摘要
Abstract Objectives This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of whitening toothpastes and at-home bleaching for the treatment of tooth discoloration. Methodology A cost-effectiveness economic analysis was conducted, and eight randomized clinical trials were selected based on the whitening agent product used: blue covarine dentifrices (BCD), hydrogen peroxide dentifrices (HPD), dentifrices without bleaching agents (CD, negative control), and 10% carbamide peroxide (CP10, positive control) for at-home bleaching. The consumer/patient perspective was adopted, macro-costing techniques were used and a decision tree model was performed considering the costs in the American and Brazilian markets. The color change evaluation (ΔE*ab) was used to calculate the effectiveness of tooth bleaching. A probabilistic analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were obtained. Results CP10 resulted in the highest cost-effectiveness compared to the use of dentifrices in both markets. In Brazil, HPD was more cost-effective than BCD and CD. In the US, the increased costs of HPD and BCD did not generate any whitening benefit compared to CD. Conclusions CP10 was more cost-effective than BCD and HPD for tooth bleaching from the perspectives of the Brazilian and American markets. Decision-making should consider the use of CP10 for treating tooth discoloration.
摘要
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The extraction of third molars can lead to undesired effects such as pain, trismus, and edema, necessitating preemptive therapy to alleviate these effects. For this purpose, an economic evaluation was conducted to analyze the cost-effectiveness of preemptive drugs used in the extraction of third molars. METHODS: Costs were obtained from a market survey. Effectiveness measures were limitation of interincisal distance and postoperative pain, obtained from randomized clinical trials in the literature. For both models, a Monte Carlo simulation generated a hypothetical cohort of a thousand individuals, considering a 5% variation in estimates. The evaluated therapies were dexamethasone 8 mg (DX8); methylprednisolone 40 mg (MP); diclofenac 50 mg associated with tramadol 50 mg (DCTR); and dexamethasone 4mg associated with tramadol 50 mg (DXTR). RESULTS: MP and DCTR therapies were dominated in all scenarios. For the reduction of postoperative pain, DXTR treatment showed the best cost-benefit, with a net monetary benefit (NMB) gain of 31.10% compared to the lowest-cost treatment (DX, R$ 1.76). Considering the reduction in limitation of interincisal distance, DXTR medication presented higher cost-benefit compared to DX8 (NMB gain = 18.25%), being a preferred option alongside DX8. CONCLUSION: In the extraction of third molars, preemptive administration of dexamethasone 4mg associated with tramadol 50mg is the preferred cost-effective option to reduce postoperative pain and limitation of interincisal distance after 48 hours.
RESUMO JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: A exodontia de terceiros molares pode acarretar efeitos indesejados, como dor, trismo e edema, sendo necessário ofertar uma terapia preemptiva para amenizá-los. Para tal, realizou-se uma avaliação econômica para analisar o custo-efetividade de fármacos preemptivos utilizados na exodontia de terceiros molares. MÉTODOS: Os custos foram obtidos a partir de uma pesquisa de mercado. As medidas de efetividade foram: limitação da distância interincisal e dor pós-operatória, sendo obtidas em ensaios clínicos randomizados da literatura. Para os dois modelos, uma simulação de Monte Carlo gerou uma coorte hipotética de mil indivíduos, considerando uma variação de 5% das estimativas. As terapias avaliadas foram: dexametasona 8 mg (DX8); metilprednisolona 40 mg (MP); diclofenaco 50 mg associado a tramadol 50 mg (DCTR); e dexametasona 4 mg associada a tramadol 50 mg (DXTR). RESULTADOS: As terapias com MP e DCTR foram dominadas em todos os cenários. Para redução da dor pós-operatória, o tratamento com DXTR apresentou o melhor custo-benefício, com ganho de benefício monetário líquido (NMB) de 31,10% comparado ao tratamento de menor custo (DX, R$ 1,76). Considerando a redução da limitação da distância interincisal, o fármaco DXTR apresentou maior custo-benefício em relação à DX8 (ganho de NMB = 18,25%), sendo uma opção de escolha junto a DX8. CONCLUSÃO: Na exodontia de terceiros molares, a administração preemptiva de dexametasona 4 mg associada com tramadol 50 mg é a opção de escolha, do ponto de vista de custo-efetividade, para reduzir a dor pós-operatória e limitação da distância interincisal após 48 horas.
摘要
Abstract COVID-19 pandemic implied new biosafety recommendations to avoid dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 virus within healthcare centers. Changes on recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), decontamination protocols and organization of patient demand resulted may result in cost variation. Based on this, the present study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of new biosafety recommendations for oral healthcare assistance during COVID-19. An Activity Based Costing evaluation was used to calculate the acquisition of PPE and decontamination solutions recommended for dental practice during COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. PPE and decontamination solutions quantity and frequency of use were based on the newly COVID-19 recommendations. Costs (in Brazilian Real - R$) for biosafety recommendations pre- and post-COVID-19 were outlined and calculated for each patient, service shift and year. A sensitivity analysis considered 20% variation of direct costs. Previously to COVID-19 pandemic, direct costs of biosafety recommendations consisted of R$0.84 per patient, R$6.69 per service shift and R$3,413.94 per year. Post-COVID-19 costs of biosafety recommendations resulted in R$16.01 per patient, R$128.07 per service shift, and R$32,657.96 per year. Yearly costs can vary between R$26,126.37 and R$39,189.56. The annual budget increase necessary to adopt post-COVID biosafety recommendations was R$29,244.02. Newly biosafety recommendations increased significantly the costs of oral healthcare assistance during COVID-19 pandemic. Decision making of healthcare managers must consider rational and equity allocation of financial resources.