IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0224351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Mucosal Leishmaniasis diagnosis with PCR-based vs parasitological tests in Colombia

Author

Listed:
  • Liliana Castillo-Rodríguez
  • Clemencia Ovalle-Bracho
  • Diana Díaz-Jiménez
  • Guillermo Sánchez-Vanegas
  • Sandra Muvdi-Arenas
  • Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela

Abstract

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of available diagnosis alternatives for Mucosal Leishmaniasis (ML) in Colombian suspected patients. A simulation model of the disease’s natural history was built with a decision tree and Markov models. The model´s parameters were identified by systematic review and validated by expert consensus. A bottom-up cost analysis to estimate the costs of diagnostic strategies and treatment per case was performed by reviewing 48 clinical records of patients diagnosed with ML. The diagnostic strategies compared were as follows: 1) no diagnosis; 2) parasite culture, biopsy, indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA), and Montenegro skin test (MST) combined ; 3) parasite culture, biopsy, and IFA combined; 4) PCR-miniexon; and 5) PCR-kDNA. Three scenarios were modeled in patients with ML clinical suspicion, according to ML prevalence scenarios: high, medium and low. Adjusted sensitivity and specificity parameters of a combination of diagnostic tests were estimated with a discrete event simulation (DES) model. For each alternative, the costs and health outcomes were estimated. The time horizon was life expectancy, considering the average age at diagnosis of 31 years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated per Disability Life Year (DALY) avoided, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A threshold of willingness to pay (WTP) of three-time gross domestic product per capita (GDPpc) (US$ 15,795) and a discount rate of 3% was considered. The analysis perspective was the third payer (Health System). All costs were reported in American dollars as of 2015. PCR- kDNA was the cost-effective alternative in clinical suspicion levels: low, medium and high with ICERs of US$ 7,909.39, US$ 5,559.33 and US$ 4,458.92 per DALY avoided, respectively. ML diagnostic tests based on PCR are cost-effective strategies, regardless of the level of clinical suspicion. PCR-kDNA was the most cost-effective strategy in the competitive scenario with the parameters included in the present model.

Suggested Citation

  • Liliana Castillo-Rodríguez & Clemencia Ovalle-Bracho & Diana Díaz-Jiménez & Guillermo Sánchez-Vanegas & Sandra Muvdi-Arenas & Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of Mucosal Leishmaniasis diagnosis with PCR-based vs parasitological tests in Colombia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224351
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224351
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224351
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224351&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0224351?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Filip Meheus & Manica Balasegaram & Piero Olliaro & Shyam Sundar & Suman Rijal & Md Abul Faiz & Marleen Boelaert, 2010. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Combination Therapies for Visceral Leishmaniasis in the Indian Subcontinent," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(9), pages 1-9, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224351. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.