Costo-efectividad de furoato de mometasona tópica nasal para el tratamiento de la rinosinusitis aguda en México / Cost-effectiveness of nasal topical mometasone furoate for the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis in Mexico

Resumen Introducción: La rinosinusitis aguda (RSA) es frecuente en primer nivel de atención y los pacientes pueden mejorar sin antibióticos.Objetivo: Análisis de costo efectividad de furoato de mometasona spray nasal (FMSN) comparado con amoxicilina en tratamiento de rinosinusitis aguda en México desde punto de vista del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Método: Análisis costo-efectividad comparando FMSN 200 mg dos veces al día y amoxicilina 500 mg tres veces al día. Resultados en términos de eficacia modelados como cambios en sistema de Calificación de Síntomas Mayores (MSS por siglas inglés). MSS consiste en cinco preguntas: rinorrea, goteo retro nasal, congestión, cefalea sinusal y dolor facial. Datos clínicos obtenidos de ensayo clínico aleatorizado. Costos expresados en pesos mexicanos 2016. Se realizó análisis de sensibilidad univariable y multivariables para algunos parámetros utilizados en el modelo. Resultados: Los costos proyectados fueron de $3,261 pesos con FMSN y $3,438 pesos con amoxicilina. FMSN fue asociado con ahorro de costos por paciente de $177 pesos comparado con amoxicilina en un periodo de dos semanas. La tasa incremental de costo-efectividad del FMSN lo ubica como dominante frente a amoxicilina. El análisis de sensibilidad confirma los ahorros globales de costos y la superioridad en términos de la eficacia. Conclusión: En pacientes con rinosinusitis aguda, no complicada, el tratamiento del, FMSN 200 mcg dos veces al día, produjo mejoras significativas de los síntomas en comparación con amoxicilina en pacientes sin infecciones bacterianas y es una alternativa costo efectiva para el Sistema Nacional de Salud Mexicano. Comentario editorial al finalizar el artículo.

Abstract Introduction: Acute rhinosinusitis (RSA) is a common cause of consultation on first level of attention and it can be solved without antibiotics use. Objective: Analysis of cost effectiveness of nasal spray mometasone furoate (NSMF) compared to amoxicillin in treatment of acute rhinosinusitis in Mexico from a National Mexican Health System perspective. Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing NSMF 200µg twice daily and amoxicillin 500mg three time daily. The effectiveness outcomes of the study were modeled as changes in the Major Symptom Score (MSS). MSS consists of five questions concerning rhinorrhea, post-nasal drip, nasal congestion, sinus headache, and facial pain. Clinical data were obtained from a randomized clinical trial. Cost were expressed in Mexican pesos 2016. Sensitivity analysis was conducted univariable and multivariable for some model parameters. Results: The projected costs were $3,261 pesos with NSMF and $3,438 pesos with amoxicillin. NSMF was associated with a cost savings per patient of $177 pesos versus amoxicillin over a 2 weeks period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NSMF dominated amoxicillin. The sensitivity analysis confirms overall cost savings and superiority in terms of effectiveness. Conclusion: In patients with non-complicated acute rhinosinusitis NSMF 200 µg twice daily produce significantly an improvement in symptoms compared to amoxicillin in patients without bacterial infections and is a cost-effective alternative for the National Health Mexican System. Editorial comment at the end of this article.

Análisis del costo y la efectividad de los esquemas de administración de factores de coagulación para el manejo de niños con hemofilia A en México / Cost-effectiveness analysis of prophylaxis vs. ''on demand'' approach in the management in children with hemophilia A in Mexico

Introducción. La hemofilia A es causada por la deficiencia del factor VIII. El tratamiento consiste principalmente en aumentar la concentración del FVIII en la sangre utilizando productos de remplazo. El objetivo de este trabajo fue estimar los beneficios clínicos y económicos del manejo profiláctico con factor VIII en niños con hemofilia A en México. Métodos. Se realizó la evaluación económica del manejo profiláctico (PROF) y del tratamiento sobre demanda (SD). Las estrategias comparadas fueron el manejo profiláctico -consistente en FVIII recombinante 25 UI/kg cada tercer día- vs. tratamiento sobre demanda -consistente en FVIII derivado de plasma 40 UI/kg. Se reportó el número de sangrados evitados (SE). Se empleó una tasa de descuento del 5%. Los resultados se expresaron en pesos mexicanos. Resultados. El costo de incremental de PROF respecto a SD fue de $7,727,554 pesos. El manejo con PROF ofrece una reducción de 112 SE frente al manejo de SD (162.9 vs. 50.7). El costo por SE fue de $68,876 pesos. Conclusiones. Un abordaje con PROF mejora la calidad de vida respecto al manejo SD y reduce el número de hemorragias que enfrentan los niños con hemofilia A. PROF es una alternativa costo-efectiva (RCEI $68,876 pesos) para reducir sangrados de acuerdo con la disponibilidad de pago establecida por las autoridades de salud en México.

Background. Hemophilia A is due to a deficiency of factor VIII. Treatment consists primarily of increasing the concentration of FVIII in the blood using replacement products. The aim of this study was to estimate the clinical and economic benefits of prophylactic management with factor VIII in children with hemophilia A in Mexico. We undertook this study to estimate the clinical and economic benefits of prophylactic management (PROF) with factor VIII (FVIII) in children with severe hemophilia in Mexico. Methods. We carried out an economic evaluation of PROF vs. treatment on demand (OD). The strategies compared were management with PROF consisting of recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) 25 IU kg every other day vs. OD management consisting of plasma-derived FVIII (pdFVIII) 40 IU kg. A Markov model was performed with a time horizon of 16 years in patients with severe hemophilia for 2 years, reporting the number of events of bleeding averted (BA). We used a discount rate of 5%. The results are expressed in Mexican pesos (2012). Results. The incremental cost of PROF regarding SD was $7,727,554 pesos. PROF management provides a reduction of 112 BA vs. OD management (162.9 vs. 50.7). Cost per BA was $68,876 pesos. Conclusions. Management with PROF reduces the number of bleeding events facing children with hemophilia A compared to OD management. PROF is a cost-effective alternative to reduce bleeding ($68,876 pesos per BA) according to the willingness to pay established by health authorities in Mexico.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of palivizumab in the prophylaxis of preterm patients in Mexico / Análisis de costo-efectividad del uso de palivizumab en la profilaxis de pacientes prematuros en México

OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the prophylaxis of palivizumab, for the reduction of complications associated to the respiratory syncytial virus in preterm patients in Mexico. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A decision tree was developed in preterm groups [<29 and 29-32 weeks of gestational age (wGA)], by using epidemiological and cost local data; the effectiveness was obtained with a systematic review. Patients were evaluated according to their life expectancy. Mexican Health System perspective was used. Effectiveness measures employed were LYG and QALYs. The costs are reported in USD 2009. RESULTS: ICERs per LYG resulted on values of USD $25,029 and USD $29,637 for <29 wGA and 29-32 wGA respectively, whereas ICERs per QALYs obtained in the model accounted for USD $17,532 and USD $20,760. CONCLUSIONS: Palivizumab prophylaxis for preterm newborn patients ≤32 weeks of age resulted in a cost-effective alternative.

OBJETIVO: El estudio evaluó la razón costo-efectividad incremental (RCEI) de profilaxis con palivizumab para reducción de complicaciones asociadas al virus sincicial respiratorio en prematuros en México. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se empleó un árbol de decisiones en los grupos pretérmino [<29 y 29-32 semanas de edad gestacional (SEG)], empleando datos epidemiológicos y costos locales; la eficacia se obtuvo con una revisión sistemática, evaluando a los pacientes de acuerdo con su esperanza de vida. Se empleó la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Las medidas de eficacia fueron AVG y AVAC. Los costos son reportados en dólares de 2009. RESULTADOS: Las RCEI por AVG resultaron de USD $25 029 y USD $29 637 para <29 y 29-32 SEG, mientras que las RCEI por AVAC fueron de USD $17 532 y USD $20 760. CONCLUSIONES: La profilaxis con palivizumab en pacientes recién nacidos pretérmino ≤32 semanas de edad resultó ser una alternativa costo-efectiva.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of palivizumab in the prophylaxis of preterm patients in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the prophylaxis of palivizumab, for the reduction of complications associated to the respiratory syncytial virus in preterm patients in Mexico. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A decision tree was developed in preterm groups [<29 and 29-32 weeks of gestational age (wGA)], by using epidemiological and cost local data; the effectiveness was obtained with a systematic review. Patients were evaluated according to their life expectancy. Mexican Health System perspective was used. Effectiveness measures employed were LYG and QALYs. The costs are reported in USD 2009. RESULTS: ICERs per LYG resulted on values of USD $25,029 and USD $29,637 for <29 wGA and 29-32 wGA respectively, whereas ICERs per QALYs obtained in the model accounted for USD $17,532 and USD $20,760. CONCLUSIONS: Palivizumab prophylaxis for preterm newborn patients ≤32 weeks of age resulted in a cost-effective alternative.

Cost Utility of Sirolimus versus Tacrolimus for the Primary Prevention of Graft Rejection in Renal Transplant Recipients in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: Therapies for end-stage renal disease improve quality of life, and survival. In Mexico, clinicians often must choose between different therapies without the availability of comparative outcomes evaluation. The present study evaluates the comparative cost-utility of sirolimus (SIR) versus tacrolimus (TAC) for the primary prevention of graft rejection in renal transplant recipients in Mexico. METHODS: We used modeling techniques to estimate the cost-effectiveness of SIR versus TAC to prevent graft rejection in patients with end-stage renal disease in the Mexican setting. The model estimates the cost of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) per patient. We applied a 20-year horizon (1-year Markov cycles). Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of cost per QALY. All costs are presented in 2011 US dollars. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The total cost for the SIR treatment arm over the 20-year duration of the model is estimated to be $136,778. This compares with $142,624 for the TAC treatment arm, resulting in an incremental cost of SIR compared with that of TAC of-$5,846. Over 20 years, SIR was estimated to have 8.18 QALYs compared with 7.33 QALYs for TAC. The resulting incremental utility of SIR compared with that of TAC is 0.84 QALY gained. SIR is estimated to be both less costly and more effective than TAC, indicating that it is the dominant strategy. Notably, results suggest that SIR has a 78% probability of being dominant over the TAC strategy and a 100% probability of having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at or below $10,064 (1 GDP) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses suggest that in the Mexican setting, the use of SIR in place of TAC for the prevention of graft rejection in this population is likely to be cost saving.

[Cost effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole/itraconazole in the prophylactic treatment of invasive fungal infections in Mexico]. / Costo efectividad de posaconazol versus fluconazol/itraconazol en el tratamiento profiláctico de las infecciones fúngicas invasivas en México.

UNLABELLED: Cost effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole/itraconazole therapy in the prophylaxis against invasive fungal Infections among high-risk neutropenic patients in Mexico. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness and long-term combined effects of Posaconazole versus fluconazole/itraconazole (standard azole) therapy in the prophylaxis against invasive fungal Infections among high-risk neutropenic patients in Mexico. METHODS: A previously validated Markov model was used to compare the projected lifetime costs and effects of two theoretical groups of patients, one receiving Posaconazole and the other receiving standard azole. The model estimates total costs, numbers of IFIs, and QALY per patient in each prophylaxis group. To extrapolate trial results to a lifetime horizon, the model was extended with one-month Markov cycles in which mortality risk is specific to the underlying disease. Data on the probabilities of IFI were obtained from Study Protocol PO1899. Drug costs were taken from average wholesale drug reports for 2009. Cost and health effects were discounted at 5% according to the Mexican guideline. The analysis was conducted from the Mexican healthcare perspective using 2008 unit cost prices. RESULTS: Our model projects an accumulated cost to the Mexican healthcare system per patient receiving the Posaconazol regimen of $US 5,634 compared to $US 7,463 for the standard azole regimen. The accumulated discounted effect is 3.13 LY or 2.25 QALYs per patient receiving Posaconazol, compared to 2.96 LY or 2.13 QALYs per patient receiving standard azole. Posaconazol remained the dominant strategy across each scenario. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis tested numerous assumptions about the model cost and efficacy parameters and found that the results were robust to most changes. CONCLUSION: Posaconazole provides modest incremental benefits compared with standard azole therapy in the prophylaxis against IFIs among high-risk neutropenic patients. Routine Posaconazole use appears a cost saving when the likelihood of IFIs or the cost of treatment medications is high.

[Cost effectiveness of treatment with salmeterol/fluticasone compared to montelukast for the control of persistent asthma in children]. / Costo-efectividad del tratamiento de salmeterol/fluticasona en comparación con leucotrieno montelukast para el control del asma infantil.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of SFC compared with MON for the control of persistent asthma in children. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation on a 12-week prospective randomized open-label parallel-group comparison of SFC versus MON in children with symptomatic asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting ß2-agonists. Asthma-related medication, unscheduled physician contacts and hospitalizations were collected prospectively. The main effectiveness measure was percentage of asthma-controlled week with no short-acting ß2-agonist use during the study period. The analysis was conducted from the Mexican healthcare perspective using 2010 unit cost prices, and only direct costs were considered, all costs are reported in US dollar. . The model was made fully probabilistic to reflect the joint uncertainty in the model parameters. RESULTS: Over the whole treatment period, the median percentages of asthma-controlled weeks were 83.3% in the SFC group and 66.7% in the MON group (SFC-MON difference, 16.7%; 95% CI, 8.3-16.7; P < 0.001 in favor of SFC). The mean total cost of the SFC regimen was $ 2,323 compared with $ 3,230 for the MON regimen. The SFC was the dominant strategy (both more effective and less expensive) using the SFC was associated with an incremental cost per additional asthma-controlled of $ (5,467). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis tested numerous assumptions about the model cost and efficacy parameters and found that the results were robust to most changes. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that, compared with MON, SFC may be cost saving from the Mexican health care perspective for the treatment of pediatric patients with asthma. SFC provided a reduction in the number of severe exacerbations, frequent asthma symptoms and rescue medication use. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicated the dominance of SFC because of both lower costs and greater efficacy.

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce mother-to-child HIV transmission in Mexico, a low-prevalence setting.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of selected interventions to reduce mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV in Mexico. METHODS: A spreadsheet-based model was used to examine five scenarios, each estimated using both zidovudine (ZDV) and nevirapine (NVP). Scenarios differ according to coverage, type of voluntary counselling and testing (VCT), restriction to women at higher risk, and whether rapid testing is offered at delivery. Averted adult infections due to VCT are also estimated, as are savings due to averted treatment costs. Results are reported as cost per child infection prevented, net of averted treatment costs (C/CIP). RESULTS: Among 958294 women attending public antenatal clinics, increasing VCT coverage from 4% to 85% is estimated to prevent 102 paediatric and 8 adult infections at a C/CIP of US dollars 42517 using ZDV. In the most restrictive scenario (III), 46 paediatric infections are prevented with a C/CIP of US dollars 39220. Use of NVP increases C/CIP because the reduced drug cost is more than offset by its reduced assumed effectiveness. The cost of detecting infected women (approximately 90% of total) far exceeds treatment costs in such a low-prevalence setting. CONCLUSION: Minimization of MTCT costs in low-prevalence settings should focus on VCT costs rather than drug costs. Even the most cost-effective scenario modelled compares unfavourably with other, highly cost-effective maternal/child interventions that still do not reach many Mexicans. However, it compares favourably against several therapeutic maternal/child interventions available in the public sector's tertiary care hospitals.