Eng Joo Tan1, Rachael W Taylor2, Barry J Taylor3, Vicki Brown4, Alison J Hayes1. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 3. Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 4. Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine, from a health funder perspective, whether a sleep intervention, delivered in infancy, either alone or in combination with food, activity, and breastfeeding advice was cost-effective compared with usual care. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside the Prevention of Overweight in Infancy (POI) randomized controlled trial for outcomes at 5 years and cost-effectiveness was modeled to age 15 years using the Early Prevention of Obesity in Childhood microsimulation model. Intervention costs for the Sleep (n = 192), Combination (n = 196), and control (n = 209) groups were determined in 2018 Australian dollars. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined for BMI outcomes at 5 and 15 years, with the primary outcome being quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) modeled over 15 years. RESULTS: The average costs of the Sleep and Combination interventions were $184 and $601 per child, respectively. The ICER for the Sleep intervention was $18,125 per QALY gained, with a 74% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY. The ICER for the Combination intervention was $94,667 per QALY gained with a 23% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The POI Sleep intervention, without additional advice, was a low-cost and cost-effective approach to reducing childhood obesity. Sleep modification programs offer a very promising approach to obesity prevention in children.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine, from a health funder perspective, whether a sleep intervention, delivered in infancy, either alone or in combination with food, activity, and breastfeeding advice was cost-effective compared with usual care. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside the Prevention of Overweight in Infancy (POI) randomized controlled trial for outcomes at 5 years and cost-effectiveness was modeled to age 15 years using the Early Prevention of Obesity in Childhood microsimulation model. Intervention costs for the Sleep (n = 192), Combination (n = 196), and control (n = 209) groups were determined in 2018 Australian dollars. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined for BMI outcomes at 5 and 15 years, with the primary outcome being quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) modeled over 15 years. RESULTS: The average costs of the Sleep and Combination interventions were $184 and $601 per child, respectively. The ICER for the Sleep intervention was $18,125 per QALY gained, with a 74% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY. The ICER for the Combination intervention was $94,667 per QALY gained with a 23% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The POI Sleep intervention, without additional advice, was a low-cost and cost-effective approach to reducing childhood obesity. Sleep modification programs offer a very promising approach to obesity prevention in children.