Abstract
Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) typically involve comparing effectiveness and costs of one or more interventions compared to standard of care, to determine which intervention should be optimally implemented to maximise population health within the constraints of the healthcare budget. Traditionally, cost-effectiveness evaluations are expressed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which are compared with a fixed willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Due to the existing uncertainty in costs for interventions and the overall burden of disease, particularly with regard to diseases in populations that are difficult to study, it becomes important to consider uncertainty quantification whilst estimating ICERs.
To tackle the challenges of uncertainty quantification in CEA, we propose an alternative paradigm utilizing the Linear Wasserstein framework combined with Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) using a demonstrative example of lymphatic filariasis (LF). This approach uses geometric embeddings of the overall costs for treatment and surveillance, disability-adjusted lifeyears (DALYs) averted for morbidity by quantifying the burden of disease due to the years lived with disability, and probabilities of local elimination over a time-horizon of 20 years to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lowering the stopping thresholds for post-surveillance determination of LF elimination as a public health problem. Our findings suggest that reducing the stopping threshold from <1% to <0.5% microfilaria (mf) prevalence for adults aged 20 years and above, under various treatment coverages and baseline prevalences, is cost-effective. When validated on 20% of test data, for 65% treatment coverage, a government expenditure of WTP ranging from $500 to $3,000 per 1% increase in local elimination probability justifies the switch to the lower threshold as cost-effective.
Stochastic model simulations often lead to parameter and structural uncertainty in CEA. Uncertainty may impact the decisions taken, and this study underscores the necessity of better uncertainty quantification techniques within CEA for making informed decisions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
MCAO, MG and TDH were supported by funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-030046), via the NTD Modelling Consortium. TDH is supported by funding from the Li Ka Shing Foundation at the Big Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford. MT would like to acknowledge the support of the Leverhulme Trust Research through the Project Award "Robust Learning: Uncertainty Quantification, Sensitivity and Stability" (grant agreement RPG-2024-051) and the EPSRC Mathematical and Foundations of Artificial Intelligence Probabilistic AI Hub (grant agreement EP/Y007174/1). LP gratefully acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust and Royal Society Sir Henry Dale Fellowship (202562/Z/16/Z), the Wellcome Trust Discovery Award "Harnessing epidemiological and genomic data for understanding of respiratory virus transmission at multiple scales" (227438/Z/23/Z) and the UKRI Impact Acceleration Award (IAA 386). KBP is supported by the Medical Research Foundation (MRF-160-0017-ELP-POUW-C0909). MCAO acknowledges the receipt of funding obtained from the Health Data Research UK-The Alan Turing Institute Wellcome (Grant Ref: 218529/Z/19/Z) and the Cambridge Trust scholarship from the Commonwealth European and International Trust (CCEIT). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
