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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Anopa, Y., Macpherson, L.M.D., McMahon, A.D., Wright, W., Conway, D.I., McIntosh, E.
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