WPR B: Cost effectiveness results for Blindness
This Table provides summary results of the total population-level costs, effects and cost-effectiveness for the selected WHO sub-region and risk factor / disease for the year 2000.
I$ - International Dollars
Program Costs include costs of administration, media, training etc
Patient Costs include costs of hospital visits, drugs, etc
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is defined as the incremental change in cost, divided by the incremental change in effectiveness. ICERs are reported for the successive set of interventions that would be selected at expanding levels of resource availability, starting with the intervention with the lowest cost per DALY averted, then moving to the next most cost-effective combination intervention out of the remaining available set of interventions.
Dominated is used to denote an intervention that is more costly and/or less effective than other, more efficient (single or combined) interventions; i.e. dominated interventions do not appear on the expansion path of most cost-effective strategies.
|Interventions:Codes_and_Descriptions||Coverage||Cost per year (I$, millions) per one million_population [i.e. cost per capita]||% Program costs||% Patient costs||DALYs averted per year per one million_population||Average Cost per DALY averted||Incremental Cost per DALY averted|
|CTR-1: Intra-capsular Cataract extraction using aphakic glasses (50%)||50%||0.27||72%||28%||944||282||Dominated|
|CTR-2: Intra-capsular Cataract extraction using aphakic glasses (80%)||80%||0.34||65%||35%||1,522||221||Dominated|
|CTR-3: Intra-capsular Cataract extraction using aphakic glasses (95%)||95%||0.39||64%||36%||1,814||215||Dominated|
|CTR-4: Extra-capsular Cataract extraction with posterior chamber lens implant (50%)||50%||0.27||71%||29%||1,734||157||Dominated|
|CTR-5: Extra-capsular Cataract extraction with posterior chamber lens implant (80%)||80%||0.35||63%||37%||2,814||123||Dominated|
|CTR-6: Extra-capsular Cataract extraction with posterior chamber lens implant (95%)||95%||0.40||62%||38%||3,366||119||119|
|TRC-1: Mass treatment of trachoma with tetracycline ointment (at 50%, 80% and 95% coverage)||ALL||1.00||50%||50%||14||73,926||Dominated|
|TRC-2: Mass treatment of trachoma with azithromycin (at 50%, 80% and 95% coverage)||ALL||2.15||23%||77%||69||31,241||Dominated|
|TRC-3: Targeted treatment of trachoma with azithromycin (at 50%, 80% and 95% coverage)||ALL||3.71||13%||87%||48||76,474||Dominated|
|TRC-4: Targeted treatment of trachoma with surgery (at 80% of current prevalence)||80%||0.08||16%||84%||2,181||35||35|
|TRC-5: Combination (TRC1 + TRC4)||1.08||47%||53%||2,195||493||Dominated|
|TRC-6: Combination (TRC2+ TRC4)||2.22||23%||77%||2,250||988||31,241|
|TRC-7: Combination (TRC3 + TRC4)||3.78||13%||87%||2,230||1,697||Dominated|