Can hydrophilic coated catheters be beneficial for the public healthcare system in Brazil? - A cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with spinal cord injuries

ABSTRACT Introduction Detrusor sphincter dyssynergia affects 70% to 80% of all spinal cord injury patients, resulting in increased risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and potential exposure to antimicrobial resistance. In Brazil, local guidelines recommend intermittent catheterization as the best method for bladder emptying, and two catheter types are available: the conventional uncoated PVC and the hydrophilic coated catheters. Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two types of catheters for intermittent catheterization from the perspective of the Brazilian public healthcare system. Materials and Methods A Markov model was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness in those with spinal cord injuries. A primary analysis was conducted on all possible adverse events, and a secondary analysis was performed with urinary tract infections as the only relevant parameter. The results were presented as cost per life years gained (LYG), per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and per number of urinary tract infections (UTIs) avoided. Results The base scenario of all adverse events shows a cost-effective result of hydrophilic coated catheters compared to uncoated PVC catheters at 57,432 BRL (Brazilian Reais) per LYG and 122,330 BRL per QALY. The secondary scenario showed that the use of hydrophilic coated catheters reduces the total number of UTIs, indicating that an additional cost of hydrophilic coated catheters of 31,240 BRL over a lifetime will reduce lifetime UTIs by 6%. Conclusions Despite the higher unit value, the use of hydrophilic coated catheters is a cost-effective treatment from the perspective of the Brazilian public healthcare system.

Can hydrophilic coated catheters be beneficial for the public healthcare system in Brazil? - A cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with spinal cord injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Detrusor sphincter dyssynergia affects 70% to 80% of all spinal cord injury patients, resulting in increased risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and potential exposure to antimicrobial resistance. In Brazil, local guidelines recommend intermittent catheterization as the best method for bladder emptying, and two catheter types are available: the conventional uncoated PVC and the hydrophilic coated catheters. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two types of catheters for intermittent catheterization from the perspective of the Brazilian public healthcare system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness in those with spinal cord injuries. A primary analysis was conducted on all possible adverse events, and a secondary analysis was performed with urinary tract infections as the only relevant parameter. The results were presented as cost per life years gained (LYG), per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and per number of urinary tract infections (UTIs) avoided. RESULTS: The base scenario of all adverse events shows a cost-effective result of hydrophilic coated catheters compared to uncoated PVC catheters at 57,432 BRL (Brazilian Reais) per LYG and 122,330 BRL per QALY. The secondary scenario showed that the use of hydrophilic coated catheters reduces the total number of UTIs, indicating that an additional cost of hydrophilic coated catheters of 31,240 BRL over a lifetime will reduce lifetime UTIs by 6%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher unit value, the use of hydrophilic coated catheters is a cost-effective treatment from the perspective of the Brazilian public healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in head and neck cancer patients receiving concurrent chemoradiation.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a major event increasing treatment costs of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients treated with chemoradiation (CRT). This study was designed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) to prevent oral mucositis in HNSCC patients receiving CRT. METHODS: From June 2007 to December 2010, 94 patients with HNSCC of nasopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx entered a prospective, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial. CRT consisted of conventional radiotherapy (RT: 70.2 Gy, 1.8 Gy/d, 5 times/wk)+concurrent cisplatin (100mg/m2) every 3 weeks. An InGaAlP (660 nm-100 mW-4J/cm2) laser diode was used for LLLT. RESULTS: From the perspective of Brazil's public health care system (SUS), total costs were higher in Placebo Group (PG) than Laser Group (LG) for opioid use (LG=US$ 9.08, PG=US$ 44.28), gastrostomy feeding (LG=US$ 50.50, PG=US$ 129.86), and hospitalization (PG=US$ 77.03). In LG, the cost was higher for laser therapy only (US$ 1880.57). The total incremental cost associated with the use of LLLT was US$ 1689.00 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US$ 4961.37 per grade 3-4 OM case prevented compared to no treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that morbidity was lower in the Laser Group and that LLLT was more cost-effective than placebo up to a threshold of at least US$ 5000 per mucositis case prevented. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT01439724.

Cost-effectiveness of prehospital versus inhospital thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that prehospital thrombolysis improves the outcome in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at comparing the cost-effectiveness of prehospital compared to inhospital thrombolysis for STEMI from the National Health System perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to compare these two strategies. The study endpoint was life-years gained. Resource use and costs were estimated from the National Health System perspective. The Decision tree and Markov Model were constructed using the results of published clinical trials. Costs were expressed in Reais (R$), for the year 2005. RESULTS: For a time horizon of 20 years, prehospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 11.48 years and inhospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 11.32 years. Costs were R$ 5,640 for prehospital thrombolysis and R$ 5,816 for inhospital thrombolysis. Inhospital thrombolysis led to an additional cost of R$ 176 per patient. Pre-hospital thrombolysis led to additional 0.15 years of life-expectancy gain compared with inhospital thrombolysis. CONCLUSION: This model suggests that, from the National Health System perspective, implementing prehospital thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may lead to extra survival and fewer costs when compared to inhospital thrombolysis.

Custo-efetividade da trombólise pré-hospitalar vs intra-hospitalar no infarto agudo do miocárdio / Cost-effectiveness of prehospital versus inhospital thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction

FUNDAMENTO: Existe evidência de que a trombólise pré-hospitalar melhora os desfechos no infarto agudo do miocárdio (IAM) com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST. OBJETIVO: Comparar as relações de custo-efetividade entre trombólise pré-hospitalar e trombólise intra-hospitalar para o IAM com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST, pela perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. MÉTODOS: Modelo analítico de decisão foi utilizado para comparar as duas estratégias. O desfecho do estudo foi "anos de vida ganhos". O uso de recursos e os custos foram estimados pela perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. Árvore de decisão e modelo de Markov foram construídos com resultados de ensaios clínicos publicados. Os custos foram valorados em real (R$), para o ano de 2005. RESULTADOS: Para um horizonte de tempo de vinte anos, a expectativa de vida média com a trombólise pré-hospitalar foi de 11,48 anos e a trombólise intra-hospitalar proporcionou expectativa de vida média de 11,32 anos. Os custos foram de R$ 5.640,00 para a trombólise pré-hospitalar e de R$ 5.816,00 para a trombólise intra-hospitalar. Houve custo adicional de R$ 176,00 por paciente com a trombólise intra-hospitalar. A trombólise pré-hospitalar proporcionou adicional de 0,15 ano de expectativa de vida comparado à trombólise intra-hospitalar. CONCLUSÃO: Esse modelo sugere que, pela perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde, implementar a trombólise pré-hospitalar para o IAM com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST pode representar sobrevida extra e menor custo que comparativamente à trombólise intra-hospitalar.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that prehospital thrombolysis improves the outcome in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at comparing the cost-effectiveness of prehospital compared to inhospital thrombolysis for STEMI from the National Health System perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to compare these two strategies. The study endpoint was life-years gained. Resource use and costs were estimated from the National Health System perspective. The Decision tree and Markov Model were constructed using the results of published clinical trials. Costs were expressed in Reais (R$), for the year 2005. RESULTS: For a time horizon of 20 years, prehospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 11.48 years and inhospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 11.32 years. Costs were R$ 5,640 for prehospital thrombolysis and R$ 5,816 for inhospital thrombolysis. Inhospital thrombolysis led to an additional cost of R$ 176 per patient. Pre-hospital thrombolysis led to additional 0.15 years of life-expectancy gain compared with inhospital thrombolysis. CONCLUSION: This model suggests that, from the National Health System perspective, implementing prehospital thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may lead to extra survival and fewer costs when compared to inhospital thrombolysis.