Baly Alberto, Toledo Maria Eugenia, Vanlerberghe Veerle, Ceballos Enrique, Reyes Alicia, Sanchez Idalmis, Carvajal Marinelli, Maso Rizel, La Rosa Maite, Denis Orestes, Boelaert Marleen, Van der Stuyft Patrick
Instituto de Medicina Tropical Pedro Kourí, Department of Epidemiology, La Habana, Cuba.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009 Jul;81(1):88-93.
We compared in a 5-year intervention study the cost-effectiveness of community-based environmental management intertwined with routine vertical Aedes control and of routine vertical control only. At baseline (year 2000), Aedes infestation levels and economic costs for vector control were comparable in intervention and control areas (house index, 2.23% versus 2.21% and US$21 versus US$24/yr/inhabitant, respectively). By 2004, house indices became 0.22% versus 2.36% and the costs were 29.8 US$ versus 36.7 US$/yr/inhabitant, respectively. The community cost made up 38.6% of the total economic cost in 2004 in the intervention areas against 23.5% in 2000. The average cost-effectiveness ratio for the intervention period 2001-2004, expressed as the societal cost incurred for the reduction (from baseline) of Aedes foci, was US$831.1 per focus in the intervention areas versus US$2,465.6 in the control areas. The intervention produced economic savings and health benefits that were sustained over the whole observation period.
在一项为期5年的干预研究中，我们比较了将社区环境管理与常规垂直伊蚊控制相结合以及仅采用常规垂直控制的成本效益。在基线期（2000年），干预区和对照区的伊蚊滋生水平及病媒控制的经济成本相当（房屋指数分别为2.23%对2.21%，每年人均成本分别为21美元对24美元）。到2004年，房屋指数分别变为0.22%对2.36%，成本分别为每年人均29.8美元对36.7美元。2004年，社区成本在干预区占总经济成本的38.6%，而在2000年为23.5%。2001 - 2004年干预期的平均成本效益比，以减少（相对于基线）伊蚊滋生点所产生的社会成本来表示，干预区为每个滋生点831.1美元，对照区为2465.6美元。该干预措施带来了经济节约和健康效益，且在整个观察期内得以持续。
