Estimating direct costs of the treatment for mucosal leishmaniasis in Brazil

Abstract INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to estimate the direct medical costs of the treatment for mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) using three therapeutic approaches in the Brazilian context. METHODS: We performed this economic assessment from the perspective of the Brazilian public healthc...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
Main Authors: Janaína de Pina Carvalho, Tália Machado de Assis, Taynãna César Simões, Gláucia Cota
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT) 2021
Subjects:
Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis
Cost analysis
Drug therapy
Meglumine antimoniate
Liposomal amphotericin B
Miltefosine
Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine
RC955-962
Arctic
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0454-2020
https://doaj.org/article/1228ddf1e88744b0acf71cbf61ee9e17
Description
Summary:Abstract INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to estimate the direct medical costs of the treatment for mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) using three therapeutic approaches in the Brazilian context. METHODS: We performed this economic assessment from the perspective of the Brazilian public healthcare system. The following therapeutic approaches were evaluated: meglumine antimoniate, liposomal amphotericin B, and miltefosine. Direct medical costs were estimated considering four treatment components: a) drug, b) combined medical products, c) procedures, and d) complementary tests. RESULTS: Treatment with meglumine antimoniate had the lowest average cost per patient (US$ 167.66), followed by miltefosine (US$ 259.92) in the outpatient treatment regimen. The average cost of treatment with liposomal amphotericin B was US$ 715.35 both in inpatient regimen. In all estimates, the drugs accounted for more than 60% of the total cost for each treatment approach. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the marked differences in costs between the therapeutic alternatives for ML. In addition to efficacy rates and costs related to adverse events, our data have the potential to support a complete cost-effectiveness study in the future. Complete analyses comparing costs and benefits for interventions will assist health managers in choosing drugs for ML treatment in Brazil as well as in establishing effective public health policies.

Similar Items