Centro de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico em Saúde, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil; Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sérgio Arouca, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil; National Institute for Science and Technology on Innovation on Neglected Diseases (INCT/IDN), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Centro de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico em Saúde, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil; National Institute for Science and Technology on Innovation on Neglected Diseases (INCT/IDN), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Feb 27;9(2):e0003527. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003527. eCollection 2015 Feb.
The main objective of this study was to identify, describe, classify and analyze the scientific health economic evidence of VL-related technologies.
A web search of combinations of free text and Mesh terms related to the economic evaluation of visceral leishmaniasis was conducted on scientific publication databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Medline via the Pubmed and Lilacs). A manual search of references lists of articles previously identified by the authors was also included. Articles written in English, Portuguese, Spanish or French were considered suitable for inclusion. Articles that matched the inclusion criteria were screened by at least two researchers, who extracted information regarding the epidemiologic scenario and methodological issues on a standardized form.
The initial search retrieved 107 articles, whose abstracts were inspected according to the inclusion criteria leading to a first selection of 49 (46%) articles. After the elimination of duplicates, the list was reduced to 21 (20%) articles. After careful reading and application of exclusion criteria, 14 papers were eligible according to the description, classification and analysis process proposed by the study. When classified by type of economic evaluation, articles were 7 (50%) cost-effectiveness, 5 (36%) cost-minimization, 1(7%) cost-benefit, and 1(7%) budget impact. When classified by methodology, studies were mainly nested to clinical-trials ("piggy back") 8(57%). Discount rates for outcomes and costs were present in 3 (43%) of the cost-effectiveness studies, and according to WHO's recommendations, the discount rate of 3% was used in all studies.
This article showed that health economic evaluations on visceral leishmaniasis used a wide range of technologies and methods. Nevertheless it is important to point out the geographic concentration of studies, which makes their transferability uncertain to different epidemiological scenarios, especially those concerning visceral leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania infantum.
本研究的主要目的是识别、描述、分类和分析与 VL 相关技术的科学卫生经济学证据。
在科学出版物数据库(Web of Science、Scopus、通过 Pubmed 和 Lilacs 检索的 Medline)上,对与内脏利什曼病经济评估相关的自由文本和 Mesh 术语进行了网络搜索。还包括对作者先前确定的文章参考文献列表的手动搜索。考虑纳入英语、葡萄牙语、西班牙语或法语撰写的文章。符合纳入标准的文章至少由两名研究人员进行筛查,他们在标准化表格上提取有关流行病学情况和方法学问题的信息。
最初的搜索检索到 107 篇文章,根据纳入标准检查了这些文章的摘要,从而初步筛选出 49 篇(46%)文章。在消除重复项后,该列表减少到 21 篇(20%)文章。经过仔细阅读和应用排除标准,根据研究提出的描述、分类和分析过程,有 14 篇论文符合条件。按经济评估类型分类,文章为 7 篇(50%)成本效益分析,5 篇(36%)成本最小化分析,1 篇(7%)成本效益分析,1 篇(7%)预算影响分析。按方法学分类,研究主要嵌套在临床试验中(“搭便车”)8 篇(57%)。在 3 项(43%)成本效益研究中,结果和成本都存在折扣率,并且所有研究均按照世卫组织的建议采用 3%的折扣率。
本文表明,内脏利什曼病的卫生经济评估采用了广泛的技术和方法。然而,值得指出的是,研究的地理集中,这使得它们在不同的流行病学情况下的可转移性不确定,特别是那些涉及由利什曼原虫引起的内脏利什曼病的情况。