IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0005459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of meglumine antimoniate versus miltefosine caregiver DOT for the treatment of pediatric cutaneous leishmaniasis

Author

Listed:
  • Brandon A Berger
  • Alexandra Cossio
  • Nancy Gore Saravia
  • Maria del Mar Castro
  • Sergio Prada
  • Allison H Bartlett
  • Mai T Pho

Abstract

Background: Oral miltefosine has been shown to be non-inferior to first-line, injectable meglumine antimoniate (MA) for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) in children. Miltefosine may be administered via in-home caregiver Directly Observed Therapy (cDOT), while patients must travel to clinics to receive MA. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing miltefosine by cDOT versus MA for pediatric CL in southwest Colombia. Methodology/Principle findings: We developed a Monte Carlo model comparing the cost-per-cure of miltefosine by cDOT compared to MA from patient, government payer, and societal perspectives (societal = sum of patient and government payer perspective costs). Drug effectiveness and adverse events were estimated from clinical trials. Healthcare utilization and costs of travel were obtained from surveys of providers and published sources. The primary outcome was cost-per-cure reported in 2015 USD. Treatment efficacy, costs, and adherence were varied in sensitivity analysis to assess robustness of results. Treatment with miltefosine resulted in substantially lower cost-per-cure from a societal and patient perspective, and slightly higher cost-per-cure from a government payer perspective compared to MA. Mean societal cost-per-cure were $531 (SD±$239) for MA and $188 (SD±$100) for miltefosine, a mean cost-per-cure difference of +$343. Mean cost-per-cure from a patient perspective were $442 (SD ±$233) for MA and $30 (SD±$16) for miltefosine, a mean difference of +$412. Mean cost-per-cure from a government perspective were $89 (SD±$55) for MA and $158 (SD±$98) for miltefosine, with a mean difference of -$69. Results were robust across a variety of assumptions in univariate and multi-way analysis. Conclusions/Significance: Treatment of pediatric cutaneous leishmaniasis with miltefosine via cDOT is cost saving from patient and societal perspectives, and moderately more costly from the government payer perspective compared to treatment with MA. Results were robust over a range of sensitivity analyses. Lower drug price for miltefosine could result in cost saving from a government perspective. Author summary: Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a tropical parasitic disease transmitted by sand flies that causes chronic skin and mucosal ulcers. Current standard of care therapy requires patients to travel to a clinic for twenty consecutive days for injections of meglumine antimoniate (MA). This may represent an economic burden, particularly for patients living far from healthcare services, especially children and their caregivers. We performed mathematical modeling to compare costs of the standard of care treatment with costs of miltefosine, an equivalently efficacious oral medication that allows pediatric patients to be treated at home under trained supervision of a caregiver. In our model, miltefosine led to substantially lower costs for patients and only slightly higher costs to the healthcare system. Importantly, the cost to society (combined patient and healthcare system costs) was lower for miltefosine compared to MA. Treatment of pediatric CL with miltefosine in the patient’s home could decrease overall cost of treatment, while diminishing the barriers and cost burden on patients, their caregivers, and society.

Suggested Citation

  • Brandon A Berger & Alexandra Cossio & Nancy Gore Saravia & Maria del Mar Castro & Sergio Prada & Allison H Bartlett & Mai T Pho, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of meglumine antimoniate versus miltefosine caregiver DOT for the treatment of pediatric cutaneous leishmaniasis," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0005459
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0005459
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0005459&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005459?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Endi Lanza Galvão & Mariana Junqueira Pedras & Gláucia Fernandes Cota & Ana Rabello & Taynãna César Simões, 2019. "How cutaneous leishmaniasis and treatment impacts in the patients’ lives: A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0005459. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.