Huang S S, Ruff R R, Niederman R
Department of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
College of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
JDR Clin Trans Res. 2019 Oct;4(4):378-387. doi: 10.1177/2380084419837587. Epub 2019 Apr 22.
Current economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs (SCPPs) do not compare multiple types of SCPPs against each other and do not consider teeth beyond permanent first molars.
To assess the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive SCPP relative to an SCPP focused on delivering sealants for permanent first molars only and to a default of no SCPP. Based on a societal perspective, a simulation model was used that compared the health and cost impacts on 1) permanent first molars only and 2) all posterior teeth.
To calibrate the model, we used data from CariedAway, a comprehensive SCPP that used glass ionomer to prevent and arrest active decay among children. We then evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of implementing 3 alternate school-based approaches (comprehensive, sealant only, and no program) on only first molars and all posterior teeth. Probabilistic, 1-, and 2-way sensitivity analyses are included for robustness. Cost-effectiveness is assessed with a threshold of $54,639 per averted disability-adjusted life year (DALY).
We first compared the 3 programs under the assumption of treating only first molars. This assessment indicated that CariedAway was less cost-effective than school-based sealant programs (SSPs): the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CariedAway versus SSPs was $283,455 per averted DALY. However, when the model was extended to include CariedAway's treatment of all posterior teeth, CariedAway was not only cost-effective but also cost-saving relative to SSPs (ICER, -$943,460.88 per averted DALY; net cost, -$261.45) and no SCPP (ICER, -$400,645.52 per averted DALY; net cost, -$239.77).
This study finds that economic evaluations assessing only cost and health impacts on permanent first molars may underestimate the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive SCPPs 1) preventing and arresting decay and 2) treating all teeth. Hence, there is an urgent need for economic evaluations of SCPPs to assess cost and health impacts across teeth beyond only permanent first molars.
The results of this study can be used by policy makers to understand how to evaluate economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs and what factors to consider when deciding on what types of programs to implement.
目前对基于学校的龋齿预防项目(SCPPs)的经济评估并未对多种类型的SCPPs进行相互比较,也未考虑除恒牙第一磨牙以外的牙齿。
评估一项综合性SCPP相对于一项仅专注于为恒牙第一磨牙提供窝沟封闭剂的SCPP以及不开展任何SCPP的默认情况的成本效益。从社会角度出发,使用了一个模拟模型,该模型比较了对1)仅恒牙第一磨牙和2)所有后牙的健康和成本影响。
为校准模型,我们使用了来自“CariedAway”的数据,这是一项综合性SCPP,使用玻璃离子体预防和阻止儿童的活动性龋齿。然后,我们评估了实施3种替代的基于学校的方法(综合性、仅窝沟封闭剂和无项目)对仅第一磨牙和所有后牙的增量成本效益。纳入了概率性、单因素和双因素敏感性分析以确保稳健性。成本效益评估的阈值为每避免一个伤残调整生命年(DALY)54,639美元。
我们首先在仅治疗第一磨牙的假设下比较了这3个项目。该评估表明,“CariedAway”的成本效益低于基于学校的窝沟封闭剂项目(SSPs):“CariedAway”与SSPs相比产生的增量成本效益比(ICER)为每避免一个DALY 283,455美元。然而,当模型扩展到包括“CariedAway”对所有后牙的治疗时,“CariedAway”不仅具有成本效益,相对于SSPs还节省了成本(ICER,每避免一个DALY为 - 943,460.88美元;净成本, - 261.45美元)以及相对于不开展任何SCPP的情况(ICER,每避免一个DALY为 - 400,645.52美元;净成本, - 239.77美元)。
本研究发现,仅评估对恒牙第一磨牙的成本和健康影响的经济评估可能会低估综合性SCPPs在1)预防和阻止龋齿以及2)治疗所有牙齿方面的成本效益。因此,迫切需要对SCPPs进行经济评估,以评估除恒牙第一磨牙以外的牙齿的成本和健康影响。
本研究结果可供政策制定者用于了解如何评估基于学校的龋齿预防项目的经济评估,以及在决定实施何种类型的项目时应考虑哪些因素。