funded healthcare resources in Italy, Spain, and Sweden and is therefore the preferred treatment in all three countries. These findings support the recommendation that trabectedin should remain a second-line treatment.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Different PD-L1 Expression Status

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoqiang Liu ◽  
Shuo Kang ◽  
Xinchen Wang ◽  
Fangjian Shang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Expression Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

BackgroundAtezolizumab could significantly improve clinical outcomes and was associated with less toxicity compared with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of PD-L1-selected patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the economic outcomes remain unclear yet in China. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with different PD-L1 expression status from the Chinese health sector perspective.MethodsA decision-analytic model was conducted to evaluate the economic outcomes for the first-line treatment of EGFR and ALK wild-type metastatic NSCLC with atezolizumab and chemotherapy in high PD-L1 expression, high or intermediate PD-L1 expression and any PD-L1 expression populations, respectively. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the IMpower110 trial. Cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and published literatures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated. A scenario analysis for a patient assistance program (PAP) was conducted. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model results.ResultsAtezolizumab yielded additional 0.91 QALYs, 0.57 QALYs, 0.42 QALYs in comparison with chemotherapy, and the ICERs were $123,778.60/QALY, $142,827.19/QALY, $168,902.66/QALY in the high PD-L1 expression, high or intermediate PD-L1 expression, and any PD-L1 expression populations, respectively. When PAP was available, the ICERs were $52,414.63/QALY, $52,329.73/QALY, $61,189.66/QALY in the three categories of PD-L1 expression status populations, respectively. The ICERs were exceed the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,828/QALY (three times of per capita gross domestic product of China in 2019) in China. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost of atezolizumab played a vital role in the model outcomes, and the probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed atezolizumab was unlikely to be cost-effective at the WTP threshold regardless of PD-L1 expression status and whether the PAP was available or not.ConclusionsAtezolizumab as first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected metastatic NSCLC patients without EGFR mutations or ALK translocations is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 expression status in the Chinese context.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Background: In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. Methods: A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing‐to‐pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY).Conclusion: After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing‐to‐pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of a market-based home fortification of food with micronutrient powder programme in Bangladesh

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Sayem Ahmed ◽  
Haribondhu Sarma ◽  
Zahid Hasan ◽  
Mahfuzur Rahman ◽  
Mohammad Wahid Ahmed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Fe Deficiency ◽  
Deficiency Anaemia ◽  
Micronutrient Powder ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Home Fortification

Abstract Objective: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of home fortification with micronutrient powder delivered in a sales-based programme in reducing the prevalence of Fe deficiency anaemia among children 6–59 months in Bangladesh. Design: Cross-sectional interviews with local and central-level programme staff and document reviews were conducted. Using an activity-based costing approach, we estimated start-up and implementation costs of the programme. The incremental cost per anaemia case averted and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted were estimated by comparing the home fortification programme and no intervention scenarios. Setting: The home fortification programme was implemented in 164 upazilas (sub-districts) in Bangladesh. Participants: Caregivers of child 6–59 months and BRAC staff members including community health workers were the participants for this study. Results: The home fortification programme had an estimated total start-up cost of 35·46 million BDT (456 thousand USD) and implementation cost of 1111·63 million BDT (14·12 million USD). The incremental cost per Fe deficiency anaemia case averted and per DALY averted was estimated to be 1749 BDT (22·2 USD) and 12 558 BDT (159·3 USD), respectively. Considering per capita gross domestic product (1516·5 USD) as the cost-effectiveness threshold, the home fortification programme was highly cost-effective. The programme coverage and costs for nutritional counselling of the beneficiary were influential parameters for cost per DALY averted in the one-way sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: The market-based home fortification programme was a highly cost-effective mechanism for delivering micronutrients to a large number of children in Bangladesh. The policymakers should consider funding and sustaining large-scale sales-based micronutrient home fortification efforts assuming the clear population-level need and potential to benefit persists.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document