Objectives

Pneumonia is the largest infectious cause of death in children under 5 years globally, and limited resource settings bear an overwhelming proportion of this disease burden. Bubble continuous positive airway pressure (bCPAP), an accepted supportive therapy, is often thought of as cost-prohibitive in these settings. We hypothesise that bCPAP is a cost-effective intervention in a limited resource setting and this study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of bCPAP, using Malawi as an example.

Design

Cost-effectiveness analysis.

Setting

District and central hospitals in Malawi.

Participants

Children aged 1 month-5 years with severe pneumonia, as defined by WHO criteria.

Interventions

Using a decision tree analysis, we compared standard of care (including low-flow oxygen and antibiotics) to standard of care plus bCPAP.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

For each treatment arm, we determined the costs, clinical outcomes and averted disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). We assigned input values from a review of the literature, including applicable clinical trials, and calculated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

In the base case analysis, the cost of bCPAP per patient was $15 per day and $41 per hospitalisation, with an incremental net cost of $64 per pneumonia episode. bCPAP averts 5.0 DALYs per child treated, with an ICER of $12.88 per DALY averted compared with standard of care. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the most influential uncertainties were case fatality rates (ICER range $9-32 per DALY averted). In a multi-way sensitivity analysis, the median ICER was $12.97 per DALY averted (90% CI, $12.77 to $12.99).

Conclusion

bCPAP is a cost-effective intervention for severe paediatric pneumonia in Malawi. These results may be used to inform policy decisions, including support for widespread use of bCPAP in similar settings.

The cost-effectiveness of the standard of care for snakebite treatment, antivenom, and supportive care has been established in various settings. In this study, based on data from South Indian private health-care providers, we address an additional question: "For what cost and effectiveness values would adding adjunct-based treatment strategies to the standard of care for venomous snakebites be cost-effective?" We modeled the cost and performance of potential interventions (e.g., pharmacologic or preventive) used adjunctively with antivenom and supportive care for the treatment of snakebite. Because these potential interventions are theoretical, we used a threshold cost-effectiveness approach to explore this forward-looking concept. We examined economic parameters at which these interventions could be cost-effective or even cost saving. A threshold analysis was used to examine the addition of new interventions to the standard of care. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to compare treatment strategies. One-way, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to analyze parameter uncertainty and define cost and effectiveness thresholds. Our results suggest that even a 3% reduction in severe cases due to an adjunct strategy is likely to reduce the cost of overall treatment and have the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness. In this model, for example, an investment of $10 of intervention that reduces the incidence of severe cases by 3%, even without changing antivenom usage patterns, creates cost savings of $75 per individual. These findings illustrate the striking degree to which an adjunct intervention could improve patient outcomes and be cost-effective or even cost saving.