Search

Background: One major challenge in prioritizing health care using cost-effectiveness (CE) information is when alternatives are more expensive but more effective than existing technology. In such a situation, an external criterion in the form of a CE threshold that reflects the willingness to pay (WTP) per quality-adjusted life-year is necessary.Objectives: To determine a CE threshold for health care interventions in Malaysia.Methods: A cross-sectional, contingent valuation study was conducted using a stratified multistage cluster random sampling technique in four states in Malaysia. One thousand thirteen respondents were interviewed in person for their socioeconomic background, quality of life, and WTP for a hypothetical scenario.Results: The CE thresholds established using the nonparametric Turnbull method ranged from MYR12,810 to MYR22,840 (~US $4,000-US $7,000), whereas those estimated with the parametric interval regression model were between MYR19,929 and MYR28,470 (~US $6,200-US $8,900). Key factors that affected the CE thresholds were education level, estimated monthly household income, and the description of health state scenarios.Conclusions: These findings suggest that there is no single WTP value for a quality-adjusted life-year. The CE threshold estimated for Malaysia was found to be lower than the threshold value recommended by the World Health Organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dengue disease poses a great economic burden in Malaysia.Methods: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness and impact of dengue vaccination in Malaysia from both provider and societal perspectives using a dynamic transmission mathematical model. The model incorporated sensitivity analyses, Malaysia-specific data, evidence from recent phase III studies and pooled efficacy and long-term safety data to refine the estimates from previous published studies. Unit costs were valued in $US, year 2013 values.Results: Six vaccination programmes employing a three-dose schedule were identified as the most likely programmes to be implemented. In all programmes, vaccination produced positive benefits expressed as reductions in dengue cases, dengue-related deaths, life-years lost, disability-adjusted life-years and dengue treatment costs. Instead of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), we evaluated the cost effectiveness of the programmes by calculating the threshold prices for a highly cost-effective strategy [ICER <1 × gross domestic product (GDP) per capita] and a cost-effective strategy (ICER between 1 and 3 × GDP per capita). We found that vaccination may be cost effective up to a price of $US32.39 for programme 6 (highly cost effective up to $US14.15) and up to a price of $US100.59 for programme 1 (highly cost effective up to $US47.96) from the provider perspective. The cost-effectiveness analysis is sensitive to under-reporting, vaccine protection duration and model time horizon.Conclusion: Routine vaccination for a population aged 13 years with a catch-up cohort aged 14-30 years in targeted hotspot areas appears to be the best-value strategy among those investigated. Dengue vaccination is a potentially good investment if the purchaser can negotiate a price at or below the cost-effective threshold price. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]