RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Humanos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio/métodos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio/estadística & datos numéricos , Brasil , Inyecciones Intraarticulares/economía , Artrocentesis/métodos , Artrocentesis/economía , Trastornos de la Articulación Temporomandibular/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos de la Articulación Temporomandibular/terapia , Trastornos de la Articulación Temporomandibular/economía , Ácido Hialurónico/economía , Ácido Hialurónico/administración & dosificación , Ácido Hialurónico/uso terapéutico , Ácido Hialurónico/análogos & derivados , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Corticoesteroides/economíaRESUMEN
Abstract Objectives: To determine the cut-off point of the cochlear radiation dose as a risk factor for hearing loss in patients with vestibular schwannoma treated with radiosurgery. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed without language or publication year restrictions in the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS/VHL and Cochrane Library databases. Studies that met the following criteria were included: 1) population: adults of both sexes who underwent radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma treatment; 2) exposure: cochlear radiation; 3) outcome: hearing loss; 4) type of study: cohort. Two independent reviewers conducted the entire review process. The registration number in PROSPERO was CRD42020206128. Results: From the 333 articles identified in the searches, seven were included after applying the eligibility criteria. There was no standardization as to how to measure exposure or outcome in the included studies, and most studies did not present sufficient data to enable meta-analysis. Conclusion: It was not possible to determine a cut-off point for high cochlear dose that could be considered a risk factor for hearing loss.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To determine the cut-off point of the cochlear radiation dose as a risk factor for hearing loss in patients with vestibular schwannoma treated with radiosurgery. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed without language or publication year restrictions in the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS/VHL and Cochrane Library databases. Studies that met the following criteria were included: 1) population: adults of both sexes who underwent radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma treatment; 2) exposure: cochlear radiation; 3) outcome: hearing loss; 4) type of study: cohort. Two independent reviewers conducted the entire review process. The registration number in PROSPERO was CRD42020206128. RESULTS: From the 333 articles identified in the searches, seven were included after applying the eligibility criteria. There was no standardization as to how to measure exposure or outcome in the included studies, and most studies did not present sufficient data to enable meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: It was not possible to determine a cut-off point for high cochlear dose that could be considered a risk factor for hearing loss.