METHOD: Retrospective data were collected from medical records and the patients were observed until the completion of their medication. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation was applied to calculate direct and indirect costs.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Direct and indirect costs of tuberculosis treatment in a government health institution.
RESULTS: Two hundred and one tuberculosis patients were included in the study. Different regimens with various durations of treatments were used. The direct medical and non-medical costs as well as indirect costs were calculated and were found to be as follows: US$61.44 for anti-tuberculosis drugs and supplies, US$28.63 for X-ray examinations, US$28.53 for laboratory tests, US$20.03 for healthcare staff time, US$4.28 for hospitalisation, US$43.20 for overhead costs, US$608.11 for transportation and meals and US$118.78 for time away from work. The cost to the patients constitutes approximately 80% of the total cost of the treatment.
CONCLUSION: The cost of treating the illness of tuberculosis per patient was US$916.4. The cost of anti-tuberculosis drugs constituted the highest proportion of the cost to the public health services (31.7%) while the cost to the patient constituted the major proportion of the total cost of the illness (79.4%).
OBJECTIVES: On this basis, a study was conducted in a district hospital to study the therapy outcomes of antibiotic regimens used in pediatric community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) management and to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CE) between IV ampicillin versus combination therapy of IV ampicillin and IV gentamicin.
METHOD: A prospective, randomized, controlled, single blind study was conducted in a pediatric ward in a 80-bed district hospital. Pediatric patients diagnosed with CAP aged 2 months to 5 years old were randomly and equally divided into two treatment arms: ampicillin versus ampicillin plus gentamicin. The dose of IV ampicillin used in this study was 100 mg/kg/day divided every 6 h and 5 mg/kg of IV gentamicin as a single daily dose. Both clinical and economic evaluations were carried out to compare both treatment arms.
RESULTS: With the inclusion and exclusion criteria, only 40 patients diagnosed with CAP were included in the study. The results showed that the two treatment arms were significantly different (P < 0.05) in terms of duration of patients on ampicillin, number of days of hospitalization and time to switch to oral therapy. A significant difference was noted between the two treatment modalities in terms of effectiveness and cost (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Overall, the endpoint of this study showed that the total cost per patient of ampicillin-treated group is cheaper than the total cost with the combination therapy (ampicillin plus gentamicin) and reduced unnecessary exposure to adverse effects or toxicities. Besides that, addition of gentamicin in the treatment modalities will only increase the cost of treatment without introducing any changes in the treatment outcome.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 64 sets of digitised maxilla and mandible dental casts obtained from a sample of dental arch with normal occlusion. For human evaluation, a convenient sample of orthodontic practitioners ranked the photo images of dental cast from the most tapered to the less tapered (square). In the mathematical analysis, dental arches were interpolated using the fourth-order polynomial equation with millimetric acetate paper and AutoCAD software. Finally, the relations between human evaluation and mathematical objective analyses were evaluated.
RESULTS: Human evaluations were found to be generally in agreement, but only at the extremes of tapered and square arch forms; this indicated general human error and observer bias. The two methods used to plot the arch form were comparable.
CONCLUSION: The use of fourth-order polynomial equation may be facilitative in obtaining a smooth curve, which can produce a template for individual arch that represents all potential tooth positions for the dental arch.