Cost-effectiveness of a trap tocapture the dengue adult vector in the context of the Public Health         System in Brazi...
Figure 2: Dengue incidence between 2001 and 2011 in Salvador, Bahia and Brazil. IntroductionFigure 1: Distribution of Deng...
Introduction Dengue’s impact on health services, society and  country’s economy. National Dengue Control Plan (PNCD) (Mi...
Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of:   Trap to capture the dengue adult vector+    Usual program (Interventi...
Materials and Method Time horizon: 2011; Public Health System perspective: direct medical  costs Population: children a...
Materials and Method - CostsHealth Care Cost All stages of the disease progression (MH, 2011) Direct medical costs: diag...
Materials and Method - CostsHealth Care Cost All stages of the disease progression (MH, 2011) Direct medical costs: diag...
Materials and Method - CostsHealth Care Cost All stages of the disease progression (MH, 2011) Direct medical costs: diag...
Materials and MethodEffectiveness Prevented dengue casesCost-Effectiveness Decision tree analytical modelSensitivity Ana...
ResultsTable 1: Total cost (USD) of dengue treatment, according to riskclassification, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 2011.Costs...
ResultsTable 2: Dengue cases, total cost and cost average case (USD), in theintervention and control areas, Salvador, Bahi...
ResultsTable 3: Cost-Effectiveness (C/E), Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio(ICER) and Sensitivity Analysis of control a...
Conclusion Trap was effective Control area was dominated However, the sensitivity analysis showed that  the ICER varied...
Bibliographical References1. BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Banco de Dados do Sistema Único deSaúde – DATASUS. http://www2.d...
Contacts: fabianaraynal@hotmail.com           Web site:  http://www.inct-citecs.ufba.brhttp://www.isc.ufba.br/index.phphtt...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cost-effectiveness of a trap to capture the dengue adult vector in the context of the Public Health System in Brazil. Fabiana Floriano.

861 views

Published on

Cost-effectiveness of a trap to capture the dengue adult vector in the context of the Public Health System in Brazil

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
861
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cost-effectiveness of a trap to capture the dengue adult vector in the context of the Public Health System in Brazil. Fabiana Floriano.

  1. 1. Cost-effectiveness of a trap tocapture the dengue adult vector in the context of the Public Health System in BrazilAuthors: Fabiana Raynal Floriano; Luis Eugenio Portela; Sebastião Loureiro;Martha Teixeira; Gimena M. Santos; Vanessa C.G.S. Morato; Maria da GlóriaTeixeira; Patrícia Barber; Naomar de Almeida Filho
  2. 2. Figure 2: Dengue incidence between 2001 and 2011 in Salvador, Bahia and Brazil. IntroductionFigure 1: Distribution of Dengue around the world, 2005. Source: http://www2.datasus.gov.br/DATASUS/index.phpSource: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/dengue/map-distribution-2005.htm
  3. 3. Introduction Dengue’s impact on health services, society and country’s economy. National Dengue Control Plan (PNCD) (Ministry of Health, 2002). Strategies to eliminate the Aedes aegypti with controversial efficacy new technologies are being developed and applied. Mosquitrap - letal (Intelligent Monitoring System) Source: http://www.ecovec.com/ midengue.php
  4. 4. Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of:  Trap to capture the dengue adult vector+ Usual program (Intervention area)  Usual program of dengue control (Control area).
  5. 5. Materials and Method Time horizon: 2011; Public Health System perspective: direct medical costs Population: children aged 0-14 years Epidemiological indicators:  incidence;  percentage distribution of dengue according to dengue severity. Trap Effectiveness measure: Reduction of the dengue incidence
  6. 6. Materials and Method - CostsHealth Care Cost All stages of the disease progression (MH, 2011) Direct medical costs: diagnostic tests; drugs; service: professional fees and hospitalization
  7. 7. Materials and Method - CostsHealth Care Cost All stages of the disease progression (MH, 2011) Direct medical costs: diagnostic tests; drugs; service: professional fees and hospitalizationTechnology Cost 3,232 traps deployment service monitoring and maintenance services: materials and training
  8. 8. Materials and Method - CostsHealth Care Cost All stages of the disease progression (MH, 2011) Direct medical costs: diagnostic tests; drugs; service: professional fees and hospitalizationTechnology Cost 3,232 traps deployment service monitoring and maintenance services: materials and trainingTotal Cost Control Area: Health Care Cost Intervention Area: Health Care Cost + Technology Cost
  9. 9. Materials and MethodEffectiveness Prevented dengue casesCost-Effectiveness Decision tree analytical modelSensitivity Analysis Effectiveness: highest and lowest dengue incidence, in the last five years, in Salvador
  10. 10. ResultsTable 1: Total cost (USD) of dengue treatment, according to riskclassification, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 2011.Costs of Health Care Group A (%) Group B (%) Group C (%) Group D (%)Direct medical costs Diagnostic tests 201.12 (86.67) 487.93 (90.12) 3,478.98(58.37) 4,911.45 (53.36) Professional fees 11.78 (5.07) 27.26 (5.04) 2,445.69 (41.04) 4,030.96 (43.79)and Hospitalization Drugs 19.17 (8.26) 26.20 (4.84) 35.13 (0.59) 262.65 (2.85)Total Cost of Treatment 232.07 (100) 541.40 (100) 5,959.79 (100) 9,205.06 (100)
  11. 11. ResultsTable 2: Dengue cases, total cost and cost average case (USD), in theintervention and control areas, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 2011. Difference BetweenItens Intervention Area Control Area AreasIncidence 12.73% 14.38% -1.65Dengue Case 69,533 78,545 -9,012Treatment Cost 32,773,670.58 37,021,632.60 - 4,247,962.02Technology Cost 2,770,471.25 0.00 2,770,471.25Total Cost 35,544,141.83 37,021,632.60 - 1,477,490.77Cost Average Case 511.19 471.34 39.85
  12. 12. ResultsTable 3: Cost-Effectiveness (C/E), Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio(ICER) and Sensitivity Analysis of control and interventionareas, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 2011. Cost Effectiveness EffectivenessAreas C/E Cost ICER (C) (E) (Prevented Cases) Intervention 35,544,141.83 69,533 511.19 - 1,477,490.76 -9,012 163.94 Control 37,021,632.60 78,545 471.34Sensitivity Analysis Highest Incidence Intervention 57,118,639.83 115,305 495.37 - 4,283,720.22 -14,966 286.23 Control 61,402,360.04 130,217 471.54 Lowest Incidence Intervention 8,357,184.93 11,853 705.07 2,023,859.75 -1,584 -1,277.68 Control 6,333,325.19 13,437 471.34
  13. 13. Conclusion Trap was effective Control area was dominated However, the sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER varied according to the population’s disease incidence Health managers must consider dengue incidence, before incorporating the trap
  14. 14. Bibliographical References1. BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Banco de Dados do Sistema Único deSaúde – DATASUS. http://www2.datasus.gov.br/DATASUS/index.php.2. BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Programa Nacional de Controle daDengue. MS, FUNASA. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2002. 34p.3. SIGTAP. http://sigtap.datasus.gov.br/tabela-unificada/app/sec/inicio.jsp.4. Banco de Preços do Ministério da Saúde.http://bps.saude.gov.br/login.cfm.5. BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Dengue: diagnóstico e manejo clínico:criança. MS, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde, Departamento deVigilância Epidemiológica. – Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2011. 52p.6. BRASIL. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística – IBGE.http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/.7. BRASIL. Banco Central. Taxa de Câmbio.http://www4.bcb.gov.br/pec/conversao/conversao.asp.8. ECOVEC. M.I. Dengue. http://www.ecovec.com/midengue.php.
  15. 15. Contacts: fabianaraynal@hotmail.com Web site: http://www.inct-citecs.ufba.brhttp://www.isc.ufba.br/index.phphttp://www.pbct.inweb.org.br/pbct/

×