Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2019
Treatment for human visceral leishmaniasis: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Brazil.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
de Carvalho Isis Polianna Silva Ferreira, Peixoto Henry Maia, Romero Gustavo Adolfo Sierra, de Oliveira Maria Regina Fernandes
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of strategies for the treatment of VL in Brazil.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness study comparing three therapeutic options: meglumine antimoniate (MA), liposomal amphotericin B (LAMB) and a combination of LAMB plus MA (LAMB plus MA), from public health system and societal perspectives. An analytical decision-making model was used to compare strategies for the following outcomes: early therapeutic failure avoided at 30 days, days of hospitalisation avoided and VL cure at 180 days. The efficacy and safety parameters of the drugs came from a randomised, open-label trial and the cost data came from a cost-of-illness study, both carried out in Brazil.
RESULTS: For all outcomes analysed, the LAMB strategy was more effective. The MA strategy was inferior to the LAMB plus MA strategy for the outcomes early therapeutic failure avoided and cure. When only LAMB and MA were compared from a societal perspective, a cost of US$ 278.56 was estimated for each additional early therapeutic failure avoided, a cost of US$ 26.88 for each additional day of hospitalisation avoided and a cost of US$ 89.88 for each additional case of cured VL, for the LAMB strategy vs. MA.
CONCLUSION: In Brazil, the LAMB strategy proved to be cost-effective for treating VL, considering a GDP per capita as the willingness-to-pay threshold, for all of the outcomes analysed in comparison to MA.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness study comparing three therapeutic options: meglumine antimoniate (MA), liposomal amphotericin B (LAMB) and a combination of LAMB plus MA (LAMB plus MA), from public health system and societal perspectives. An analytical decision-making model was used to compare strategies for the following outcomes: early therapeutic failure avoided at 30 days, days of hospitalisation avoided and VL cure at 180 days. The efficacy and safety parameters of the drugs came from a randomised, open-label trial and the cost data came from a cost-of-illness study, both carried out in Brazil.
RESULTS: For all outcomes analysed, the LAMB strategy was more effective. The MA strategy was inferior to the LAMB plus MA strategy for the outcomes early therapeutic failure avoided and cure. When only LAMB and MA were compared from a societal perspective, a cost of US$ 278.56 was estimated for each additional early therapeutic failure avoided, a cost of US$ 26.88 for each additional day of hospitalisation avoided and a cost of US$ 89.88 for each additional case of cured VL, for the LAMB strategy vs. MA.
CONCLUSION: In Brazil, the LAMB strategy proved to be cost-effective for treating VL, considering a GDP per capita as the willingness-to-pay threshold, for all of the outcomes analysed in comparison to MA.