| Literature DB >> 31075130 |
Anita W M Suijkerbuijk1, Eelco A B Over1, Marieke Opsteegh1, Huifang Deng1, Paul F van Gils1, Axel A Bonačić Marinović1, Mattijs Lambooij1, Johan J Polder1,2, Talitha L Feenstra1,3, Joke W B van der Giessen1, G Ardine de Wit1,4, Marie-Josee J Mangen1.
Abstract
In the Netherlands, toxoplasmosis ranks second in disease burden among foodborne pathogens with an estimated health loss of 1,900 Disability Adjusted Life Years and a cost-of-illness estimated at €45 million annually. Therefore, effective and preferably cost-effective preventive interventions are warranted. Freezing meat intended for raw or undercooked consumption and improving biosecurity in pig farms are promising interventions to prevent Toxoplasma gondii infections in humans. Putting these interventions into practice would expectedly reduce the number of infections; however, the net benefits for society are unknown. Stakeholders bearing the costs for these interventions will not necessary coincide with the ones having the benefits. We performed a Social Cost-Benefit Analysis to evaluate the net value of two potential interventions for the Dutch society. We assessed the costs and benefits of the two interventions and compared them with the current practice of education, especially during pregnancy. A 'minimum scenario' and a 'maximum scenario' was assumed, using input parameters with least benefits to society and input parameters with most benefits to society, respectively. For both interventions, we performed different scenario analyses. The freezing meat intervention was far more effective than the biosecurity intervention. Despite high freezing costs, freezing two meat products: steak tartare and mutton leg yielded net social benefits in both the minimum and maximum scenario, ranging from €10.6 million to €31 million for steak tartare and €0.6 million to €1.5 million for mutton leg. The biosecurity intervention would result in net costs in all scenarios ranging from €1 million to €2.5 million, due to high intervention costs and limited benefits. From a public health perspective (i.e. reducing the burden of toxoplasmosis) and the societal perspective (i.e. a net benefit for the Dutch society) freezing steak tartare and leg of mutton is to be considered.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31075130 PMCID: PMC6510435 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216615
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Design of the SCBA.
DALY = Disability Adjusted Life Year, COI = cost-of-illness, DCE = Discrete Choice Experiment, QMRA = Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment.
Input parameters for the economic model.
| Description | Point estimator | Unit | Min | Max | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DALYs by toxoplasmosis via meatborne infections | 326 | Estimated | |||
| DALY value | 50,000 | € | [ | ||
| COI of toxoplasmosis via meatborne infections | 7.9 | million | Estimated | ||
| Pork meat consumption | 37.4 | Kg | [ | ||
| Beef meat consumption | 14.2 | Kg | [ | ||
| Mutton meat consumption | 1.2 | Kg | [ | ||
| Steak tartare portion size | g | 11 | 53 | [ | |
| No of portions steak tartare | 330 | million | [ | ||
| Meat percentage steak tartare/portion | % | 50.84 | 73.96 | QMRA | |
| Steak (beef) portion size | g | 44 | 224 | [ | |
| No of steak portions | 14 | million | [ | ||
| Lamb chop portion size | g | 28 | 214 | [ | |
| No of lamb chop portions | 3 | million | [ | ||
| Leg of mutton portion size | 158 | g | [ | ||
| No of leg of mutton portions | 0.8 | million | [ | ||
| Price elasticity meat | -0.7 | [ | |||
| Freezing costs/kg | € | 0.10 | 0.15 | ||
| No of fattening pig farms | 4,000 | [ | |||
| No fattening pigs/farm | 1,450 | [ | |||
| No fattening pigs slaughtered/year | 15,034,000 | [ | |||
| Fattening pigs/lorry when delivered | 200 | ||||
| No of fattening pigs tested/lorry | 1 | 10 | |||
| Cost serological test | 5 | € | [ | ||
| Positive tested farms | % | 12 | 20 | [ | |
| Annual costs rodent control/pig farm | € | 400 | 4000 | ||
| Feed cost/fattening pig/year | 65 | € | [ | ||
| Less spilled feed | % | 0 | 0.1 | Assumption | |
| Costs for an additional audit (4 hours) | 132 | € | [ | ||
| Effectiveness | 1 | % | [ | ||
a discounted at 3% a large part of the associated BoD (in particular the sequelae) and costs do not occur in the year of the infection itself, but happen later in life,
bper person and year in the Netherlands,
csteak tartare also known as filet americain,
dconsumed in the Netherlands per year,
epersonal communication VION Food group,
fassumption based on quadrupling the % of positive tested farms, based on the % of infected pigs in a recent study which is four times higher than found in a previous study,
gpersonal communication branch organisation of rodent control, averaged 2013–2015,
BoD = Burden of Disease, COI = Cost-of-Illness, DALY = disability adjusted life year,
*We used the average as point estimator, for more details see S1 and S2 Tables.
Attribution to meatborne toxoplasmosis, meat to be frozen, DALYs averted, and WTP for the freezing meat intervention.
| Attribution to meatborne toxoplasmosis (%) | Meat to be frozen (tons) | DALYs averted (N) | WTP/kg | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | Max | Min | Max | |||
| Steak tartare | 79.82 | 887.7 | 6,502.1 | 208.16 | 312.25 | -€1.64 |
| Beef steak | 1.46 | 6,254.8 | 32,072.3 | 3.81 | 5.71 | -€1.13 |
| Lamb chop | 0.04 | 84.7 | 654.5 | 0.11 | 1.16 | €0.05 |
| Leg of mutton | 3.73 | 70.8 | 177.5 | 9.73 | 14.60 | €0.05 |
| Total | 85.05 | 7298 | 39406.4 | 221.81 | 333.72 | |
a using least economically favorable input parameters,
b using most economically favorable input parameters,
c preferences for leg of mutton were not assessed by DCE, we assumed the same WTP as for lamb chop, WTP = willingness-to-pay
Net benefits for the stakeholders involved with the freezing meat interventions in 2016 (€)*1000.
| Steak tartare | Beef steak | Lamb chop | Leg of mutton | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stakeholders | Min | Max | Min | Max | min | max | min | max |
| Freezing companies | -975 | -89 | -4,811 | -626 | -98 | -8 | -28 | -8 |
| +975 | +89 | +4,811 | +626 | +98 | +8 | +28 | +8 | |
| Consumers | ||||||||
| Freezing costs | -975 | -89 | -4,811 | -626 | -98 | -8 | -28 | -8 |
| DALYs averted | 10,408 | 15,612 | 190 | 286 | 5.3 | 8 | 487 | 730 |
| Patient costs | 12 | 24 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 1.1 |
| Productivity losses | 199 | 362 | 3.6 | 6.6 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 9 | 17 |
| Consumer surplus | -907 | -112 | -2,722 | -622 | -10 | -8 | -4 | -3 |
| Government | ||||||||
| Healthcare costs | 1,836 | 15,136 | 33.6 | 277 | 0.9 | 7.8 | 86 | 708 |
| Special education costs | 3.2 | 143.3 | 0.06 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 6.7 |
Min: using input parameters that result in economically least favorable outcomes, Max: using input parameters that result in economically most favorable outcomes,
a we assumed no change in costs for farmers and retailers
b Intervention costs occurring in freezing companies will be put through to consumer (so at slaughterhouse level it will be zero),
c note: a negative number corresponds with costs, a positive number with savings
Net benefits for the stakeholders involved with the biosecurity interventions in 2016 (€)*1000.
| Biosecurity intervention | ||
|---|---|---|
| Stakeholders | Min | Max |
| Producers | ||
| Farmers | -2,103 | -701 |
| Slaughterhouses | -439 | -482 |
| +439 | +482 | |
| Consumers | ||
| Intervention costs slaughterhouses | -439 | -482 |
| DALYs averted | 16 | 23 |
| Patient costs | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Productivity losses | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| Government | ||
| Healthcare costs | 3 | 23 |
| Special education costs | 0.0 | 0.2 |
Min: using least economically favorable input parameters, Max: using most economically favorable input parameters,
aIntervention costs occurring in slaughterhouses will be put through to consumer (so at slaughterhouse level it will be zero),
b note: a negative number corresponds with costs, a positive number with savings
Results sensitivity and scenario analysis, net benefits in €1000.
| Freezing meet intervention | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | Relative change compared to main analysis % | Max | Relative change compared to main analysis % | |
| Steak tartare | 10,576 | 31,077 | ||
| Beef steak | -7,305 | -676 | ||
| Lamb chop | -102 | -0.6 | ||
| Leg of mutton | 551 | 1,452 | ||
| Steak tartare | 20,984 | 98 | 46,689 | 50 |
| Beef steak | -7,114 | -3 | -390 | -42 |
| Lamb chop | -96 | -5 | 7 | -1360 |
| Leg of mutton | 1,037 | 88 | 2,182 | 50 |
| Steak tartare | 10,495 | -1 | 31,055 | 0 |
| Beef steak | -7,526 | 3 | -800 | 18 |
| Lamb chop | -104 | 2 | -2.6 | 339 |
| Leg of mutton | 550 | 0 | 1,451 | 0 |
| Steak tartare | 9,551 | -10 | 23,244 | -25 |
| Beef steak | -7,323 | 0 | -819 | 21 |
| Lamb chop | - 102 | 1 | -5 | 683 |
| Leg of mutton | 503 | -9 | 1,086 | -25 |
| Steak tartare | 11,601 | 10 | 38,910 | 25 |
| Beef steak | -7,286 | 0 | -532 | -21 |
| Lamb chop | -101 | -1 | 3 | -683 |
| Leg of mutton | 598 | 9 | 1,818 | 25 |
| Steak tartare | 6,525 | -38 | 20,907 | -33 |
| Beef steak | -7,379 | 1 | -862 | 28 |
| Lamb chop | -104 | 2 | -6 | 886 |
| Leg of mutton | 361 | -34 | 976 | -33 |
| Steak tartare | 15,773 | 49 | 44,125 | 42 |
| Beef steak | -7,210 | -1 | -437 | -35 |
| Lamb chop | -99 | -3 | 6 | -1137 |
| Leg of mutton | 794 | 44 | 2.,062 | 42 |
| Steak tartare | 17,225 | 63 | 55,226 | 78 |
| Beef steak | -7,183 | -2 | -234 | -65 |
| Lamb chop | - 98 | -3 | 12 | -2104 |
| Leg of mutton | 861 | 56 | 2,581 | 1725 |
| Main analysis | -2,525 | -1,136 | ||
| DALY valuation €100,000 | -2,509 | -1 | -1,113 | -2 |
| Effectiveness 10% | -2,362 | -7 | -716 | -37 |
| Attribution of pig meat products based on expert elicitations | -2,469 | -2 | -1,010 | -11 |
a additional sensitivity analyses are presented in figures in the Supporting Information files,
BoD = Burden of Disease, COI = Cost-of-illness