Cargando…

Priority Setting in HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria – New Cost-Effectiveness Results From WHO-CHOICE

Background: This paper forms part of an update of the World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE) programmes. It provides an assessment of global health system performance during the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010) with respect to allocative eff...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ralaidovy, Ambinintsoa H., Lauer, Jeremy Addison, Pretorius, Carel, Briët, Olivier JT, Patouillard, Edith
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Kerman University of Medical Sciences 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9278379/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33590743
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.251
_version_ 1784746172739485696
author Ralaidovy, Ambinintsoa H.
Lauer, Jeremy Addison
Pretorius, Carel
Briët, Olivier JT
Patouillard, Edith
author_facet Ralaidovy, Ambinintsoa H.
Lauer, Jeremy Addison
Pretorius, Carel
Briët, Olivier JT
Patouillard, Edith
author_sort Ralaidovy, Ambinintsoa H.
collection PubMed
description Background: This paper forms part of an update of the World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE) programmes. It provides an assessment of global health system performance during the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010) with respect to allocative efficiency in HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria control, thereby shining a spotlight on programme development and scale up in these Millennium Development Goal (MDG) priority areas; and examining the cost-effectiveness of selected best-practice interventions and intervention packages commonly in use during that period. Methods: Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) was used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the selected interventions. Impact modelling was performed using the OpenMalaria platform for malaria and using the Goals and TIME (TB Impact Model and Estimates) models in Spectrum for HIV and TB. All health system costs, regardless of payer, were included and reported in international dollars. Health outcomes are estimated and reported as the gain in healthy life years (HLYs) due to the specific intervention or combination. Analysis was restricted to eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Results: At the reference year of 2010, commonly used interventions for HIV, TB and malaria were cost-effective, with cost-effectiveness ratios less than I$ 100/HLY saved for virtually all interventions included. HIV, TB and malaria prevention and treatment interventions are highly cost-effective and can be implemented through a phased approach to full coverage to achieve maximum health benefits and contribute to the progressive elimination of these diseases. Conclusion: During the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010), the global community has done well overall for HIV, TB, and malaria programmes as regards both economic efficiency and programmatic selection criteria. The role of international assistance, financial and technical, arguably was critical to these successes. As the global community now tackles the challenge of universal health coverage, this analysis can reinforce commitment to Sustainable Development Goal targets but also the importance of continued focus on these critical programme areas.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9278379
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Kerman University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92783792022-07-22 Priority Setting in HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria – New Cost-Effectiveness Results From WHO-CHOICE Ralaidovy, Ambinintsoa H. Lauer, Jeremy Addison Pretorius, Carel Briët, Olivier JT Patouillard, Edith Int J Health Policy Manag Original Article Background: This paper forms part of an update of the World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE) programmes. It provides an assessment of global health system performance during the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010) with respect to allocative efficiency in HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria control, thereby shining a spotlight on programme development and scale up in these Millennium Development Goal (MDG) priority areas; and examining the cost-effectiveness of selected best-practice interventions and intervention packages commonly in use during that period. Methods: Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) was used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the selected interventions. Impact modelling was performed using the OpenMalaria platform for malaria and using the Goals and TIME (TB Impact Model and Estimates) models in Spectrum for HIV and TB. All health system costs, regardless of payer, were included and reported in international dollars. Health outcomes are estimated and reported as the gain in healthy life years (HLYs) due to the specific intervention or combination. Analysis was restricted to eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Results: At the reference year of 2010, commonly used interventions for HIV, TB and malaria were cost-effective, with cost-effectiveness ratios less than I$ 100/HLY saved for virtually all interventions included. HIV, TB and malaria prevention and treatment interventions are highly cost-effective and can be implemented through a phased approach to full coverage to achieve maximum health benefits and contribute to the progressive elimination of these diseases. Conclusion: During the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010), the global community has done well overall for HIV, TB, and malaria programmes as regards both economic efficiency and programmatic selection criteria. The role of international assistance, financial and technical, arguably was critical to these successes. As the global community now tackles the challenge of universal health coverage, this analysis can reinforce commitment to Sustainable Development Goal targets but also the importance of continued focus on these critical programme areas. Kerman University of Medical Sciences 2021-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9278379/ /pubmed/33590743 http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.251 Text en © 2021 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Ralaidovy, Ambinintsoa H.
Lauer, Jeremy Addison
Pretorius, Carel
Briët, Olivier JT
Patouillard, Edith
Priority Setting in HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria – New Cost-Effectiveness Results From WHO-CHOICE
title Priority Setting in HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria – New Cost-Effectiveness Results From WHO-CHOICE
title_full Priority Setting in HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria – New Cost-Effectiveness Results From WHO-CHOICE
title_fullStr Priority Setting in HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria – New Cost-Effectiveness Results From WHO-CHOICE
title_full_unstemmed Priority Setting in HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria – New Cost-Effectiveness Results From WHO-CHOICE
title_short Priority Setting in HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria – New Cost-Effectiveness Results From WHO-CHOICE
title_sort priority setting in hiv, tuberculosis, and malaria – new cost-effectiveness results from who-choice
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9278379/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33590743
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.251
work_keys_str_mv AT ralaidovyambinintsoah prioritysettinginhivtuberculosisandmalarianewcosteffectivenessresultsfromwhochoice
AT lauerjeremyaddison prioritysettinginhivtuberculosisandmalarianewcosteffectivenessresultsfromwhochoice
AT pretoriuscarel prioritysettinginhivtuberculosisandmalarianewcosteffectivenessresultsfromwhochoice
AT brietolivierjt prioritysettinginhivtuberculosisandmalarianewcosteffectivenessresultsfromwhochoice
AT patouillardedith prioritysettinginhivtuberculosisandmalarianewcosteffectivenessresultsfromwhochoice