Table 5 One way sensitivity analysis on the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for selected input factors with the highest influence on the model shown for a current usage on malaria chemoprophylaxis of 68.7%
From: Cost-effectiveness analysis of malaria chemoprophylaxis for travellers to West-Africa
Scenario | €/'malaria cases averted'* |
|---|---|
Current probability of recourse to malaria chemoprophylaxis | |
Very low (40%) | dominant |
Low (55%) | dominant |
High (82.4%) | 2'302 |
Probability of contracting malaria without malaria chemoprophylaxis for a two week stay | |
Extremly low (= 0.4%) | 19'899 |
Very low (= 0.9%) | 5'922 |
Low, (= 1.2%) | 3'126 |
A bit low, -30% (= 1.7%) | 548 |
High, +30% (= 3.1%) | dominant |
Cost of the mefloquine drug | |
Low, -30% (= € 15.54) | dominant |
High, +30% (= € 28.86) | dominant |
Decrease of 'non-malaria chemoprophylaxis-users' due to the 80% reimbursement | |
Low, -30% (40%) | 126 |
High, +30% (74%) | dominant |
Reimbursement of the more expansive drugs | |
Doxycycline (€ 30.23) | dominant |
80% reimbursement of all three drugs | 4'968 |
Percentage of reimbursement of the cheapest malaria chemoprophylaxis | |
Very low (60%) | dominant |
Low (70%) | dominant |
High (90%) | dominant |
Very High (100%) | dominant |