IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0007856.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intralesional infiltration versus parenteral use of meglumine antimoniate for treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Nayara C Brito
  • Tália S Machado de Assis
  • Ana Rabello
  • Gláucia Cota

Abstract

Cutaneous leishmaniasis (LC) is a complex and variable disease in terms of epidemiology, aetiology, pathology and clinical characteristics. The mainstay of treatment is still pentavalent antimony (Sbv) compounds administered systemically, despite their recognized toxicity. The advantages of antimony intralesional (IL) infiltration are the use of lower doses of Sbv and, therefore, less toxic effects. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness ratio of intralesional meglumine antimoniate therapy (IL-MA) compared with endovenous meglumine antimoniate therapy (EV-MA) for the treatment of CL in the context of the Brazilian National Health System (SUS). An analytical decision model (decision tree) was developed using TreeAge Pro 2018 software. Data from the open-label, uncontrolled phase II clinical trial evaluating IL-MA were used as a reference for posology, efficacy, and adverse event rates (AE). The same premises for the intravenous approach (EV-MA) were extracted from systematic literature reviews. Macro and micro calculations of spending were included in the analysis. The IL-MA and EV-MA strategies had a total cost per patient cured of US$330.81 and US$494.16, respectively. The intralesional approach was dominant, meaning it was more economic and effective than was endovenous therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that IL-MA could result in savings of US$864.37 for each additional patient cured, confirming that the IL-MA strategy is cost effective in the context of the Brazilian public health scenario.Author summary: Cutaneous leishmaniasis (LC) is a parasitic disease characterized by a non-fatal evolution but marked by significant morbidity resulting from lesions that are usually ulcerated, sometimes disfiguring, and distributed in exposed areas of the body. Pentavalent antimony compounds administered systemically (EV) are still considered the pillars of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) treatment despite its high toxicity. Other therapeutic approaches, including the intralesional infiltration of antimony derivatives have been proposed as an alternative as effective as the systemic route. In this study we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of the meglumine antimoniate intralesional treatment (IL-MA) compared to systemic therapy with the same drug, from the perspective of the main source of pay in Brazil, Brazilian Public Health System (SUS). This is the first cost-effectiveness study evaluating the IL-MA approach compared to MA endovenously for the treatment of CL. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the incremental costs per patient cured. In our model, IL-MA was more effective and led to substantially lower costs for the public health system. Analytical decision model showed that the IL-MA therapy could represent a cost saving of approximately US$ 877.64 per additional patient cured compared with the endovenous route, representing the more cost-effectiveness approach for treatment of selected CL cases in Brazil.

Suggested Citation

  • Nayara C Brito & Tália S Machado de Assis & Ana Rabello & Gláucia Cota, 2019. "Intralesional infiltration versus parenteral use of meglumine antimoniate for treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis: A cost-effectiveness analysis," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0007856
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007856
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0007856
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0007856&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007856?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
    ---><---

    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:pntd00:0007856. 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.