Back

An economic evaluation of Wolbachia deployments for dengue control in Vietnam

Turner, H. C.; Quyen, D. L.; Dias, R.; Huong, P. T.; Simmons, C. P.; Anders, K. L.

2023-02-16 health economics
10.1101/2023.02.15.23285965 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDengue is a major public health challenge and a growing problem due to climate change. The release of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes infected with the intracellular bacterium Wolbachia is a novel form of vector control against dengue. However, there remains a need to evaluate the benefits of such an intervention at a large scale. In this paper, we evaluate the potential economic impact and cost-effectiveness of scaled Wolbachia deployments as a form of dengue control in Vietnam - targeted at the highest burden urban areas. MethodsTen settings within Vietnam were identified as priority locations for potential future Wolbachia deployments (using a population replacement strategy). The effectiveness of Wolbachia deployments in reducing the incidence of symptomatic dengue cases was assumed to be 75%. We assumed that the intervention would maintain this effectiveness for at least 20 years (but tested this assumption in the sensitivity analysis). A cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis were conducted. ResultsFrom the health sector perspective, the Wolbachia intervention was projected to cost US$420 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. From the societal perspective, the overall cost-effectiveness ratio was negative, i.e. the economic benefits outweighed the costs. These results are contingent on the long-term effectiveness of Wolbachia releases being sustained for 20 years. However, the intervention was still classed as cost-effective across the majority of the settings when assuming only 10 years of benefits. ConclusionOverall, we found that targeting high burden cities with Wolbachia deployments would be a cost-effective intervention in Vietnam and generate notable broader benefits besides health gains.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
35.2%
2
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.9%
50% of probability mass above
3
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.5%
5
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.0%
6
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
7
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
8
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
9
Journal of Medical Entomology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
10
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
11
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 72%
0.8%
13
Malaria Journal
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
14
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
15
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
16
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
17
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
18
Infectious Diseases of Poverty
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
19
Journal of Global Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
20
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
21
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%