Zaror Carlos, Muñoz-Millán Patricia, Espinoza-Espinoza Gerardo, Vergara-González Carolina, Martínez-Zapata María José
Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile; Center for Research in Epidemiology, Economics and Oral Public Health (CIEESPO), Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile.
Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile; Center for Research in Epidemiology, Economics and Oral Public Health (CIEESPO), Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
J Dent. 2020 Jul;98:103374. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103374. Epub 2020 May 13.
Evidence of the cost-effectiveness of fluoride varnish in the prevention of caries is not yet fully conclusive. The aim of this study was to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the community-wide application of fluoride varnish in the prevention of early childhood caries (ECC) in non-fluoridated areas.
A cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out based on a clinical decision tree from the payer's perspective. The effectiveness and cost of the varnish were determined from a two-year follow-up triple-blind randomized control trial in 275 two- to three-year-old children. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per year. Only direct costs were evaluated, expressed in Chilean pesos (CLP) valued in July, 2019 (exchange rate USD = CLP686.06). A univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis was carried out.
Incidence of ECC was 45 % for the varnish group and 55.6 % for the placebo group with a two-year follow-up. The weighted cost to intervene and treat the consequences of ECC was CLP 67,757 (USD98.76) for the fluoride varnish and CLP 67,739 (USD98.74) for the control group. The ICER was CLP 173 (USD0.25) for each extra healthy child in favor of fluoride varnish. The sensitivity analysis showed that the increase in caries was the variable which most influenced the ICER.
The protocol that included fluoride varnish is more effective and less costly in the prevention of ECC in non-fluoridated areas, compared with a placebo.
Findings support the application of fluoride varnish as a cost-effective community strategy to prevent ECC in non-fluoridated areas.
氟化物涂膜预防龋齿成本效益的证据尚未完全确凿。本研究旨在评估在非氟化地区社区范围内应用氟化物涂膜预防幼儿龋齿(ECC)的增量成本效益比(ICER)。
基于支付方视角的临床决策树进行成本效益分析。氟化物涂膜的有效性和成本通过对275名2至3岁儿童进行的为期两年的三盲随机对照试验确定。成本和效益按每年3%进行贴现。仅评估直接成本,以2019年7月智利比索(CLP)计价(汇率:1美元 = CLP686.06)。进行了单变量确定性敏感性分析。
经过两年随访,氟化物涂膜组的ECC发病率为45%,安慰剂组为55.6%。干预和治疗ECC后果的加权成本,氟化物涂膜组为CLP 67,757(98.76美元),对照组为CLP 67,739(98.74美元)。每多产生一名健康儿童,支持氟化物涂膜的ICER为CLP 173(0.25美元)。敏感性分析表明,龋齿增加是对ICER影响最大的变量。
与安慰剂相比,包含氟化物涂膜的方案在非氟化地区预防ECC方面更有效且成本更低。
研究结果支持将氟化物涂膜作为一种具有成本效益的社区策略应用于非氟化地区预防ECC。