Eintrag weiter verarbeiten
The cost-effectiveness of ivermectin vs. albendazole in the presumptive treatment of strongyloidiasis in immigrants to the United States
Gespeichert in:
| Zeitschriftentitel: | Epidemiology and Infection |
|---|---|
| Personen und Körperschaften: | , , , |
| In: | Epidemiology and Infection, 132, 2004, 6, S. 1055-1063 |
| Format: | E-Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| veröffentlicht: |
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
|
| Schlagwörter: |
| Zusammenfassung: | <jats:p>The presumptive treatment of parasitosis among immigrants with albendazole has been shown to save both money and lives, primarily via a reduction in the burden of <jats:italic>Strongyloides stercoralis</jats:italic>. Ivermectin is more effective than albendazole, but is also more expensive. This coupled with confusion surrounding the cost-effectiveness of guiding therapy based on eosinophil counts has led to disparate practices. We used the newly arrived year 2000 immigrant population as a hypothetical cohort in a decision analysis model to examine the cost-effectiveness of various interventions to reduce parasitosis among immigrants. When the prevalence of <jats:italic>S. stercoralis</jats:italic> is greater than 2%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of all presumptive treatment strategies were similar. Ivermectin is associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1700 per QALY gained for treatment with 12 mg ivermectin relative to 5 days of albendazole when the prevalence is 10%. Any presumptive treatment strategy is cost-effective when compared with most common medical interventions.</jats:p> |
|---|---|
| Umfang: | 1055-1063 |
| ISSN: |
0950-2688
1469-4409 |
| DOI: | 10.1017/s0950268804003000 |