Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2010
Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in Brazil in the public and private sectors.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ribeiro Rodrigo Antonini, Stella Steffan Frosi, Zimerman Leandro Ioschpe, Pimentel Maurício, Rohde Luis Eduardo, Polanczyk Carisi Anne
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Many randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICDs) in death reduction of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients. Some developed countries studies have evaluated its cost-effectiveness, but these data are not applicable to Brazil.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ICD in CHF patients under two perspectives in Brazil: public and supplementary health systems.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to analyze the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ICD compared to conventional therapy in patients with CHF. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We searched the literature for data regarding effectiveness and complications. Costs were retrieved from public and health insurances reimbursement codebooks and from mean cost of admissions from a public and a private hospital. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed in all variables of the model.
RESULTS: ICER was R$ 68,318/QALY in the public and R$ 90,942/QALY in the private perspective. These values are much higher than the one suggested by the World Health Organization of 3 times the gross domestic product per head (R$ 40,545 in Brazil). The results were sensitive to the cost of the device, battery replacement interval and ICD effectiveness. In a simulation resembling MADIT-I population survival and ICD benefit, ICER was R$ R$ 23,739/QALY in the public and R$ 33,592/QALY in the private perspective.
CONCLUSION: The ICER of ICD is elevated in the general ICC population, in either the public or private perspective. A more favorable result occurs in patients with a high sudden death risk.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ICD in CHF patients under two perspectives in Brazil: public and supplementary health systems.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to analyze the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ICD compared to conventional therapy in patients with CHF. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We searched the literature for data regarding effectiveness and complications. Costs were retrieved from public and health insurances reimbursement codebooks and from mean cost of admissions from a public and a private hospital. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed in all variables of the model.
RESULTS: ICER was R$ 68,318/QALY in the public and R$ 90,942/QALY in the private perspective. These values are much higher than the one suggested by the World Health Organization of 3 times the gross domestic product per head (R$ 40,545 in Brazil). The results were sensitive to the cost of the device, battery replacement interval and ICD effectiveness. In a simulation resembling MADIT-I population survival and ICD benefit, ICER was R$ R$ 23,739/QALY in the public and R$ 33,592/QALY in the private perspective.
CONCLUSION: The ICER of ICD is elevated in the general ICC population, in either the public or private perspective. A more favorable result occurs in patients with a high sudden death risk.