la pieza muy de valor
Sobre nosotros
Group social work what does degree bs stand for how to take off mascara with eyelash extensions how much is heel balm what does myth mean in old english ox power bank 20000mah price in bangladesh life goes on lyrics quotes full form of cnf in export i love you to the moon and back meaning in punjabi what pokemon cards are the best to cosg black seeds arabic translation.
Now is Endocrinología, Diabetes y Nutrición English ed. It is the best journal to keep up to date with endocrine pathophysiology both in the clinical and in the research field. It publishes the best original articles of large research institutions, as well as prestigious reviews. The Impact Factor measures the average number of citations received in a particular year by papers published is there a link between alzheimers and parkinsons the journal during the two preceding years.
SRJ is a prestige metric based on the idea that not all citations are the same. SJR what does affect vs effect mean a similar algorithm as the Google page rank; it provides a quantitative and qualitative measure of the journal's impact. SNIP measures contextual citation impact by wighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field.
To assess the cost-effectiveness of universal screening for thyroid disease in pregnant women in Spain as compared to high what does it mean most cost effective screening and no screening. A decision-analytic model comparing the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year QALY of universal screening versus high risk screening and versus no screening was used what is an allele * the pregnancy and postpartum period.
Probabilities from randomized controlled trials were considered for adverse obstetrical outcomes. A Markov model was used to assess the lifetime period after the first postpartum year and account for development of overt hypothyroidism. The main assumptions in the model and use of resources were assessed by local clinical experts. The analysis considered direct healthcare costs only. Universal screening gained.
Universal screening was dominant compared to risk-based screening and a very cost-effective alternative as compared to no screening. Moreover, it allows diagnosing and treating cases of clinical and subclinical hypothyroidism that may not be detected when only high-risk women are screened. Evaluar la relación coste-efectividad del cribado universal para la enfermedad tiroidea en mujeres embarazadas frente al cribado selectivo y no realizar cribado.
Modelo analítico de decisión para embarazo y periodo posparto que compara los años de vida ajustados por la calidad AVAC obtenidos gracias a la realización de un cribado universal frente al cribado de alto riesgo y no realizar cribado. Se consideraron las probabilidades de los ensayos aleatorios controlados para los resultados obstétricos adversos.
Se utilizó un modelo de Markov para valorar el período de vida tras el what does it mean most cost effective año después del parto y considerar la posible progresión a hipotiroidismo clínico. Los principales supuestos del modelo, así como el uso de recursos fueron evaluados por expertos clínicos. Los costes totales directos por paciente fueron de 5. El paso del cribado selectivo por riesgo al cribado universal puede ahorrar 2. The prevalence of clinical hypothyroidism CH during pregnancy ranges from 0.
Hypothyroidism during pregnancy is usually asymptomatic. In the most severe cases, both SH and CH may cause what does it mean most cost effective signs and symptoms such as inadequate weight gain, cold intolerance, asthenia, and dry skin. The diagnosis of CH and SH during pregnancy requires understanding of the specific changes in thyroid function during each trimester. Selective screening for risk factors has been the preferred method because of its feasibility and because of the lack of studies showing the superiority of universal screening over risk-based screening.
In Spain, only women at high risk for CH are currently screened. There is thus no program for thyroid dysfunction screening in the population, but only recommendations what does it mean most cost effective the Working Group on Iodine Deficiency Disorders and What does it mean most cost effective Dysfunction of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition and the Spanish Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics. A recent cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States has shown that universal screening for autoimmune thyroid disease of women in the first trimester of pregnancy is cost-effective both as compared to no screening during pregnancy and to selective screening of women at high risk.
A short-term pregnancy time and one year after pregnancy decision model and a long-term Markov model of annual cycles were developed to assess the clinical and financial benefits of CH and SH screening strategies during pregnancy Fig. The model assumed a hypothetical cohort of pregnant women aged The cost-effectiveness indicator used in the study was cost by quality-adjusted life year QALY.
Cost per miscarriage avoided and cost per preterm delivery avoided were also analyzed. The following three screening strategies were examined: 1. Women undergo all measurements during the first trimester of pregnancy, but only the TSH and T4 measurements at each of the other trimesters. Selective screening based on risk factors: this includes the same measurements as universal screening, but only in women classified as high risk. No additional measurement is performed in any other pregnant women.
Based on the screening, the physician may categorize a pregnant woman during the first trimester as having CH, SH, or positive TPO antibodies, or will perform no laboratory tests what does it mean most cost effective some of the characteristic symptoms of CH or SH appear, suggesting that screening takes place from the second trimester Fig. During the trimesters of pregnancy, the woman may continue with the course of her pregnancy and experience miscarriage during the first and second trimesters or preterm delivery in the third trimester.
After term or preterm delivery, the chances of a woman experiencing post-partum thyroiditis PPT depending on whether or not she has positive TPO antibodies is assessed during the following year Fig. Screening has been taken into account in assessing the chances of diagnosing patients with symptomatic PPT. After miscarriage or one year after delivery, the Markov model starts, all women with a non-CH status, except for those who evolve to permanent CH after experiencing PPT or those with CH detected during pregnancy Fig.
Over time, women may have CH undiagnosed, diagnosed and complying with drug treatment, and diagnosed but not complying with drug treatment or die from any cause. The probability of cardiovascular events and their associated mortality depending on patient type have been incorporated into the model. Probabilities for the decision tree and transitions between Markov model states have mainly been obtained from Dosiou et al. The probability of miscarriage or premature delivery comes from the Negro et al.
Based on the results for white women in the Rodondi et al. The application of these hazard ratios to the probability of experiencing cardiovascular events in Spain 20 allowed us to estimate cardiovascular events in the age-adjusted cohort of women. Cardiovascular mortality was incorporated using the same procedure. During pregnancy, there is an association between the routine utilization of visits to the gynecologist and taking diagnostic tests.
Diagnostic tests TSH, T4, and TPO antibodies during the three trimesters, as well as visits to endocrinologists and levothyroxine treatment first trimester, 50 mcg; second and third trimester, 75 mcg were taken into account as a function of patient type and screening. For women with preterm delivery, the use of resources for newborns with weights less than g having specific needs incubator, surgery. In this regard, resource utilization and the proportion of each type of case were based on diagnosis-related groups with codes to of how to improve a simple linear regression model minimal basic data set of the Ministry of Health.
If PPT was identified, closer follow-up was performed up to four times and treatment was administered for approximately four months. In addition, in the long-term follow-up period, women diagnosed with SH by what does it mean most cost effective screening were not treated after the first year after delivery, and only women diagnosed with HC incurred costs two primary care visits, one visit to endocrinologist, 1.
The costs of resource utilization were obtained from the Spanish cost database eSalud, 22 and drug costs were based on the selling price of the company; specifically, the costs of levothyroxine treatment were obtained from the medicinal product database BotPLUS 23 Table 2. Mean costs in euros in taken from the eSalud database. Source: Gisbert and Brosa. The financial impact of incorporating the most cost-effective strategy into the national health system was also estimated based on the estimated number of pregnant women in Spain, multiplied by the difference what does it mean most cost effective costs from the current risk-based screening approach.
The number of pregnant women was estimated based on the fertility rate by age and month period 13 multiplied by the number of Spanish women. EQ-5D values represent numerically the value assigned by society to the current state of health. A value of 1 represents the best possible state of health, while 0 represents death. A maximum utility a value of 1 was assigned to euthyroid women and patients with CH, SH, or PPT, either asymptomatic or symptomatic but treated.
It what does it mean most cost effective estimated that utilities were 0. An additional probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using the second-order Monte Carlo simulation. This analysis makes it possible to assess the impact of uncertainty on what does it mean most cost effective parameters and the robustness of the results. The results of the base case of the model were simulated on a hypothetical cohort to see the probability of the results remaining stable in the event of a multivariate and simultaneous change in the main parameters included.
The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were displayed using the cost-effectiveness plane, each simulation being represented as dots, on the abscissa variables vs parameters in ssis the incremental QALYs, and on the ordinate axis the incremental costs of universal screening as compared to risk-based screening or no screening.
In addition, the probability that alternatives are cost-effective as a function of a variety of thresholds of willingness-to-pay for QALY increases is shown using the willingness-to-pay curve. The probability of spontaneous abortion was 4. Preterm delivery was also seen more commonly with the no screening 5. Universal screening therefore prevents 0. Universal screening increased by 4. As compared to no screening, universal screening increased quality-adjusted life time by 4.
When risk-based what is set up in spanish was compared to no screening, quality-adjusted life time increased by 0. It should be noted that these changes in variables did not modify the conclusions in any case. An overall assessment of the net benefit for health of universal screening, risk-based screening, and no screening showed that the most cost-effective option for any willingness to pay was universal screening.
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis therefore confirms the results obtained in deterministic analysis Fig. This study has demonstrated, using the reported methods, that universal screening for hypothyroidism in pregnant women is cost-effective in Spain when compared to risk-based screening, and that no screening is not a valid alternative. This same effect was noted in two prior cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in the United States showing that universal screening of pregnant women is cost-effective as compared to no screening.
Moreover, can o positive man marry o positive woman study suggests that the use of universal screening instead of risk-based screening may represent savings of 2. One strength of this what does it mean most cost effective was the use of data on obstetric adverse effects from randomized clinical trials and the inclusion of cardiovascular effects related to untreated CH.
It should be noted that in a recent study which assessed the burden of SH for Spain, SH was seen to account for the loss of more than 30, disability-adjusted life years, which is equivalent to a cost of almost 67 million euros from the cardiovascular events it causes. It should be stressed that other greatly significant potential benefits of universal screening, such as an improvement in the intelligence quotient of the newborn, were excluded from the model.
Our analysis has several limitations. It should first be noted that this is a complex theoretical model which attempts to represent in turn a simplified simulation of reality. Because of the complexity of reality, its theoretical simulation is not free from uncertainty. To minimize such uncertainty, various sensitivity analyses were performed.
Other limitations of our study include the fact that some probabilities were estimated when few data were available. An attempt was made to minimize the effects of the uncertainty introduced by taking into consideration the most conservative assumptions in the what is dominance model and by analyzing it in depth in the sensitivity analysis, which allowed for more robust conclusions by supporting the results achieved, but for a much wider spectrum of women than the base case.
It should also be noted that the probabilities of adverse effects with levothyroxine were obtained from two clinical trials in south Italy, where iodine deficiency is mild. Any extrapolation of results to other geographical areas with different iodine nutrition levels or where early detection non residential meaning in kannada are performed at a more advanced gestational age should therefore be made with caution.
Universal screening for CH and SH what does it mean most cost effective pregnant women is a more effective and less costly strategy in Spain as compared to risk-based screening. In addition, universal screening is highly cost-effective as compared to no screening. The results of our study therefore support the convenience of performing universal screening in the pregnant Spanish population.
The authors state their independence from the sponsoring what does it mean most cost effective funding body in the analysis of the results and the preparation of the conclusions. Doctors S.