Premium
Política de medicamentos para la Leishmaniasis Visceral: análisis de costo‐efectividad
Author(s) -
Vanlerberghe V.,
Diap G.,
Guerin P. J.,
Meheus F.,
Gerstl S.,
Stuyft P. Van der,
Boelaert M.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
tropical medicine and international health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.056
H-Index - 114
eISSN - 1365-3156
pISSN - 1360-2276
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01782.x
Subject(s) - miltefosine , sodium stibogluconate , medicine , cost effectiveness , cost effectiveness analysis , visceral leishmaniasis , leishmaniasis , intensive care medicine , drug , cost–benefit analysis , pharmacology , risk analysis (engineering) , immunology , ecology , biology
Summary Objective To facilitate the choice of the best visceral leishmaniasis (VL) treatment strategy for first‐line health services in (VL)‐endemic areas, we compared in a formal decision analysis the cost and the cost‐effectiveness of the different available options. Methods We selected four drug regimens for VL on the basis of frequency of use, feasibility and reported efficacy studies. The point estimates and the range of plausible values of effectiveness and cost were retrieved from a literature review. A decision tree was constructed and the strategy minimizing the cost per death averted was selected. Results Treatment with amphotericin B deoxycholate was the most effective approach in the baseline analysis and averted 87.2% of all deaths attributable to VL. The least expensive and the most cost‐effective treatment was the miltefosine regimen, and the most expensive and the least cost‐effective was AmBisome ® treatment. The cost of drug and medical care are the main determinants of the cost‐effectiveness ranking of the alternative schemes. Sensitivity analysis showed that antimonial was competitive with miltefosine in the low‐resistance regions. Conclusion In areas with >94% response rates to antimonials, generic sodium stibogluconate remains the most cost‐effective option for VL treatment, mainly due to low drug cost. In other regions, miltefosine is the most cost‐effective option of treatment, but its use as a first‐line drug is limited by its teratogenicity and rapid resistance development. AmBisome in mono‐ or combination therapy is too expensive to compete in cost‐effectiveness with the other regimens.