ABSTRACT
Objetivos: Determinar a relação custo-efetividade da adição do omalizumabe (Oma) no tratamento da urticária crônica espontânea (UCE) refratária aos tratamentos convencionais, bem como o impacto orçamentário no contexto da saúde suplementar (SS) no Brasil. Métodos: Na análise econômica, utilizou-se o modelo de Markov baseado no Urticaria Activity Score for 7 days (UAS7), considerando- se os desfechos clínicos: anos de vida salvos com doença controlada (UAS7 = 0 ou UAS7 ≤ 6), e anos de vida ajustados à qualidade (QALY). Três razões de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) foram calculadas. O impacto orçamentário foi calculado com base em dados da SS, população elegível e o horizonte de 5 anos. Resultados: As RCEI calculadas para o desfecho anos de vida salvos com doença controlada nos horizontes de 3 e 5 anos foram R$ 108.935,42 e R$ 166.977,29, respectivamente. O impacto orçamentário, do primeiro ao quinto ano, da incorporação do Oma à SS para o tratamento de pacientes com UCE refratária variou entre R$ 65 milhões e R$ 157 milhões, que equivaleria a R$ 1,38/assistido no primeiro ano incorporação. Sendo assim, ao analisar os custos adicionais por desfecho adicional salvo, nota-se que a RCEI também se mostrou menor que três vezes o PIB per capita no Brasil, podendo-se dizer que o tratamento com Oma é custo-efetivo em comparação ao tratamento atual também neste desfecho. Conclusão: A análise econômica demonstrou que o tratamento com Oma da UCE refratária ao tratamento com antihistamínicos H1 em doses elevadas é custo-efetivo no cenário nacional, e a sua incorporação na SS é viável.
Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness of adding omalizumab (Oma) to the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) refractory to conventional treatments, as well as its budgetary impact in the context of private health insurance (PHI) in Brazil. Methods: In the economic analysis, the Markov model based on the Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days (UAS7) was used considering the following clinical outcomes: life years saved with controlled disease (UAS7 = 0 or UAS7 ≤ 6) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Three incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. The budgetary impact was calculated using PHI data, eligible population, and 5-year horizon. Results: The estimated ICERs for life years saved with controlled disease in 3- and 5-year horizons were R$ 108,935.42 and R$ 166,977.29, respectively. The budgetary impact from the first to the fifth year of the incorporation of Oma into PHI for the treatment of patients with refractory CSU ranged from R$ 65 million to R$ 157 million, equivalent to R$ 1.38/assisted patient in the first year of incorporation. When additional costs were analyzed per additional outcome saved, ICER was shown to be less than three times the GDP per capita in Brazil. Thus, Oma is cost-effective compared to the current treatment in this outcome as well. Conclusion: The economic analysis demonstrated that treatment with Oma of CSU refractory to the treatment with H1 antihistamines in high doses is cost-effective in the Brazilian setting and its incorporation into the PHI system is feasible.
Subject(s)
Humans , Supplemental Health , Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , Omalizumab , Analysis of the Budgetary Impact of Therapeutic Advances , Chronic Urticaria , Histamine Antagonists , Patients , Therapeutics , Effectiveness , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Gross Domestic Product , Guanosine Diphosphate , MethodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To develop an easy, time-efficient tool to identify children and adolescents with signs and symptoms suggestive of chronic arthropathies, and to evaluate its interobserver reproducibility and reliability. METHODS: The instrument used standardized techniques as required for the development of health-related instruments, targeting parents of apparently healthy children and adolescents ages 1-16 years. A multidisciplinary team was involved in the design of the instrument. RESULTS: Each health professional generated 10-15 questions addressing musculoskeletal complaints that they considered to be the most relevant. A total of 60 questions were listed. During the reduction step, each health professional scored questions from 1 to 4 according to the question's relevance. The tool comprised 12 questions and was administered to the parents of 3 groups: patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA; n = 48), children with diffuse musculoskeletal pain (n = 39), and a healthy control group (n = 42). The JIA group achieved the highest scores, followed by the diffuse musculoskeletal pain group and the control group. Nine (18.7%) of 48 patients with JIA and 2 (5.1%) of 39 children with musculoskeletal pain had a score of 5. The interobserver reproducibility was confirmed. All 12 questions were included in the final version of the instrument. We determined that children and adolescents with a score > or =5 should be referred for a rheumatologic evaluation (cluster analysis and logistic regression). CONCLUSION: Our questionnaire seems to be a useful tool for the early detection of musculoskeletal problems in children that may need a referral for a rheumatologic evaluation.
Subject(s)
Arthritis, Juvenile/diagnosis , Mass Screening/methods , Pediatrics/methods , Referral and Consultation , Rheumatology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adolescent , Arthritis, Juvenile/physiopathology , Child , Child, Preschool , Early Diagnosis , Family Practice , Humans , Infant , Pain/diagnosis , Pain/physiopathology , Predictive Value of TestsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To study the incidence of urinary lithiasis and metabolic alterations among male employees from a steel industry who were exposed to high temperatures in the work environment. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed and consisted of two stages. First, the incidence of urolithiasis among the industry's 10,326 employees was assessed. These employees were divided into two group's: group 1 (n = 1289) consisted of the hot-area workers (temperature greater than 45 degrees C) and group 2 (n = 9037) consisted of those working in areas at room temperature. In the second stage, 59 workers without urolithiasis who underwent a metabolic evaluation were divided into two group's: group 3 (n = 34) consisted of hot-area workers and group 4 (n = 25) consisted of those working in areas at room temperature. Evaluations were made of calcium, creatinine, and uric acid in serum; in the 24-hour urine samples, we assessed the volume, calcium, uric acid, citrate, and oxalate. RESULTS: Of the 10,326 workers, 181 (1.75%) had presented with at least one episode of urinary stones. Of these, 103 were among the hot-area workers (8.0%) and 78 among the room-temperature workers (0.9%; P <0.001). The metabolic evaluation showed that the hot-area group (group 3), compared with the room-temperature group (group 4), presented more frequently with hypocitraturia (55.8% versus 28%, P = 0.03) and low urinary volume (79.4% versus 48%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Workers exposed to high temperatures presented with a ninefold risk of lithiasis. Hypocitraturia and low urine volumes were the metabolic alterations observed.
