Hélène Pasquini-Descomps1, Nathalie Brender2, David Maradan3. 1. Haute École de Gestion Genève (Geneva School of Business Administration), HES-SO University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, Carouge, Switzerland; University of Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: helene.pasquini-descomps@hesge.ch. 2. Haute École de Gestion Genève (Geneva School of Business Administration), HES-SO University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, Carouge, Switzerland. 3. Haute École de Gestion Genève (Geneva School of Business Administration), HES-SO University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, Carouge, Switzerland; University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2009 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic generated additional data and triggered new studies that opened debate over the optimal strategy for handling a pandemic. The lessons-learned documents from the World Health Organization show the need for a cost estimation of the pandemic response during the risk-assessment phase. Several years after the crisis, what conclusions can we draw from this field of research? OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this article was to provide an analysis of the studies that present cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses for A/H1N1 pandemic interventions since 2009 and to identify which measures seem most cost-effective. METHODS: We reviewed 18 academic articles that provide cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses for A/H1N1 pandemic interventions since 2009. Our review converts the studies' results into a cost-utility measure (cost per disability-adjusted life-year or quality-adjusted life-year) and presents the contexts of severity and fatality. RESULTS: The existing studies suggest that hospital quarantine, vaccination, and usage of the antiviral stockpile are highly cost-effective, even for mild pandemics. However, school closures, antiviral treatments, and social distancing may not qualify as efficient measures, for a virus like 2009's H1N1 and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $45,000 per disability-adjusted life-year. Such interventions may become cost-effective for severe crises. CONCLUSIONS: This study helps to shed light on the cost-utility of various interventions, and may support decision making, among other criteria, for future pandemics. Nonetheless, one should consider these results carefully, considering these may not apply to a specific crisis or country, and a dedicated cost-effectiveness assessment should be conducted at the time.
BACKGROUND: The 2009 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic generated additional data and triggered new studies that opened debate over the optimal strategy for handling a pandemic. The lessons-learned documents from the World Health Organization show the need for a cost estimation of the pandemic response during the risk-assessment phase. Several years after the crisis, what conclusions can we draw from this field of research? OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this article was to provide an analysis of the studies that present cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses for A/H1N1 pandemic interventions since 2009 and to identify which measures seem most cost-effective. METHODS: We reviewed 18 academic articles that provide cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses for A/H1N1 pandemic interventions since 2009. Our review converts the studies' results into a cost-utility measure (cost per disability-adjusted life-year or quality-adjusted life-year) and presents the contexts of severity and fatality. RESULTS: The existing studies suggest that hospital quarantine, vaccination, and usage of the antiviral stockpile are highly cost-effective, even for mild pandemics. However, school closures, antiviral treatments, and social distancing may not qualify as efficient measures, for a virus like 2009's H1N1 and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $45,000 per disability-adjusted life-year. Such interventions may become cost-effective for severe crises. CONCLUSIONS: This study helps to shed light on the cost-utility of various interventions, and may support decision making, among other criteria, for future pandemics. Nonetheless, one should consider these results carefully, considering these may not apply to a specific crisis or country, and a dedicated cost-effectiveness assessment should be conducted at the time.