Logo image
Cost-effectiveness of school integrated pest management and air filtration in students with asthma
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Cost-effectiveness of school integrated pest management and air filtration in students with asthma

Carmela Socolovsky, Margee Louisias, Saleh Alsulami, Carter R. Petty, Michelle Trivedi, Peggy S. Lai, Amparito Cunningham, Jonathan Gaffin, Peter Thorne, Brent Coull, …
Allergy and asthma proceedings, Vol.46(3), pp.257-266
05/01/2025
DOI: 10.2500/aap.2025.46.250018
PMCID: PMC12118139
PMID: 40380354
url
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/12118139View
Open Access

Abstract

Background: The cost-effectiveness of school environmental remediation in asthma is not known. The School Inner City Asthma Intervention Study (SICAS2) was a randomized controlled trial that assessed school integrated pest management (IPM) and classroom high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration on asthma morbidity in urban schools. Objective: The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SICAS2. Methods: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective that compared four interventions: IPM, HEPA, IPM + HEPA, and no intervention. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were derived from the EuroQol-5 Dimension-Youth and EuroQol-5 Dimension-3 levels instruments. Total costs (2021 U.S. dollars) included intervention cost, cost of caregiver productivity impacted by child school absenteeism, and health-care utilization costs (e.g., emergency department visits). The evaluation period was based on a mean follow-up time of 166 days. Sensitivity analyses were performed by using cost estimates 50% above and below initial cost benchmarks. Results: A total of 154 SICAS2 participants were included. Intervention costs per student were $12.21 (IPM + HEPA), $7.27 (IPM), and $4.94 (HEPA). Sequential analyses revealed that IPM + HEPA was the most cost-effective option, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,667 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated stability, with variability in probability estimates not exceeding 10%. Conclusion: IPM + HEPA demonstrated good value to society, which reflected the low cost and the economic impact of missed school days. This intervention may have a pronounced benefit for historically minoritized and marginalized children in urban schools who are disproportionately exposed to air pollution and indoor allergens. The SICAS2 intervention may offer a cost-effective tool to target proximal causes of disparities even in the most resource-limited schools.
Asthma Environmental Health Health Economics Allergens Clinical Trial Cost-Effectiveness Health Disparities Intervention Study Pollutants School

Details

Metrics

Logo image