Table 4.
The increase in the cost-effectiveness of preventing morbidity when using annual community-wide versus child-targeted treatment
| Transmission setting | Intensity thresholds for morbidity | Relative increase in the distribution costs (total per year) of community-wide versus child-targeted treatment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +50 % | +100 % | +150 % | +200 % | ||
| Coverage of adults: 75 % | |||||
| Intermediate | Lower | +1397 % | +649 % | +399 % | +274 % |
| Higher | +534 % | +217 % | +111 % | +59 % | |
| High | Lower | +688 % | +294 % | +163 % | +97 % |
| Higher | +953 % | +427 % | +251 % | +163 % | |
| Coverage of adults: 35 % | |||||
| Intermediate | Lower | +577 % | +239 % | +126 % | +69 % |
| Higher | +307 % | +103 % | +36 % | +2 % | |
| High | Lower | +236 % | +68 % | +12 % | −16 % |
| Higher | +554 % | +227 % | +118 % | +63 % | |
The percentage increase compares the incremental relative cost and incremental benefit of community-wide treatment to that of annual child-targeted treatment (75 % coverage of children). The benefit is expressed in terms of morbidity case years prevented i.e. the number of years lived with morbidity averted. Assumptions are as in Table 2. As the results only investigate the impact of two treatment rounds they do not account for any potential cost savings resulting from breaking transmission with community-wide treatment. Negative values are shown in bold i.e. community-wide treatment was not more cost-effective