IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v9y2019i1d10.1186_s13561-019-0230-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of OM-85 vs placebo in the prevention of acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in children that attend day-care centers

Author

Listed:
  • Arturo Berber

    (Fundación para el Avance de la Ciencia)

  • Blanca Estela Del-Rio-Navarro

    (Hospital Infantil de Mexico “Federico Gomez”)

Abstract

Background Children that attend day-care centers frequently contract acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). ARTIs represent a burden for both children and parents. Systematic reviews on the use of immunostimulants for the prevention of juvenile recurrent ARTIs have provided moderate evidence of efficacy and safety. The aim of the study was to establish whether the immunostimulant, OM-85, was cost-effective in preventing ARTIs in children 2–6 years old that attended day-care centers or preschools in Mexico. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of OM-85. For costs, we assumed an institutional perspective, which included the costs of care and supplies over a study period of six months, during the autumn-winter seasons. We created decision trees and constructed a model to identify pharmacoeconomic parameters. We generated 1000 estimations with the bootstrap method to calculate descriptive statistics of pharmacoeconomic parameters. We evaluated cost-effectiveness compared to treatment without immunostimulants. Results The mean (SD) incidences of ARTIs were 5.59 ± 0.29 without immunostimulants and 2.97 ± 0.32 with OM-85, during the study period. The mean (25th, 75th percentile) direct costs of ARTIs were 57.04 (37.11, 76.39) US$ (US dollars) without immunostimulants and 48.53 (37.35, 58.93) US$ with OM-85, with a mean increment of − 8.51(− 17.08, 0.75) US$, and a mean cost-effectiveness of − 17.94 (− 36.48, 1.66) US$. The direct costs plus the cost of one parent missing work to care for the child with ARTI were 125.76 (102.83, 150.16) US$, without immunostimulant and 85.21 (72.15, 98.81) US$, with OM-85. The increment was − 40.55 (− 68.29, − 13.95) US$, and the cost-effectiveness was − 86.89 (− 142.37, − 29.34) US$.Part of the cost reduction was ascribed to the reduced use of medications, particularly antibiotics. Conclusions Our results were consistent with previous clinical studies conducted in closed institutions in Mexico. OM-85 reduced the number of ARTIs and the frequency of antibiotics use. We concluded that OM-85 was cost-effective for preventing ARTIs in children that attended day-care centers, particularly when parental absenteeism was covered by the institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Arturo Berber & Blanca Estela Del-Rio-Navarro, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of OM-85 vs placebo in the prevention of acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in children that attend day-care centers," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:9:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-019-0230-1
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-019-0230-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-019-0230-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-019-0230-1?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
    ---><---

    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:spr:hecrev:v:9:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-019-0230-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.