Cardona-Arias JA, López-Carvajal L, Tamayo Plata MP, Vélez ID. Cost-effectiveness analysis of thermotherapy versus pentavalent antimonials for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis.
J Evid Based Med 2017;
10:81-90. [PMID:
28276641 DOI:
10.1111/jebm.12245]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2016] [Accepted: 02/01/2017] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
The treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis is toxic, has contraindications, and a high cost. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of thermotherapy versus pentavalent antimonials for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis.
METHODS
Effectiveness was the proportion of healing and safety with the adverse effects; these parameters were estimated from a controlled clinical trial and a meta-analysis. A standard costing was conducted. Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. The uncertainty regarding effectiveness, safety, and costs was determined through sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
The total costs were $66,807 with Glucantime and $14,079 with thermotherapy. The therapeutic effectiveness rates were 64.2% for thermotherapy and 85.1% for Glucantime. The average cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between $721 and $1275 for Glucantime and between $187 and $390 for thermotherapy. Based on the meta-analysis, thermotherapy may be a dominant strategy.
CONCLUSION
The excellent cost-effectiveness ratio of thermotherapy shows the relevance of its inclusion in guidelines for the treatment.
Collapse