RESUMO
Background: Congenital heart disease is the most common congenital condition worldwide, with a prevalence of 80 cases per 10 000 live births. In addition to perinatal morbidity and mortality, it entails long-term consequences such as multiple surgeries, prolonged hospitalizations, lifelong cardiac follow-up, reduced quality of life, risk of heart failure, and premature mortality in adulthood. This significant health and economic burden on healthcare systems and families highlights the relevance of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of methods for early detection of this condition. Objective: To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify and analyze existing economic evaluations on prenatal detection of congenital heart diseases through ultrasound, focusing on the reported cost-effectiveness results and the methodological quality of the evaluated studies according to established criteria. Methods: An SLR of economic evaluations was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A quantitative synthesis of key methodological components of each economic evaluation was performed. The incremental medical costs, effectiveness measures, and cost-effectiveness ratios reported in each study were compiled and compared. The methodological quality was assessed according to compliance with the 24 CHEERS criteria. Results: We found 785 articles, of which only 7 met all inclusion criteria. Most were cost-effectiveness analyses, with the most common outcome being number of cases detected. Screening with only 4-chamber views interpreted by general practitioners or cardiologists were dominant strategies compared with screening with 4-chamber plus outflow views interpreted by a general practitioner. Fetal echocardiography was most effective but most expensive. Screening with 4-chamber and outflow view, followed by referral to a specialist, were recommended as the least expensive strategy per defect detected. On average, articles met 17 of the 24 CHEERS criteria. Discussion: While recent cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated improved methodological quality, there was a lack of homogeneity due to differences in comparators and population subgroups analyzed. Despite this heterogeneity, fetal ultrasonography screening was consistently identified as a cost-effective strategy, with its cost-effectiveness heavily influenced by the expertise of the interpreting physician. Conclusion: Most studies recommend implementing obstetric ultrasonography screening, without routine fetal echocardiography, for detecting congenital heart diseases.
RESUMO
Objetivo: determinar si los coticoesteroides orales son la vía más efectiva y menos costosa con respecto a los corticosteroides endovenosos para el manejo de la crisis asmática moderada o severa. Diseño: usando un análisis de decisiones, se realizó un estudio de minimización de costos. Material y métodos: el estudio se realizó en el Hospital Universitario de San Ignacio de Bogotá, Colombia, institución privada de tercer nivel. La determinación de los costos y de los recursos usados, se realizó revisando historias clínicas de pacientes con asma que fueron atendidos entre 1988 y 1997. Se realizó una proyección para 1.000 sujetos atendidos por dicho padecimiento. La determinación de la efectividad de los corticosteroides orales vs los endovenosos se basó en un meta-análisis. Resultados: los pacientes recibieron en promedio 4 días de corticosteroides endovenosos, lo que lleva a que el costo de la administración de este medicamento para 1.000 personas, sea de $ 148.404.000 y de $ 8.493.000 (5,7%) si se hubiera usado oral a dosis de 1 mg/kg/día de prednisolona o su equivalente. Simultáneamente en dos meta-análisis encontrados en la literatura se pudo demostrar que la actividad de los corticoesteroides usados por vía oral o por vía endovenosa es similar y que excepto exista una contraindicación para la vía oral, los efectos esperados en los pacientes van a ser similares. Conclusiones: dado que la eficacia de los corticosteroides orales es semejante a la de los corticosteroides endovensos en el manejo de la crisis asmática y que el costo de la terapia oral es mucho menor, se recomienda dar tratamiento a los pacientes con corticosteroides orales excepto cuando exista contraindicación para el uso de la vía oral.