Análise custo-efetividade do plasma rico em plaquetas no tratamento de úlceras venosas

Analyze the cost-effectiveness ratio between autologous platelet rich plasma and gaze with Petrolatum® in the treatment of venous ulcers. Method: Cost-effectiveness analysis performed at a federal university hospital, whose effectiveness data were extracted from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial and analyzed through the following indicators - I1 complete healing (reduction of 100% of the initial area); I2 reduction of the ulcer area greater than or equal to 75%; I3 reduction of ulcer area greater than or equal to 50%. Direct costs of the treatments were categorized in Material and Human Resources, estimated in theoutpatient and home context. The economic perspective of the public health system was adopted. A descriptive, inferential statistical analysis was performed with cost and effectiveness estimates, with a decision analysis model for cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis. Results: The groups were homogeneous regarding socioeconomic and clinical variables, with a predominance of elderly, male, incomplete primary education and income between 1 and 2 minimum wages. All had Chronic Venous Insufficiency, most of them Systemic Arterial Hypertension. The cost of a PRP session was R$ 20.22 (US$5.45 or €4,84). The cost of six sessions for 18 participants with the Plasma Rich Plasma wasR$2,183.94 (US$ 588.66 or € 522.47), with the human resources category most impacting the cost (85.8%). The cost of an outpatient dressing in the intervention group was R$ 33.02 (US$ 8.90 or €7.90), higher than the control group, which was R$ 25.46 (US$ 6.86 or €6.09). The cost of 12 outpatient dressings for 18 participants in the intervention group was R$ 7,164.27 (US$ 1,931.07 or €1,713.95), 23.24% higher than the control, R$ 5,498.68 (US$1,482.12 or €1,315,47). The cost of one day of dressing at home was R$ 4.47 (US$ 1.20 or €1.07) for the intervention group was R$ 5.09 (US$1.37 or €1.22) for the control group. The cost of 66 days of home dressings was significantly lower in the intervention group, R$5,313.74 (US$1,432.27 or €1,271.23) than in the control group, R$6,051.51 (US$1,631.13 or €1,447.73) (p-value = 0.003). There was not significant difference in the cost of the monolayer elastic bandage for the 18 participants (p-value = 0.501). The cost of the 18 participants, considering the cost of outpatient, home and elastic bandage treatment at 12 weeks, was higher in the intervention group of R$12,888.99 (US$3,474.12 or €3,083.49) than in the control group, R$11,971.99 (US$3,226.95 or €2,864.11), with no significant statistical difference (p-value = 0.791). Regarding effectiveness, both treatments had the sameeffectiveness for the indicators I1 and I3 and the treatment of the intervention group was more effective and presented the best incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the indicator 2, that is, the lowest cost per unit of effectiveness, which was R$16,375.00 (US$4,413.75 or €3,917.46). In the sensitivity analysis, when considered the lowest price, intervention treatment presented lower cost-effectiveness ratio for all effectiveness indicators and when considered the highest and the average price, presented the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio for the indicator I2. Conclusion: Treatment with PRP was more cost-effective for ulcers that had healing ≥75%