Cargando…
Economic Evaluation of the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION: An economic evaluation (EE) was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial (the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Study [PT@3]), exploring the additional preventive value of fluoride varnish (FV) application at 6-monthly intervals in nursery schools compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in th...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10285425/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35442091 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23800844221090444 |
_version_ | 1785061606601785344 |
---|---|
author | Anopa, Y. Macpherson, L.M.D. McMahon, A.D. Wright, W. Conway, D.I. McIntosh, E. |
author_facet | Anopa, Y. Macpherson, L.M.D. McMahon, A.D. Wright, W. Conway, D.I. McIntosh, E. |
author_sort | Anopa, Y. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: An economic evaluation (EE) was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial (the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Study [PT@3]), exploring the additional preventive value of fluoride varnish (FV) application at 6-monthly intervals in nursery schools compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in the same nurseries. TAU represented a multicomponent national child oral health improvement intervention, the Childsmile program, apart from nursery FV. METHODS: The EE was a within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing the FV and TAU groups. The CUA was conducted from a National Health Service perspective and followed relevant methods guidance. Within-trial costs included intervention costs and health care resource use costs. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued over the 2-y follow-up period. The Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions questionnaire was used to obtain utility scores. National reference costs were used, a discount rate of 1.5% for public health interventions was adopted, multiple imputation methods for missing data were employed, sensitivity analyses were conducted, and incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Data from 534 participants from the 2014–2015 PT@3 intake were used in the EE analyses, n = 265 (50%) in the FV arm and n = 269 (50%) in the TAU arm. Mean incremental cost per child in the FV arm was £68.37 (P = 0.382; 95% confidence interval [CI], –£18.04 to £143.82). Mean incremental QALY was −0.004 (P = 0.636; 95% CI, −0.016 to 0.007). The probability that the FV intervention was cost-effective at the UK £20,000 threshold was 11.3%. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that applying FV in nurseries in addition to TAU (all other components of Childsmile, apart from nursery FV) would not be deemed cost-effective given current UK thresholds. In view of previously proven clinical effectiveness and economic worthiness of the universal nursery toothbrushing component of Childsmile, continuation of the additional, targeted nursery FV component in its pre–COVID-19 form should be reviewed given its low probability of cost-effectiveness. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results of this study can be used by child oral health policy makers and dental public health professionals. They can form part of the evidence to inform the Scottish, UK, and international guidance on community-based child oral health promotion programs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10285425 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102854252023-06-23 Economic Evaluation of the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Randomized Controlled Trial Anopa, Y. Macpherson, L.M.D. McMahon, A.D. Wright, W. Conway, D.I. McIntosh, E. JDR Clin Trans Res Original Reports INTRODUCTION: An economic evaluation (EE) was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial (the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Study [PT@3]), exploring the additional preventive value of fluoride varnish (FV) application at 6-monthly intervals in nursery schools compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in the same nurseries. TAU represented a multicomponent national child oral health improvement intervention, the Childsmile program, apart from nursery FV. METHODS: The EE was a within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing the FV and TAU groups. The CUA was conducted from a National Health Service perspective and followed relevant methods guidance. Within-trial costs included intervention costs and health care resource use costs. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued over the 2-y follow-up period. The Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions questionnaire was used to obtain utility scores. National reference costs were used, a discount rate of 1.5% for public health interventions was adopted, multiple imputation methods for missing data were employed, sensitivity analyses were conducted, and incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Data from 534 participants from the 2014–2015 PT@3 intake were used in the EE analyses, n = 265 (50%) in the FV arm and n = 269 (50%) in the TAU arm. Mean incremental cost per child in the FV arm was £68.37 (P = 0.382; 95% confidence interval [CI], –£18.04 to £143.82). Mean incremental QALY was −0.004 (P = 0.636; 95% CI, −0.016 to 0.007). The probability that the FV intervention was cost-effective at the UK £20,000 threshold was 11.3%. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that applying FV in nurseries in addition to TAU (all other components of Childsmile, apart from nursery FV) would not be deemed cost-effective given current UK thresholds. In view of previously proven clinical effectiveness and economic worthiness of the universal nursery toothbrushing component of Childsmile, continuation of the additional, targeted nursery FV component in its pre–COVID-19 form should be reviewed given its low probability of cost-effectiveness. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results of this study can be used by child oral health policy makers and dental public health professionals. They can form part of the evidence to inform the Scottish, UK, and international guidance on community-based child oral health promotion programs. SAGE Publications 2022-04-20 2023-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10285425/ /pubmed/35442091 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23800844221090444 Text en © International Association for Dental Research and American Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Reports Anopa, Y. Macpherson, L.M.D. McMahon, A.D. Wright, W. Conway, D.I. McIntosh, E. Economic Evaluation of the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Randomized Controlled Trial |
title | Economic Evaluation of the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_full | Economic Evaluation of the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_fullStr | Economic Evaluation of the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Economic Evaluation of the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_short | Economic Evaluation of the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_sort | economic evaluation of the protecting teeth @ 3 randomized controlled trial |
topic | Original Reports |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10285425/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35442091 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23800844221090444 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT anopay economicevaluationoftheprotectingteeth3randomizedcontrolledtrial AT macphersonlmd economicevaluationoftheprotectingteeth3randomizedcontrolledtrial AT mcmahonad economicevaluationoftheprotectingteeth3randomizedcontrolledtrial AT wrightw economicevaluationoftheprotectingteeth3randomizedcontrolledtrial AT conwaydi economicevaluationoftheprotectingteeth3randomizedcontrolledtrial AT mcintoshe economicevaluationoftheprotectingteeth3randomizedcontrolledtrial |