OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost of delivering intrathecal tetanus immunoglobulin compared to an intramuscular option. METHODS: To compare the two interventions, costs were estimated using standard cost methodology. Cost categories were personnel, overhead, consumables, antibiotics to treat infection, gases for respiratory assistance and immunoglobulin. Tetanus patients, aged 12 years or older, who were part of a randomised controlled clinical trial conducted in a referral hospital in Recife, Brazil, were allocated to two groups: a control group (58) and a study group (62). Patients allocated to the control group received 3000 international units (IU) of human immunoglobulin, with preservative, intramuscularly. The study group received the same quantity of immunoglobulin also intramuscularly plus an intrathecal dose of 1000 IU of a human immunoglobulin, free of preservatives, to prevent irritation of the meninges and avoid the need for corticosteroids. Thus, the difference between the two groups was the exclusive use of intrathecal immunoglobulin. The outcome measurements were clinical progression, hospital stay, respiratory assistance and respiratory infection. RESULTS: Delivering intrathecal immunoglobulin to patients saved a total of US$ 60 389, in a 10-day intensive care treatment, by preventing a worsening of their tetanus severity (e.g. from Grade I to Grades II, III, IV). Substantial cost saving was also observed in terms of hospital stay (US$ 173 104). CONCLUSIONS: Intrathecal treatment of tetanus is cost saving. This intervention deserves consideration by doctors and decision-makers as a mean of saving resources while maintaining high-quality health outcomes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost of delivering intrathecal tetanus immunoglobulin compared to an intramuscular option. METHODS: To compare the two interventions, costs were estimated using standard cost methodology. Cost categories were personnel, overhead, consumables, antibiotics to treat infection, gases for respiratory assistance and immunoglobulin. Tetanuspatients, aged 12 years or older, who were part of a randomised controlled clinical trial conducted in a referral hospital in Recife, Brazil, were allocated to two groups: a control group (58) and a study group (62). Patients allocated to the control group received 3000 international units (IU) of human immunoglobulin, with preservative, intramuscularly. The study group received the same quantity of immunoglobulin also intramuscularly plus an intrathecal dose of 1000 IU of a human immunoglobulin, free of preservatives, to prevent irritation of the meninges and avoid the need for corticosteroids. Thus, the difference between the two groups was the exclusive use of intrathecal immunoglobulin. The outcome measurements were clinical progression, hospital stay, respiratory assistance and respiratory infection. RESULTS: Delivering intrathecal immunoglobulin to patients saved a total of US$ 60 389, in a 10-day intensive care treatment, by preventing a worsening of their tetanus severity (e.g. from Grade I to Grades II, III, IV). Substantial cost saving was also observed in terms of hospital stay (US$ 173 104). CONCLUSIONS: Intrathecal treatment of tetanus is cost saving. This intervention deserves consideration by doctors and decision-makers as a mean of saving resources while maintaining high-quality health outcomes.
Authors: Bruce Y Lee; Patrick T Wedlock; Leila A Haidari; Kate Elder; Julien Potet; Rachel Manring; Diana L Connor; Marie L Spiker; Kimberly Bonner; Arjun Rangarajan; Delphine Hunyh; Shawn T Brown Journal: Vaccine Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Nguyen Van Hao; Huynh Thi Loan; Lam Minh Yen; Evelyne Kestelyn; Duc Du Hong; Duong Bich Thuy; Nguyen Thanh Nguyen; Ha Thi Hai Duong; Tran Thi Diem Thuy; Phung Tran Huy Nhat; Phan Nguyen Quoc Khanh; Nguyen Thi Phuong Dung; Nguyen Hoan Phu; Nguyen Thanh Phong; Pham Thi Lieu; Pham Thi Tuyen; Bui Thi Bich Hanh; Ho Dang Trung Nghia; Pham Kieu Nguyet Oanh; Phan Vinh Tho; Tran Tan Thanh; Hugo C Turner; H Rogier van Doorn; Le Van Tan; Duncan Wyncoll; Nicholas Pj Day; Ronald B Geskus; Guy E Thwaites; Nguyen Van Vinh Chau; C Louise Thwaites Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 38.927
Authors: Leila A Haidari; Shawn T Brown; Dagna Constenla; Eli Zenkov; Marie Ferguson; Gatien de Broucker; Sachiko Ozawa; Samantha Clark; Bruce Y Lee Journal: Vaccine Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Riaz Aziz; Soledad Colombe; Gibonce Mwakisambwe; Solomon Ndezi; Jim Todd; Samuel Kalluvya; Halinder S Mangat; Reed Magleby; Arndt Koebler; Bernard Kenemo; Robert N Peck; Jennifer A Downs Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2018-08-30
Authors: Darcy M Anderson; Ryan Cronk; Lucy Best; Mark Radin; Hayley Schram; J Wren Tracy; Jamie Bartram Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 3.390