Value in health regional issues · 2024
Custo-Efetividade de Diferentes Tratamentos Minimamente Invasivos Para Disfunção Temporomandibular de Origem Articular sob a Perspectiva do Sistema Público de Saúde Brasileiro.
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.
Lemos George A, da Silva Pâmela L P, Moretti Eduarda C, Pereira Antônio C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of minimally invasive interventions for pain associated with articular temporomandibular dysfunction from the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) perspective.
METHODS: This is a CE study with a 1-year time horizon. Effectiveness data were extracted from a network meta-analysis, and 2 treatments with moderate levels of evidence certainty were evaluated: arthrocentesis (ARTRO) plus intra-articular corticosteroid (CO) injection and ARTRO plus intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate (SH). For CE analysis, the costs of 2 types of SH (low and high molecular weight) and 4 COs (betamethasone [B], dexamethasone acetate [D], methylprednisolone sodium succinate [M], or triamcinolone hexacetonide [T]) were considered. Modeling was conducted using TreeAge Pro Healthcare software, with the construction of a decision tree representing a hypothetical cohort of adults with articular temporomandibular dysfunction. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In addition, an acceptability curve was developed.
RESULTS: The total costs per joint for ARTRO plus low- and high-molecular-weight SH and ARTRO plus COs B, D, M, and T were, respectively, R$583.32, R$763.85, R$164.39, R$133.93, R$138.57, and R$159.86. ARTRO plus dexamethasone acetate was considered cost-effective, with lower cost and higher net monetary benefit than other technologies. In all sensitivity analysis scenarios, it remained cost-effective. It also showed greater acceptability.
CONCLUSION: ARTRO plus dexamethasone acetate was considered the cost-effective technology, exhibiting higher net monetary benefit and higher acceptability from the SUS perspective.
METHODS: This is a CE study with a 1-year time horizon. Effectiveness data were extracted from a network meta-analysis, and 2 treatments with moderate levels of evidence certainty were evaluated: arthrocentesis (ARTRO) plus intra-articular corticosteroid (CO) injection and ARTRO plus intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate (SH). For CE analysis, the costs of 2 types of SH (low and high molecular weight) and 4 COs (betamethasone [B], dexamethasone acetate [D], methylprednisolone sodium succinate [M], or triamcinolone hexacetonide [T]) were considered. Modeling was conducted using TreeAge Pro Healthcare software, with the construction of a decision tree representing a hypothetical cohort of adults with articular temporomandibular dysfunction. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In addition, an acceptability curve was developed.
RESULTS: The total costs per joint for ARTRO plus low- and high-molecular-weight SH and ARTRO plus COs B, D, M, and T were, respectively, R$583.32, R$763.85, R$164.39, R$133.93, R$138.57, and R$159.86. ARTRO plus dexamethasone acetate was considered cost-effective, with lower cost and higher net monetary benefit than other technologies. In all sensitivity analysis scenarios, it remained cost-effective. It also showed greater acceptability.
CONCLUSION: ARTRO plus dexamethasone acetate was considered the cost-effective technology, exhibiting higher net monetary benefit and higher acceptability from the SUS perspective.