Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2014 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Nunes, Sheila Elke Araújo
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Soares, Cristiana Maria Toscano
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Soares, Cristiana Maria Toscano,
Souza, Marta Rovery de,
Fernandes, Elizabeth Nunes,
Turchi, Marília Dalva,
Itria, Alexander |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal de Goiás
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-graduação em Medicina Tropical e Saúde Publica (IPTSP)
|
| Departamento: |
Instituto de Patologia Tropical e Saúde Pública - IPTSP (RG)
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/tede/handle/tede/7547
|
Resumo: |
Introduction: Estimate the costs of treatment of pneumococcal diseases can aid the understanding of reduced economic burden of these after introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), as run in Brazil, in March 2010, which introduced the PCV10 valiant in the National Program Immunization (NPI) for children between 2 and 23 months of age. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) before the introduction indicated that the vaccine was cost-effective (R $ 24.930 / Daly avoided - Disability Adjusted Life Years), in the SUS perspective. Disease burden and the cost of the vaccine were identified as the main drivers of the results for sensitivity analysis. Objectives: Estimate the costs of pneumococcal disease and to evaluate the ratio of incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of implementing the PCV-10 brave after introduction into INP Brazil. Methods: Three steps have been performed in the SUS perspective: 1) cost of illness study: medical charts of children 28 days to 35 months of age hospitalized with clinical suspicion of bacterial pneumonia were reviewed to estimate the costs of pneumonia and to other syndromes costs were estimated by therapeutic guidelines; 2) comparison between the three methods of funding: (i) bottom-up / micro-costing by chart review; (ii) top-down / micro-costing through therapeutic guidelines; and (iii) top-down / gross-costing, through reimbursement paid by the SUS. 3) CEA: the strategy to vaccinate with PCV-10 was compared to the non-vaccination. The model used was the PneuModel. In acute otitis media from all causes, pneumococcal meningitis, pneumococcal sepsis and pneumococcal pneumonia were considered. Costs were obtained by microcusteio, epidemiological data from primary studies of population-based, dose costs and vaccination coverage in INP. The discount rate was 5%. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness and variability of the model parameters. Results: The cost of study of hospitalized pneumonia records of 52 cases of severe pneumonia and 7 of very serious pneumonia were reviewed. Statistical analyzes of severe pneumonia data revealed that there is difference between the costing methodologies (p=0,015) and to compare the estimated costs by these methods there was no difference between the cost of compensation and the cost for therapeutic guideline (p=0,241). At ACE, annually, vaccination with PCV-10 would prevent 3,942 cases of the disease and 16,514 years of life lost in a cohort of children <1 year. The ICER was R $ 14,230 per DALY averted. In sensitivity analysis, the model was sensitive to variations in incidence and mortality of pneumonia and pneumococcal meningitis. Conclusions: The cost for therapy guideline, uncommonly used in disease cost estimates, was an alternative to funding for compensation, heavily used technique and lower accuracy. After introduction of ICER, using primary data revealed that PCV-10 is a low-cost intervention, as suggested by WHO (<1GDP / per capita - in Brazil, in 2010, US $ 10.933) and, ICER less than previous ACE. Despite uncertainties in critical parameters of the model, using secondary data, ACE can provide evidence to support decision making. After the implementation analysis can result in more accurate estimates and provide evidence to continue vaccination. |
