Table 3. Program cost-effectiveness, including results of uncertainty analysis in five scenarios.
| Scenario | ICER (95% interval) | Probability cost saving | Probability “best buy” | Probability very cost-effective | Probability cost-effective |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base case | -$1728 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| (-$3154;-$942) | |||||
| Lower program effectiveness | -$1615 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| (-$3214;-$877) | |||||
| Longer duration of RHD (fewer YLLs) | -$2305 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| (-$4520;-$1205) | |||||
| Ten-fold higher program cost | -$732 | 94.2% | 96.2% | 100% | 100% |
| (-$1875; $192) | |||||
| Worst case (all the above changes) | -$722 | 84.9% | 88.2% | 100% | 100% |
| (-$2305; $725) |
Acceptability thresholds: “best buy” is < $100/DALY; “very cost-effective” is < $5702/DALY; “cost-effective” is < $17,106/DALY. All costs in 2010 US dollars. See main text for details of each scenario. ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.