Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2017
Cost-effectiveness of liposomal amphotericin B in hospitalised patients with mucocutaneous leishmaniasis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Mistro Sóstenes, Gomes Bárbara, Rosa Lorena, Miranda Ligia, Camargo Marianne, Badaró Roberto
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of L-AmB with that of SbV and AmB-D, for the treatment of mucocutaneous leishmaniasis in a hospital in north-east Brazil.
METHODS: We developed an economic model based on retrospective data of 73 hospitalised patients in 2006-2012, from hospital and public health system perspectives.
RESULTS: In the economic model, 82.2% of patients who started treatment with L-AmB had completed it after 2 months, vs. 22.0% for the SbV and 19.9% for the AmB-D groups. After 12 months of follow-up, these proportions were 100% in the L-AmB, 77.4% in the AmB-D and 72.2% in the SbV group. Markov chain analyses showed that the group that started therapy with SbV had the lowest mean total cost (US$ 3782.38), followed by AmB-D (US$ 5211.27) and L-AmB (US$ 11 337.44). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for L-AmB was US$ 18 816.23 against SbV and US$ 24 504.65 against AmB-D. In the sensitivity analysis, the drug acquisition cost of L-AmB significantly influenced the results.
CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of mucocutaneous leishmaniasis, L-AmB is a cost-effective alternative to SbV and AmB-D owing to its higher effectiveness, safety and shorter course.
METHODS: We developed an economic model based on retrospective data of 73 hospitalised patients in 2006-2012, from hospital and public health system perspectives.
RESULTS: In the economic model, 82.2% of patients who started treatment with L-AmB had completed it after 2 months, vs. 22.0% for the SbV and 19.9% for the AmB-D groups. After 12 months of follow-up, these proportions were 100% in the L-AmB, 77.4% in the AmB-D and 72.2% in the SbV group. Markov chain analyses showed that the group that started therapy with SbV had the lowest mean total cost (US$ 3782.38), followed by AmB-D (US$ 5211.27) and L-AmB (US$ 11 337.44). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for L-AmB was US$ 18 816.23 against SbV and US$ 24 504.65 against AmB-D. In the sensitivity analysis, the drug acquisition cost of L-AmB significantly influenced the results.
CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of mucocutaneous leishmaniasis, L-AmB is a cost-effective alternative to SbV and AmB-D owing to its higher effectiveness, safety and shorter course.