Resumen: El objetivo de este estudio fue estimar el coste-efectividad de cuatro terapéuticas disponibles para la leishmaniasis mucosa en Brasil: miltefosina, antimoniato de meglumina, asociado con y sin pentoxifilina, y anfotericina B liposomal. La perspectiva adoptada fue la del Sistema Único de Salud brasileño (SUS). El resultado de interés fue el “paciente curado”, que se analizó mediante un modelo de árbol de decisión. Las estimaciones de costes directos y efectividad se obtuvieron de la literatura científica. El antimoniato de meglumina aislado fue la estrategia de comparación de referencia; el anfotericina B liposomal tuvo una razón coste-efectividad incremental (RCEI) de USD 7.409,13 por paciente curado, y la combinación de antimoniato de meglumina con pentoxifilina tuvo una RCEI de USD 85,13. Predominó la miltefosina, con un coste más elevado y una eficacia similar en comparación con la de antimoniato de meglumina. Los análisis de sensibilidad que variaron el coste en ±25% no alteraron los resultados. Sin embargo, cuando el coste de la miltefosina se estimó en menos de USD 171,23, esta estrategia resultó dominante sobre la antimoniato de meglumina aislada. Los resultados confirman que el tratamiento con anfotericina B liposomal sigue siendo la opción con el RCEI más elevado entre las terapéuticas evaluadas. A su vez, la miltefosina puede ser coste-efectiva en función de la variación del precio de compra, lo que merece atención al ser la única opción oral disponible. La falta de consideración de otros aspectos impide el uso inmediato de estos resultados para subvencionar la toma de decisiones, pero también apunta a la necesidad de negociar los precios de los fármacos disponibles para leishmaniasis mucosa y de fomentar la transferencia de tecnología u otras acciones dirigidas a ampliar el papel del sector industrial nacional. Resumen costeefectividad Brasil SUS. SUS . (SUS) curado , curado” decisión científica referencia (RCEI 740913 7 409 13 7.409,1 8513 85 85,13 25 ±25 embargo 17123 171 23 171,23 aislada evaluadas vez costeefectiva efectiva compra disponible decisiones nacional (SUS 74091 40 1 7.409, 851 8 85,1 2 ±2 1712 17 171,2 7409 4 7.409 85, ± 171, 740 7.40 74 7.4 7.

Resumo: O objetivo deste estudo foi estimar o custo-efetividade de quatro abordagens terapêuticas disponíveis para leishmaniose mucosa no Brasil: miltefosina, antimoniato de meglumina, com e sem associação à pentoxifilina e anfotericina B lipossomal. A perspectiva adotada foi a do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). O desfecho de interesse foi “paciente curado”, que foi analisado por meio de um modelo de árvore de decisão. Estimativas de custos diretos e efetividade foram obtidas da literatura científica. O antimoniato de meglumina isolado foi a estratégia de comparação de base; a anfotericina B lipossomal apresentou razão de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) de USD 7.409,13 por paciente curado, e a combinação de antimoniato de meglumina com pentoxifilina apresentou RCEI de USD 85,13. A miltefosina foi dominada, com maior custo e efetividade semelhante quando comparada àquelas do antimoniato de meglumina. As análises de sensibilidade, variando o custo em ±25%, não alteraram os resultados. No entanto, quando o custo da miltefosina foi estimado em menos de USD 171,23, essa estratégia foi dominante sobre o antimoniato de meglumina isolado. Os resultados confirmam que o tratamento com anfotericina B lipossomal continua sendo a opção com maior RCEI entre as abordagens analisadas. Por sua vez, a miltefosina pode ser custo-efetiva com base na variação do preço de aquisição, o que merece atenção por ser a única opção oral disponível. A não consideração de outros aspectos impede o uso imediato desses resultados para subsidiar a tomada de decisão, mas apontam a necessidade de negociação dos preços dos medicamentos disponíveis para a leishmaniose mucosa e indicam a necessidade de incentivar a transferência de tecnologia ou outras ações que visem ampliar a atuação do complexo industrial nacional. Resumo custoefetividade Brasil SUS. SUS . (SUS) curado , curado” decisão científica (RCEI 740913 7 409 13 7.409,1 8513 85 85,13 dominada sensibilidade 25 ±25% entanto 17123 171 23 171,23 analisadas vez custoefetiva efetiva aquisição disponível nacional (SUS 74091 40 1 7.409, 851 8 85,1 2 ±25 1712 17 171,2 7409 4 7.409 85, ±2 171, 740 7.40 ± 74 7.4 7.

Abstract: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of four therapeutic approaches available for mucosal leishmaniasis in Brazil: miltefosine, meglumine antimoniate, combined with and without pentoxifylline, and liposomal amphotericin B. The perspective adopted was that of the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). The outcome of interest was “cured patient”, which was analyzed using a decision tree model. Estimates of direct costs and effectiveness were obtained from the scientific literature. Meglumine antimoniate alone was the base comparator strategy; liposomal amphotericin B showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 7,409.13 per cured patient, and the combination of meglumine antimoniate with pentoxifylline presented an ICER of USD 85.13. Miltefosine was absolutely dominated, with higher cost and similar effectiveness when compared to meglumine antimoniate. Sensitivity analyses, varying the cost by ±25%, did not change the results. However, when the cost of miltefosine was estimated at less than USD 171.23, this strategy was dominant over meglumine antimoniate alone. The results confirm that treatment with liposomal amphotericin B remains the option with the highest ICER among the approaches analyzed. Miltefosine may be cost-effective based on the variation in the acquisition price, which deserves attention because it is the only available oral option. The non-accounting of other aspects prevent the use of these results immediately to support decision-making, but they point out the need to negotiate the prices of drugs available for mucosal leishmaniasis and indicates the need of encouraging technology transfer or other actions aimed at expanding the performance of the Brazilian national industrial complex. Abstract costeffectiveness Brazil SUS. SUS . (SUS) patient , patient” model literature (ICER 740913 7 409 13 7,409.1 8513 85 85.13 dominated analyses 25 ±25% However 17123 171 23 171.23 costeffective effective price nonaccounting non accounting decisionmaking, decisionmaking making, making decision-making complex (SUS 74091 40 1 7,409. 851 8 85.1 2 ±25 1712 17 171.2 7409 4 7,409 85. ±2 171. 740 7,40 ± 74 7,4 7,

Resumen: El objetivo de este estudio fue estimar el coste-efectividad de cuatro terapéuticas disponibles para la leishmaniasis mucosa en Brasil: miltefosina, antimoniato de meglumina, asociado con y sin pentoxifilina, y anfotericina B liposomal. La perspectiva adoptada fue la del Sistema Único de Salud brasileño (SUS). El resultado de interés fue el “paciente curado”, que se analizó mediante un modelo de árbol de decisión. Las estimaciones de costes directos y efectividad se obtuvieron de la literatura científica. El antimoniato de meglumina aislado fue la estrategia de comparación de referencia; el anfotericina B liposomal tuvo una razón coste-efectividad incremental (RCEI) de USD 7.409,13 por paciente curado, y la combinación de antimoniato de meglumina con pentoxifilina tuvo una RCEI de USD 85,13. Predominó la miltefosina, con un coste más elevado y una eficacia similar en comparación con la de antimoniato de meglumina. Los análisis de sensibilidad que variaron el coste en ±25% no alteraron los resultados. Sin embargo, cuando el coste de la miltefosina se estimó en menos de USD 171,23, esta estrategia resultó dominante sobre la antimoniato de meglumina aislada. Los resultados confirman que el tratamiento con anfotericina B liposomal sigue siendo la opción con el RCEI más elevado entre las terapéuticas evaluadas. A su vez, la miltefosina puede ser coste-efectiva en función de la variación del precio de compra, lo que merece atención al ser la única opción oral disponible. La falta de consideración de otros aspectos impide el uso inmediato de estos resultados para subvencionar la toma de decisiones, pero también apunta a la necesidad de negociar los precios de los fármacos disponibles para leishmaniasis mucosa y de fomentar la transferencia de tecnología u otras acciones dirigidas a ampliar el papel del sector industrial nacional.

Abstract: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of four therapeutic approaches available for mucosal leishmaniasis in Brazil: miltefosine, meglumine antimoniate, combined with and without pentoxifylline, and liposomal amphotericin B. The perspective adopted was that of the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). The outcome of interest was “cured patient”, which was analyzed using a decision tree model. Estimates of direct costs and effectiveness were obtained from the scientific literature. Meglumine antimoniate alone was the base comparator strategy; liposomal amphotericin B showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 7,409.13 per cured patient, and the combination of meglumine antimoniate with pentoxifylline presented an ICER of USD 85.13. Miltefosine was absolutely dominated, with higher cost and similar effectiveness when compared to meglumine antimoniate. Sensitivity analyses, varying the cost by ±25%, did not change the results. However, when the cost of miltefosine was estimated at less than USD 171.23, this strategy was dominant over meglumine antimoniate alone. The results confirm that treatment with liposomal amphotericin B remains the option with the highest ICER among the approaches analyzed. Miltefosine may be cost-effective based on the variation in the acquisition price, which deserves attention because it is the only available oral option. The non-accounting of other aspects prevent the use of these results immediately to support decision-making, but they point out the need to negotiate the prices of drugs available for mucosal leishmaniasis and indicates the need of encouraging technology transfer or other actions aimed at expanding the performance of the Brazilian national industrial complex.

Resumo: O objetivo deste estudo foi estimar o custo-efetividade de quatro abordagens terapêuticas disponíveis para leishmaniose mucosa no Brasil: miltefosina, antimoniato de meglumina, com e sem associação à pentoxifilina e anfotericina B lipossomal. A perspectiva adotada foi a do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). O desfecho de interesse foi “paciente curado”, que foi analisado por meio de um modelo de árvore de decisão. Estimativas de custos diretos e efetividade foram obtidas da literatura científica. O antimoniato de meglumina isolado foi a estratégia de comparação de base; a anfotericina B lipossomal apresentou razão de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) de USD 7.409,13 por paciente curado, e a combinação de antimoniato de meglumina com pentoxifilina apresentou RCEI de USD 85,13. A miltefosina foi dominada, com maior custo e efetividade semelhante quando comparada àquelas do antimoniato de meglumina. As análises de sensibilidade, variando o custo em ±25%, não alteraram os resultados. No entanto, quando o custo da miltefosina foi estimado em menos de USD 171,23, essa estratégia foi dominante sobre o antimoniato de meglumina isolado. Os resultados confirmam que o tratamento com anfotericina B lipossomal continua sendo a opção com maior RCEI entre as abordagens analisadas. Por sua vez, a miltefosina pode ser custo-efetiva com base na variação do preço de aquisição, o que merece atenção por ser a única opção oral disponível. A não consideração de outros aspectos impede o uso imediato desses resultados para subsidiar a tomada de decisão, mas apontam a necessidade de negociação dos preços dos medicamentos disponíveis para a leishmaniose mucosa e indicam a necessidade de incentivar a transferência de tecnologia ou outras ações que visem ampliar a atuação do complexo industrial nacional.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to estimate the direct medical costs of the treatment for mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) using three therapeutic approaches in the Brazilian context. METHODS: We performed this economic assessment from the perspective of the Brazilian public healthcare system. The following therapeutic approaches were evaluated: meglumine antimoniate, liposomal amphotericin B, and miltefosine. Direct medical costs were estimated considering four treatment components: a) drug, b) combined medical products, c) procedures, and d) complementary tests. RESULTS: Treatment with meglumine antimoniate had the lowest average cost per patient (US$ 167.66), followed by miltefosine (US$ 259.92) in the outpatient treatment regimen. The average cost of treatment with liposomal amphotericin B was US$ 715.35 both in inpatient regimen. In all estimates, the drugs accounted for more than 60% of the total cost for each treatment approach. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the marked differences in costs between the therapeutic alternatives for ML. In addition to efficacy rates and costs related to adverse events, our data have the potential to support a complete cost-effectiveness study in the future. Complete analyses comparing costs and benefits for interventions will assist health managers in choosing drugs for ML treatment in Brazil as well as in establishing effective public health policies.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Pentavalent antimonials (Sbv) are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of mucosal leishmaniasis (ML), despite their high toxicity and only moderate efficacy. The aim of this study was to report therapeutic responses with different available options for ML. METHODS This study was based on a review of clinical records of 35 patients (24 men and 11 women) treated between 2009 and 2015. RESULTS The median age of patients was 63 years, and the median duration of the disease was 24 months. Seventeen patients received Sbv, while nine patients were treated with liposomal amphotericin B (AmB), and another nine patients were treated with fluconazole. Patients treated with AmB received a total median accumulated dose of 2550mg. The mean duration of azole use was 120 days, and the daily dose ranged from 450 to 900mg. At the three-month follow-up visit, the cure rate was 35%, 67%, and 22% for Sbv, AmB, and azole groups, respectively. At the six-month follow-up visit, the cure rates for Sbv, AmB, and azole groups were 71%, 78%, and 33%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS There is a scarcity of effective ML treatment alternatives, and based on our observations, fluconazole is not a valid treatment option.

BACKGROUND Despite its recognised toxicity, antimonial therapy continues to be the first-line drug for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) treatment. Intralesional administration of meglumine antimoniate (MA) represents an alternative that could reduce the systemic absorption of the drug and its side effects. OBJECTIVES This study aims to validate the standard operational procedure (SOP) for the intralesional infiltration of MA for CL therapy as the first step before the assessment of efficacy and safety related to the procedure. METHODS The SOP was created based on 21 trials retrieved from the literature, direct monitoring of the procedure and consultation with experts. This script was submitted to a formal computer-aided inspection to identify readability, clarity, omission, redundancy and unnecessary information (content validation). For criterion and construct validations, the influence of critical condition changes (compliance with the instructions and professional experience) on outcome conformity (saturation status achievement), tolerability (pain referred) and safety (bleeding) were assessed. FINDINGS The median procedure length was 12 minutes and in 72% of them, patients classified the pain as mild. The bleeding was also classified as mild in 96.6% of the procedures. Full compliance with the SOP was observed in 66% of infiltrations. Despite this, in 100% of the inspected procedures, lesion saturation was observed at the end of infiltration, which means that it tolerates some degree of modification in its execution (robustness) without prejudice to the result. CONCLUSIONS The procedure is reproducible and can be used by professionals without previous training with high success and safety rates.