RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine the most cost-effective strategy for the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in Brazil, from the payer's perspective (Brazilian Public Health System) in the setting of the Glaucoma Referral Centers. METHODS: Study design was a cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment strategies for POAG. We developed 3 Markov models (one for each glaucoma stage: early, moderate and advanced), using a hypothetical cohort of POAG patients, from the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) and a horizon of the average life expectancy of the Brazilian population. Different strategies were tested according to disease severity. For early glaucoma, we compared observation, laser and medications. For moderate glaucoma, medications, laser and surgery. For advanced glaucoma, medications and surgery. Main outcome measures were ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), medical direct costs and QALY (quality-adjusted life year). RESULTS: In early glaucoma, both laser and medical treatment were cost-effective (ICERs of initial laser and initial medical treatment over observation only, were R$ 2,811.39/QALY and R$ 3,450.47/QALY). Compared to observation strategy, the two alternatives have provided significant gains in quality of life. In moderate glaucoma population, medical treatment presented the highest costs among treatment strategies. Both laser and surgery were highly cost-effective in this group. For advanced glaucoma, both tested strategies were cost-effective. Starting age had a great impact on results in all studied groups. Initiating glaucoma therapy using laser or surgery were more cost-effective, the younger the patient. CONCLUSION: All tested treatment strategies for glaucoma provided real gains in quality of life and were cost-effective. However, according to the disease severity, not all strategies provided the same cost-effectiveness profile. Based on our findings, there should be a preferred strategy for each glaucoma stage, according to a cost-effectiveness ratio ranking.
Assuntos
Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/economia , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/terapia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Lasers de Gás/uso terapêutico , Fatores Etários , Anti-Hipertensivos/economia , Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Brasil , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Cadeias de Markov , Prostaglandinas/economia , Prostaglandinas/uso terapêutico , Qualidade de Vida , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Sulfonamidas/economia , Sulfonamidas/uso terapêutico , Tiofenos/economia , Tiofenos/uso terapêutico , Timolol/economia , Timolol/uso terapêutico , Trabeculectomia/economia , Conduta Expectante/economiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: Non-penetrating deep sclerectomy (NPDS) has emerged as a viable option in the surgical management of open-angle glaucoma. Our aim is to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPDS and to compare it to maximum medical treatment in a 5-year follow-up. METHODS: A decision analysis model was built. Surgical (NPDS) arm of the decision tree was observational (consecutive retrospective case series) and maximum medical treatment arm was hypothetical. Maximum medical therapy was considered a three-drug regimen (association of a fixed combination of timolol/dorzolamide [FCTD] and a prostaglandin analogue [bimatoprost, latanoprost or travoprost]). Cost-effectiveness ratio was defined as direct cost (US dollars) for each percentage of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction. Horizon was 5 years and perspective is from the public health care service in Brazil (SUS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. RESULTS: Direct cost for each percentage of IOP reduction in 5 years (cost-effectiveness ratio) was US$ 10.19 for NPDS; US$ 37.45 for the association of a FCTD and bimatoprost; US$ 39.33 for FCTD and travoprost; and US$ 41.42 for FCTD and latanoprost. NPDS demonstrated a better cost-effectiveness ratio, compared to maximum medical therapy. The ICER was negative for all medical treatment options; therefore NPDS was dominant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations, NPDS was both less costly and more effective than maximum medical therapy. From the Brazilian public health perspective, it was the most cost-effective treatment option when compared to maximum medical therapy (FCTD and prostaglandin).
Assuntos
Anti-Hipertensivos/economia , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/economia , Esclerostomia/economia , Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Brasil , Análise Custo-Benefício , Quimioterapia Combinada , Seguimentos , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/terapia , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prostaglandinas Sintéticas/economia , Prostaglandinas Sintéticas/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Esclerostomia/métodos , Sulfonamidas/economia , Sulfonamidas/uso terapêutico , Tiofenos/economia , Tiofenos/uso terapêutico , Timolol/economia , Timolol/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To identify, from the Mexican Public Health System perspective, which would be the most cost-effective treatment for patients with Fibromyalgia (FM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model including three health states, divided by pain intensity (absence or presence of mild, moderate or severe pain) and considering three-month cycles; costs and effectiveness were estimated for amitriptyline (50mg/day), fluoxetine (80 mg/day), duloxetine (120 mg/day), gabapentin (900 mg/day), pregabalin (450 mg/day), tramadol/acetaminophen (150 mg/1300 mg/día) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine (50mg/80 mg/día) for the treatment of FM. The clinical outcome considered was the annual rate of pain control. Probabilities assigned to the model were collected from published literature. Direct medical costs for FM treatment were retrieved from the 2006 data of the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) databases and were expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The best pain control rate was obtained with pregabalin (44.8%), followed by gabapentin (38.1%) and duloxetine (34.2%). The lowest treatment costs was for amitriptyline ($ 9047.01), followed by fluoxetine ($ 10,183.89) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine ($ 10,866.01). By comparing pregabalin vs amitriptyline, additional annual cost per patient for pain control would be around $ 50.000 and $ 75.000 and would result cost-effective in 70% and 80% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Among all treatment options for FM, pregabalin achieved the highest pain control and was cost-effective in 80% of patients of the Mexican Public Health System.
Assuntos
Analgésicos/economia , Antidepressivos Tricíclicos/economia , Custos de Medicamentos , Fibromialgia/tratamento farmacológico , Acetaminofen/economia , Acetaminofen/uso terapêutico , Aminas/economia , Aminas/uso terapêutico , Amitriptilina/economia , Amitriptilina/uso terapêutico , Analgésicos/uso terapêutico , Antidepressivos Tricíclicos/uso terapêutico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Ácidos Cicloexanocarboxílicos/economia , Ácidos Cicloexanocarboxílicos/uso terapêutico , Esquema de Medicação , Quimioterapia Combinada , Cloridrato de Duloxetina , Fibromialgia/economia , Fluoxetina/economia , Fluoxetina/uso terapêutico , Gabapentina , Humanos , Cadeias de Markov , México , Modelos Biológicos , Modelos Econômicos , Pregabalina , Tiofenos/economia , Tiofenos/uso terapêutico , Tramadol/economia , Tramadol/uso terapêutico , Resultado do Tratamento , Ácido gama-Aminobutírico/análogos & derivados , Ácido gama-Aminobutírico/economia , Ácido gama-Aminobutírico/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
PURPOSE: Non-penetrating deep sclerectomy (NPDS) has emerged as a viable option in the surgical management of open-angle glaucoma. Our aim is to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPDS and to compare it to maximum medical treatment in a 5-year follow-up. METHODS: A decision analysis model was built. Surgical (NPDS) arm of the decision tree was observational (consecutive retrospective case series) and maximum medical treatment arm was hypothetical. Maximum medical therapy was considered a three-drug regimen (association of a fixed combination of timolol/dorzolamide [FCTD] and a prostaglandin analogue [bimatoprost, latanoprost or travoprost]). Cost-effectiveness ratio was defined as direct cost (US dollars) for each percentage of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction. Horizon was 5 years and perspective is from the public health care service in Brazil (SUS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. RESULTS: Direct cost for each percentage of IOP reduction in 5 years (cost-effectiveness ratio) was US$ 10.19 for NPDS; US$ 37.45 for the association of a FCTD and bimatoprost; US$ 39.33 for FCTD and travoprost; and US$ 41.42 for FCTD and latanoprost. NPDS demonstrated a better cost-effectiveness ratio, compared to maximum medical therapy. The ICER was negative for all medical treatment options; therefore NPDS was dominant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations, NPDS was both less costly and more effective than maximum medical therapy. From the Brazilian public health perspective, it was the most cost-effective treatment option when compared to maximum medical therapy (FCTD and prostaglandin).
OBJETIVO: A esclerectomia profunda não penetrante (EPNP) é uma opção viável para o tratamento cirúrgico do glaucoma de ângulo aberto. O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar a relação custo-efetividade da EPNP e compará-la com terapia clínica máxima (TCM) em um acompanhamento de 5 anos. MÉTODOS: Um modelo de análise de decisão foi proposto comparando-se o tratamento cirúrgico (EPNP) versus a TCM. A avaliação da EPNP foi observacional retrospectiva de uma série consecutiva de casos e da TCM foi hipotética. A TCM foi considerada como o uso de três drogas (associação de uma combinação fixa de timolol/dorzolamida [CFTD] e um análogo de prostaglandina [bimatoprosta, latanoprosta ou travoprosta]). A relação custo-efetividade foi definida com o custo direto (em dólares) para cada porcentual de redução da pressão intraocular (PIO). A razão de custo-efetividade incremental (ICER) foi calculada. O seguimento foi de 5 anos e a perspectiva dos custos é do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). RESULTADOS: O custo direto para cada porcentual de redução da PIO ao final de 5 anos (relação custo-efetividade) foi de US$ 10,19 para a EPNP; US$ 37,45 para a CFTD + bimatoprosta; US$ 39,33 para CFTD + travoprosta; e US$ 41,42 para CFTD + latanoprosta. A EPNP apresentou uma melhor relação custo-efetividade, quando comparada com a TCM. O índice ICER foi negativo, portanto a EPNP foi a opção terapêutica dominante. CONCLUSÃO: A EPNP foi menos custosa e mais efetiva que a TCM. Do ponto de vista do SUS, ela foi a opção mais custo-efetiva, quando comparada com a TCM.
Assuntos
Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Anti-Hipertensivos/economia , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/economia , Esclerostomia/economia , Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Brasil , Análise Custo-Benefício , Quimioterapia Combinada , Seguimentos , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/terapia , Prostaglandinas Sintéticas/economia , Prostaglandinas Sintéticas/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Esclerostomia/métodos , Sulfonamidas/economia , Sulfonamidas/uso terapêutico , Tiofenos/economia , Tiofenos/uso terapêutico , Timolol/economia , Timolol/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To perform an economic evaluation of duloxetine, pregabalin, and both branded and generic gabapentin for managing pain in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) in Mexico. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The analysis was conducted using a 3-month decision model, which compares duloxetine 60 mg once daily (DUL), pregabalin 150 mg twice daily (PGB), and gabapentin 600 mg three-times daily (GBP) for PDPN patients with moderate-to-severe pain. A systematic review was performed and placebo-adjusted risk ratios for achieving good pain relief (GPR), adverse events (AE), and withdrawal owing to intolerable AE were calculated. Direct medical costs included drug acquisition and additional visits due to lack of efficacy (poor pain relief) or intolerable AE. Unit costs were taken from local sources. Adherence rates were used to estimate the expected drug costs. All costs are expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos (MXN). Utility values drawn from published literature were applied to health states. The proportion of patients with GPR and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were assessed. RESULTS: Branded-GBP was dominated by all the other options. PGB was more costly and less effective than DUL. Compared with branded-GBP and PGB, DUL led to savings of 1.01 and 1.74 million MXN (per 1000 patients). The incremental cost per QALY gained with DUL used instead of generic-GBP was $102 433 MXN. This amount is slightly lower than the estimated gross domestic product per capita in Mexico for 2010. During a second-order Monte Carlo simulation, DUL had the highest probability of being cost-effective (61%), followed by generic-GBP (25%) and PGB (14%). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include a short timeframe and using data from different dosage schemes for GBP and PGB. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that DUL provides overall savings and better health outcomes compared with branded-GBP and PGB. Administering DUL rather than generic-GBP is a cost-effective intervention to manage PDPN in Mexico.