BackgroundObesity is a global public health problem and a risk factor for several diseases that financially impact healthcare systems.ObjectiveTo estimate the direct costs attributable to obesity (body mass index {BMI} ≥ 30 kg/m2) and morbid obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) in adults aged ≥ 20 incurred by the Brazilian public health system in 2011.SettingsPublic hospitals and outpatient care.MethodsA cost-of-illness method was adopted using a top-down approach based on prevalence. The proportion of the cost of each obesity-associated comorbidity was calculated and obesity prevalence was used to calculate attributable risk. Direct healthcare cost data (inpatient care, bariatric surgery, outpatient care, medications and diagnostic procedures) were extracted from the Ministry of Health information systems, available on the web.ResultsDirect costs attributable to obesity totaled US$ 269.6 million (1.86% of all expenditures on medium- and high-complexity health care). The cost of morbid obesity accounted for 23.8% (US$ 64.2 million) of all obesity-related costs despite being 18 times less prevalent than obesity. Bariatric surgery costs in Brazil totaled US$ 17.4 million in 2011. The cost of morbid obesity in women was five times higher than it was in men.ConclusionThe cost of morbid obesity was found to be proportionally higher than the cost of obesity. If the current epidemic were not reversed, the prevalence of obesity in Brazil will increase gradually in the coming years, as well as its costs, having serious implications for the financial sustainability of the Brazilian public health system.

Background The inadequate management of solid waste impacts populations’ health and quality of life, and disproportionately affects developing countries. This study aims to describe a protocol for epidemiological diagnosis, the purpose being to estimate the prevalence of chronic and communicable and non communicable diseases in waste pickers, and the occupational and environmental risk factors to which these are exposed. Methods This is a cross-sectional study, based on survey design in an area of extreme social vulnerability – the largest garbage dump in Latin America. Using a multidimensional research protocol, divided in three stages : 1- The identification of the subjects, and the scheduling of tests; 2- Situational diagnosis through interviews, anthropometric evaluation, measuring blood pressure, collecting hair and nail samples to detect exposure to heavy metals and undertaking laboratory tests; 3- The return of the waste pickers to receive the test results, followed by referral to the health team and to report occupational accidents. Results One thousand twenty-five waste pickers undertook tests and interviews. The majority were women (67.0%), with 36–45 years old (45.7%), and 96.0% had children. In total, 27.3% of the participants did not attend to any school and 47.7% were educated only up to primary level. The majority of waste pickers (68.70%) reported accidents and most of them (89.69%) were related to sharp objects. The mean time working in this open dump was 15 years. According the anthropometric measure, 32.6% were overweight and 21.1% were obese. The most common reported diseases were: osteomuscular disorders (78.7%); arboviruses (28.6%); episodic diarrhea (24.9%); hypertension (24.2%); bronchitis (14.3%); intestinal worms (12.6%) and diabetes (10.1%). According to the blood tests, the values outside the reference limits were: Uric acid (23.89%); creatinine (54.06%); GGT range (16.04%); SGOT - Serum Glutamic Oxaloacetic Transaminase (5.29%); SGPT - serum Glutamic-Pyruvic Transaminase (35.52%). Conclusions This study is the first to evaluate multiple risks and diseases in the majority of waste pickers working in the largest garbage dump of a continent. These findings highlight the importance to address urgently the environmental, social and health impacts related to the management of solid waste in developmental countries to protect these workers and their families. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6879-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

With the high prevalence of obesity and associated comorbidities, the costs of health services produce a great economic impact. The objective of this work was to evaluate the economic benefits of bariatric surgery and to relate the costs to the impact on the health of the individual. A historic cohort study was conducted, with review of medical charts of 194 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the study. The costs for medications, professional care, and examinations in the pre- and postoperative periods were analyzed, taking into consideration the comorbidities DM2, SAH, and dyslipidemia. The study demonstrated a reduction in the medical costs in the course of the postoperative period, in relation to expenses for medications, professional care, and examinations in the preoperative period. Comparing the preoperative expenses with different times in the postoperative period, a statistically significant difference was seen at all time evaluated (p < 0.001). The resolution of comorbidities was higher than 95% at 36 months after surgery. No statistically significant difference was seen with respect to the prevalence of comorbidities between the sexes in the pre- and postoperative periods (p > 0.05). With regard to age, younger patients showed lower rates of comorbidities in the pre- and postoperative periods (p < 0.001). The costs of the surgery are high, but the expenditures for medications, professional care, and examinations decrease progressively after the operation, where this is more evident in patients with more associated comorbidities.

Background Low Back Pain (LBP) is associated with an increase in disability-adjusted life years, and increased risk of disability retirement and greater absenteeism in Brazil. Hence, evidence on healthcare and lost productivity costs due to LBP is of utmost importance to inform decision-makers. Methods Cost-of-illness study with top-down approach, and societal perspective. We extracted data from National databases, considering the period 2012-2016. Outpatient expenses included clinical, surgical, diagnosis, orthosis/prosthetics, and complementary actions. Inpatient care expenses included hospital and professional services, intensive care unit, and companion stay. For productivity losses, duration of work absence and associated information (workrelated and non-work-related; value of the sickness absence benefit; age; gender; and economic activity) were analyzed. Lost productivity costs were calculated multiplying the absence from work (days) by the daily-benefit. Results The societal costs amounted to US$ 2.2 billion, and productivity losses represented 79% of the costs. Total healthcare expenses were estimated to US$ 460 million. We found more than 880,000 diagnostic images. Individuals with LBP were in total 59 million days absent from work between 2012-2016. The mean lost days absent from work per person, for each

Purpose Obesity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Weight loss due to gastric bypass (GBP) surgery improves clinical outcomes and may be a cost-effective intervention. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of GBP compared to clinical treatment in severely obese individuals with and without diabetes in the perspective of the Brazilian public health system. Materials and Methods A Markov model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of gastric bypass in an open approach to clinical treatment. Health states were living with diabetes, remission of diabetes, non-fatal and fatal myocardial infarction, and death. We also included the occurrence of complications related to surgery and plastic surgery after the gastric bypass surgery. The direct costs were obtained from primary data collection performed in three public reference centers for obesity treatment. Utility values also derived from this cohort, while transition probabilities came from the international literature. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate uncertainties. The model considered a 10-year time horizon and a 5% discount rate. Results Over 10 years, GBP increased quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and costs compared to clinical treatment, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Int$1820.17/QALY and Int$1937.73/QALY in individuals with and without diabetes, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values and direct costs of treatments were the parameters that affected the most the ICERs. ConclusionThe study demonstrated that GBP is a cost-effective intervention for severely obese individuals in the Brazilian public health system perspective, with a better result in individuals with diabetes.

Background Many governments have introduced pay-for-performance programmes to incentivise health providers to improve quality of care. Evidence on whether these programmes reduce or exacerbate disparities in health care is scarce. In this study, we aimed to assess socioeconomic inequalities in the performance of family health teams under Brazil's National Programme for Improving Primary Care Access and Quality (PMAQ). Methods For this longitudinal study, we analysed data on the quality of care delivered by family health teams participating in PMAQ over three rounds of implementation: round 1 (November, 2011, to March, 2013), round 2 (April, 2013, to September, 2015), and round 3 (October, 2015, to December, 2019). The primary outcome was the percentage of the maximum performance score obtainable by family health teams (the PMAQ score), based on several hundred (ranging from 598 to 914) indicators of health-care delivery. Using census data on household income of local areas, we examined the PMAQ score by income ventile. We used ordinary least squares regressions to examine the association between PMAQ scores and the income of each local area across implementation rounds, and we did an analysis of variance to assess geographical variation in PMAQ score. Findings Of the 40 361 family health teams that were registered as ever participating in PMAQ, we included 13 934 teams that participated in the three rounds of PMAQ in our analysis. These teams were located in 11 472 census areas and served approximately 48 million people. The mean PMAQ score was 61•0% (median 61•8, IQR 55•3-67•9) in round 1, 55•3% (median 56•0, IQR 47•6-63•4) in round 2, and 61•6% (median 62•7, IQR 54•4-69•9) in round 3. In round 1, we observed a positive socioeconomic gradient, with the mean PMAQ score ranging from 56•6% in the poorest group to 64•1% in the richest group. Between rounds 1 and 3, mean PMAQ performance increased by 7•1 percentage points for the poorest group and decreased by 0•8 percentage points for the richest group (p<0•0001), with the gap between richest and poorest narrowing from 7•5 percentage points (95% CI 6•5 to 8•5) to-0•4 percentage points over the same period (-1•6 to 0•8). Interpretation Existing income inequalities in the delivery of primary health care were eliminated during the three rounds of PMAQ, plausibly due to a design feature of PMAQ that adjusted financial payments for socioeconomic inequalities. However, there remains an important policy agenda in Brazil to address the large inequities in health.

Este artigo teve como objetivo propor recomendações para a realização de estudos de custo da doença no sistema de saúde brasileiro. Realizou-se uma revisão da literatura sobre aspectos relacionados ao método de custo da doença e aplicou-se ao caso brasileiro. Os resultados estão divididos em dois blocos. O primeiro refere--se aos conceitos inerentes aos estudos de custo da doença, tais como tipos de custos, perspectiva da análise, apresentação dos valores monetários e fontes de informação. O segundo diz respeito a recomendações para aplicar o método de custo da doença ao contexto brasileiro. Foram propostas sete etapas para a elaboração de um estudo de custo da doença: 1) selecionar a doença e elaborar a pergunta a ser respondida; 2) definir a perspectiva, a abordagem e os tipos de custo a serem analisados; 3) obter os riscos de incidência das comorbidades que poderiam ser parcialmente evitadas caso a doença investigada não existisse; 4) calcular o risco atribuível à doença investigada nas suas comorbidades; 5) levantar os custos de cada patologia associada; 6) calcular o custo da doença final; e 7) analisar os resultados. É viável adotar o método de custos da doença no Brasil, pois as informações não só estão disponíveis, como também são de acesso público. Apesar de algumas limitações, os estudos sobre o custo da doença são muito úteis para o planejamento em saúde, pois permitem estimar o custo global de uma dada patologia no País.

BackgroundThe comparison between long acting insulin analogues (LAIA) and human insulin (NPH) has been investigated for decades, with many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews giving mixed results. This overlapping and contradictory evidence has increased uncertainty on coverage decisions at health systems level.AimTo conduct an overview of systematic reviews and update existing reviews, preparing new meta-analysis to determine whether LAIA are effective for T1D patients compared to NPH.MethodsWe identified systematic reviews of RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of LAIA glargine or detemir, compared to NPH insulin for T1D, assessing glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and hypoglycemia. Data sources included Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and hand-searching. The methodological quality of studies was independently assessed by two reviewers, using AMSTAR and Jadad scale. We found 11 eligible systematic reviews that contained a total of 25 relevant clinical trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted data.ResultsWe found evidence that LAIA are efficacious compared to NPH, with estimates showing a reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.57; 0.76) and A1C (95% CI 0.23; 0.12). No significance was found related to severe hypoglycemia (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.71; 1.24).ConclusionThis study design has allowed us to carry out the most comprehensive assessment of RCTs on this subject, filling a gap in diabetes research. Our paper addresses a question that is important not only for decision makers but also for clinicians.