Objectives: To assess the efficiency in terms of cost-effectiveness (CE) of oral Renalof® treatment versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of kidney stones ≤ 1 cm in Nicaragua. Metho...Objectives: To assess the efficiency in terms of cost-effectiveness (CE) of oral Renalof® treatment versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of kidney stones ≤ 1 cm in Nicaragua. Methods: A cost-effectiveness economic evaluation was carried out based on the results obtained in the randomised, prospective, observational, single-blind, prospective, phase 2 clinical trial. Cost-effectiveness and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Economic data were obtained from the Economics Department of Clínica Senior in Managua, Nicaragua. The monetary cost was expressed in US dollars (USD). Results: Treatment with Renalof® yielded a CE of $1,323.08/% remission, while ESWL was $9,498.54/% remission. The ICER shows that, in order to achieve a high percentage of kidney stone remission with ESWL, an extra $4,734.70 per patient must be invested. Conclusions: The use of Renalof® is shown to be a more cost-effective option than ESWL. It is recommended for the treatment of kidney stones ≤ 1 cm in size.展开更多
文摘Objectives: To assess the efficiency in terms of cost-effectiveness (CE) of oral Renalof® treatment versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of kidney stones ≤ 1 cm in Nicaragua. Methods: A cost-effectiveness economic evaluation was carried out based on the results obtained in the randomised, prospective, observational, single-blind, prospective, phase 2 clinical trial. Cost-effectiveness and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Economic data were obtained from the Economics Department of Clínica Senior in Managua, Nicaragua. The monetary cost was expressed in US dollars (USD). Results: Treatment with Renalof® yielded a CE of $1,323.08/% remission, while ESWL was $9,498.54/% remission. The ICER shows that, in order to achieve a high percentage of kidney stone remission with ESWL, an extra $4,734.70 per patient must be invested. Conclusions: The use of Renalof® is shown to be a more cost-effective option than ESWL. It is recommended for the treatment of kidney stones ≤ 1 cm in size.
