ABSTRACT
RESUMEN Objetivo Evaluar los costos de las terapias de rehidratación oral (TRO) y de rehidratación nasogástrica (TRN) comparadas con la terapia de rehidratación endovenosa (TRE) para corregir la deshidratación por diarrea en niños. Metodología Análisis de minimización de costos desde la perspectiva del Sistema de Salud colombiano comparando TRO (seguida de TRN ante falla de la TRO), con la TRE. El horizonte temporal fue la duración de la rehidratación. La medida de efectividad se extrajo de una revisión sistemática de literatura. Para determinar costos, se construyó un caso típico y un árbol de decisiones, a partir de revisión de guías e historias clínicas, validado con expertos. Los costos unitarios se obtuvieron de bases de datos colombianas. Costos fueron calculados en pesos colombianos (COP) y dólares americanos (USD). Se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad de una y dos vías. Resultados La TRO y la TRE son similares en efectividad para prevenir hospitalización y lograr rehidratación. En el caso base, el costo de la TRO fue $91,221COP (40.5 USD) y para TRE $112,944COP (50.14USD), es decir, un ahorro de $21,723 COP (9.64 USD). En los análisis de sensibilidad por regímenes de aseguramiento y complejidad del hospital, la TRO suele ser la estrategia menos costosa. Discusión Ambas intervenciones son similares en efectividad, pero la TRO, seguida de TRN ante falla de la primera resulta menos costosa que la TRE. La TRO es recomendable como primera opción para corregir la deshidratación. Deberían continuarse esfuerzos por implementar TRO y TRN en los servicios de salud en Colombia.(AU)
ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the costs of oral rehydration therapy (ORT) and nasogastric rehydration therapy (NRT) compared with intravenous rehydration therapy (IRT) to treat dehydration in children under 5 years of age with diarrhea. Methodology Cost-minimization analysis from the perspective of the Colombian Health System, comparing ORT, (followed by NRT when ORT fails), with IRT. The time horizon was the duration of rehydration. The effectiveness measure was obtained from a systematic review of the literature. To determine costs, a typical case was created based on current guidelines and medical records; this case was validated by experts. Unit costs were obtained from Colombian databases and were provided in Colombian pesos (COP) and US dollars (USD) for 2010. One- and two-way sensitivity analyzes were performed. Results ORT and ERT are similarly effective to prevent hospitalization and to achieve rehydration. In the base case, the expected cost of ORT was $91,221 COP (40.5 USD) and for IRT was $112,944 COP ($50.14 USD), saving $21,723 COP ($9.64 USD) per case. In the sensitivity analyzes by health insurance and hospital level, ORT is often the least costly strategy. Discussion Both interventions are similarly effective, but ORT, followed by NRT when ORT fails, is less costly than IRT. ORT is recommended as the first option to treat dehydration since it is effective and less expensive. Efforts should be continued to implement TRO and NRT in the health services of Colombia.(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Infant, Newborn , Infant , Child, Preschool , Rehydration Solutions , Diarrhea, Infantile/therapy , Fluid Therapy/instrumentation , Colombia/epidemiology , Costs and Cost Analysis/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs of oral rehydration therapy (ORT) and nasogastric rehydration therapy (NRT) compared with intravenous rehydration therapy (IRT) to treat dehydration in children under 5 years of age with diarrhea. METHODOLOGY: Cost-minimization analysis from the perspective of the Colombian Health System, comparing ORT, (followed by NRT when ORT fails), with IRT. The time horizon was the duration of rehydration. The effectiveness measure was obtained from a systematic review of the literature. To determine costs, a typical case was created based on current guidelines and medical records; this case was validated by experts. Unit costs were obtained from Colombian databases and were provided in Colombian pesos (COP) and US dollars (USD) for 2010. One- and two-way sensitivity analyzes were performed. RESULTS: ORT and ERT are similarly effective to prevent hospitalization and to achieve rehydration. In the base case, the expected cost of ORT was $91,221 COP (40.5 USD) and for IRT was $112,944 COP ($50.14 USD), saving $21,723 COP ($9.64 USD) per case. In the sensitivity analyzes by health insurance and hospital level, ORT is often the least costly strategy. DISCUSSION: Both interventions are similarly effective, but ORT, followed by NRT when ORT fails, is less costly than IRT. ORT is recommended as the first option to treat dehydration since it is effective and less expensive. Efforts should be continued to implement TRO and NRT in the health services of Colombia.
OBJETIVO: Evaluar los costos de las terapias de rehidratación oral (TRO) y de rehidratación nasogástrica (TRN) comparadas con la terapia de rehidratación endovenosa (TRE) para corregir la deshidratación por diarrea en niños. METODOLOGÍA: Análisis de minimización de costos desde la perspectiva del Sistema de Salud colombiano comparando TRO (seguida de TRN ante falla de la TRO), con la TRE. El horizonte temporal fue la duración de la rehidratación. La medida de efectividad se extrajo de una revisión sistemática de literatura. Para determinar costos, se construyó un caso típico y un árbol de decisiones, a partir de revisión de guías e historias clínicas, validado con expertos. Los costos unitarios se obtuvieron de bases de datos colombianas. Costos fueron calculados en pesos colombianos (COP) y dólares americanos (USD). Se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad de una y dos vías. RESULTADOS: La TRO y la TRE son similares en efectividad para prevenir hospitalización y lograr rehidratación. En el caso base, el costo de la TRO fue $91,221COP (40.5 USD) y para TRE $112,944COP (50.14USD), es decir, un ahorro de $21,723 COP (9.64 USD). En los análisis de sensibilidad por regímenes de aseguramiento y complejidad del hospital, la TRO suele ser la estrategia menos costosa. DISCUSIÓN: Ambas intervenciones son similares en efectividad, pero la TRO, seguida de TRN ante falla de la primera resulta menos costosa que la TRE. La TRO es recomendable como primera opción para corregir la deshidratación. Deberían continuarse esfuerzos por implementar TRO y TRN en los servicios de salud en Colombia.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of zinc supplementation for the treatment of acute diarrhea (AD) in children younger than 5 years in Colombia. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of the Colombian health system. The standard treatment with the addition of zinc was compared with the standard treatment without zinc in children younger than 5 years. The time horizon was 1 month. Effectiveness was extracted from a systematic review of literature. The specific data for Colombia were taken from local databases and observational studies. To determine the costs, a typical case was constructed by reviewing guidelines and medical records and validated by experts. To evaluate the resources consumed, Colombian tariff manuals were used. Costs were stated in Colombian pesos (COP) and US dollar (USD) for 2010. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of changes in cost and effectiveness of the strategies on the results from the model. RESULTS: The results from the model indicate that zinc supplementation is a dominant strategy; it is less costly and more effective than standard treatment without zinc (reduction of $15,210 COP [8.14 USD] per child). The results are sensitive to changes in the probability of hospitalization and of persistent diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Zinc for the treatment of AD is a highly cost-effective strategy and is recommended for inclusion in the benefit plan of the Colombian health system. This intervention is more cost-effective in children with a higher risk of persistent diarrhea and hospitalization.
