BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Oral ivermectin is recommended as an alternative to topical permethrin in Japanese, European, and CDC-STI guidelines for treating classic scabies. The combination of oral ivermectin and topical permethrin is also used in some settings. Partial economic evaluations conducted in India and Egypt have conflicting results, and no cost-effectiveness analysis in the Philippines has compared ivermectin-based regimens to permethrin for scabies treatment. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin, compared to permethrin, in the treatment of Filipino adult patients with classic scabies.

We used a decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of two regimens, oral ivermectin alone or in combination with permethrin, compared with permethrin to treat adults and children aged five years and older with classic scabies in the outpatient setting from the household perspective in the Philippines. We estimated total costs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over a one-month follow-up. Input parameters were obtained from secondary data, such as effect estimates for probabilities of clinical outcomes from a network meta-analysis, DALYs from the Global Burden of Disease 2019, and prevailing market cost in the Philippines (DPRI 2022 with recommended markup by DOH, and leading drugstores) as of August 2022. We computed for incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB) to determine which of the interventions are cost-effective. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter and structural uncertainty.

Ivermectin-based regimens are suggested to be likely cost-saving compared to permethrin in the Philippine outpatient setting. Base case analysis showed that oral ivermectin had higher cost-savings (change in cost, -1,039.31; change in DALYS, 0.00027), while combination oral ivermectin/permethrin had higher DALYs averted (change in cost, PhP -1,019.78; change in DALYs, 0.00045), compared to permethrin. Combination oral ivermectin/permethrin (56%) was the most cost-effective, followed by oral ivermectin (44%) compared to permethrin (0%) through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Estimates for ivermectin were sensitive to risk of cure for ivermectin vs permethrin using 1-way deterministic sensitivity analysis. Oral ivermectin was favored over combination oral ivermectin/permethrin at all thresholds based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.

Both ivermectin-based regimens seem to be cost-saving compared to permethrin in the treatment of classic scabies in the Philippine outpatient setting. Clinicians may consider oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin as an alternative first-line or second-line treatment depending on patient preference, adverse event risk profile, availability, and economic capacity. This needs to be confirmed using primary data from Filipino patients to enhance the robustness of the findings and support evidence-based local decision-making in different settings. Less uncertainty in modelled parameters can give greater confidence in the results, which can be adopted for budget impact analysis and allow more rational resource allocation. Value of information analysis can be done to determine whether the expense of future RCTs or surveys in Filipinos to collect primary data is worth it. The cost of reducing uncertainty, if deemed worth the cost of further studies, may facilitate population-level decision-making and budget planning. Findings may further inform practice guideline development, coverage decisions, and national control program planning by providing the most cost-effective scabies intervention.

INTRODUCTION

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) is a delayed hyperinflammatory condition affecting multiple organ systems. Prominent symptoms include fever, skin rashes, and gastrointestinal symptoms, manifesting prior to critical signs such as cardiac involvement, hypotension, and shock.

To determine if certain demographic, clinical, and laboratory markers are predictive of poor outcomes in patients diagnosed with MIS-C.

This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study (2020-2023) of children who met the 2020 CDC MIS-C criteria. Data on demographics, comorbidities, clinical course, outcomes, laboratory results and 2D Echocardiogram findings were obtained and analyzed.

There were 28 patients with MIS-C, with a median age of 4.5 years. The majority of patients were male (64%). The percentage of neutrophils showed a significant association with hypotension/shock (OR 1.16). White blood cell count (WBC) and ferritin were significantly associated with ICU admission (OR 3.5 and 2.9, respectively). Pericardial effusion was observed in 71.4% while myocarditis was present in 67.9% of patients. The most notable risk factor was HIV infection, which was significantly associated with a more than 50-fold increase in the odds of developing ARDS and 165-fold increase in the odds of mortality; there was only one mortality, and only one patient with documented HIV infection.

The outcome was good in non-immunocompromised patients and the only recorded mortality was a patient not previously known to have HIV. We identified statistically significant factors that were associated with adverse outcome measures, with the limitation of a small sample, such as HIV infection and risk for ARDS and mortality; elevated neutrophil percentage and risk for hypotension/shock; elevated WBC and ferritin and risk for ICU admission; and saw a high prevalence of pericardial effusion and myocarditis in these patients, highlighting the critical role of hyperinflammation and cardiac involvement in disease progression and outcome.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Oral ivermectin, a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic drug, alone or in combination with permethrin, may be a cheaper and more convenient alternative drug to topical permethrin alone in the treatment of classic scabies. There are no previous studies on the treatment acceptability of the three interventions among individual patients with scabies in the Philippines. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences and perceptions on treatment acceptability for oral ivermectin, topical permethrin or combination treatment among patients with scabies using the multiple-case study approach.

We conducted a qualitative multiple case study among adult Filipino patients with classic scabies who were prescribed oral ivermectin, topical permethrin or its combination at a government tertiary hospital dermatology outpatient clinic from December 2022 to September 2023. Semi-structured interviews were used as the primary source of data and analyzed together with chart reviews, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores, and clinical images. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and triangulated with other secondary data. A three-person research team employed a reflexive and iterative process of familiarization, coding, and thematic analysis using a modified Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) to generate case descriptions, within-case analyses, and cross-case syntheses.

The acceptability of scabies treatments (permethrin, ivermectin, and combination therapy) was generally positive. Permethrin, used in three patient cases, was generally perceived as effective but itch relief varied. The burden of whole-body application of permethrin was context-dependent, influenced by living arrangements and family support. Perceived affordability of permethrin was linked to socioeconomic status. Ivermectin, used by one patient case, was perceived as highly effective with no side effects. Its single dose use did not interfere with patient routine. Combination therapy was also considered effective but potential antagonistic effects and the cost of adding permethrin made it less preferred. Reluctance in taking oral pills was noted. All patients valued medical advice and deferred to their physicians for treatment decisions.

All three treatment options were considered effective and safe. Patients generally preferred permethrin over oral ivermectin due to its topical nature and perceived lower side effects. However, affordability and logistical challenges, especially for large households and low-income families, were noted with permethrin. Oral ivermectin elicited hesitation due to its controversial role in COVID-19 and veterinary use. Concerns about added costs and potential antagonism in combination therapy were raised. Despite these considerations, patients ultimately relied on physicians for treatment decisions. This study underscores the importance of understanding patient perspectives, experiences, and the patient-physician relationship in choosing scabies interventions. Addressing patient concerns, providing education, and ensuring ease of use and affordability can enhance treatment acceptability and adherence for better outcomes.

Background and Objective: Oral ivermectin is recommended as an alternative to topical permethrin in Japanese, European, and CDC-STI guidelines for treating classic scabies. The combination of oral ivermectin and topical permethrin is also used in some settings. Partial economic evaluations conducted in India and Egypt have conflicting results, and no cost-effectiveness analysis in the Philippines has compared ivermectin-based regimens to permethrin for scabies treatment. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin, compared to permethrin, in the treatment of Filipino adult patients with classic scabies. Methods: We used a decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of two regimens, oral ivermectin alone or in combination with permethrin, compared with permethrin to treat adults and children aged five years and older with classic scabies in the outpatient setting from the household perspective in the Philippines. We estimated total costs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over a one-month follow-up. Input parameters were obtained from secondary data, such as effect estimates for probabilities of clinical outcomes from a network meta-analysis, DALYs from the Global Burden of Disease 2019, and prevailing market cost in the Philippines (DPRI 2022 with recommended markup by DOH, and leading drugstores) as of August 2022. We computed for incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB) to determine which of the interventions are cost-effective. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter and structural uncertainty. Results: Ivermectin-based regimens are suggested to be likely cost-saving compared to permethrin in the Philippine outpatient setting. Base case analysis showed that oral ivermectin had higher cost-savings (change in cost, -1,039.31; change in DALYS, 0.00027), while combination oral ivermectin/permethrin had higher DALYs averted (change in cost, PhP -1,019.78; change in DALYs, 0.00045), compared to permethrin. Combination oral ivermectin/permethrin (56%) was the most cost-effective, followed by oral ivermectin (44%) compared to permethrin (0%) through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Estimates for ivermectin were sensitive to risk of cure for ivermectin vs permethrin using 1-way deterministic sensitivity analysis. Oral ivermectin was favored over combination oral ivermectin/permethrin at all thresholds based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. Conclusion Both ivermectin-based regimens seem to be cost-saving compared to permethrin in the treatment of classic scabies in the Philippine outpatient setting. Clinicians may consider oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin as an alternative first-line or second-line treatment depending on patient preference, adverse event risk profile, availability, and economic capacity. This needs to be confirmed using primary data from Filipino patients to enhance the robustness of the findings and support evidence-based local decision-making in different settings. Less uncertainty in modelled parameters can give greater confidence in the results, which can be adopted for budget impact analysis and allow more rational resource allocation. Value of information analysis can be done to determine whether the expense of future RCTs or surveys in Filipinos to collect primary data is worth it. The cost of reducing uncertainty, if deemed worth the cost of further studies, may facilitate population-level decision-making and budget planning. Findings may further inform practice guideline development, coverage decisions, and national control program planning by providing the most cost-effective scabies intervention.
Scabies ; Ivermectin ; Permethrin ; Cost-Benefit Analysis

Background and Objective: The University of the Philippines Manila (UPM) subcommittee on students in distress was convened during the COVID-19 pandemic to develop “plans, programs and mechanisms” to deal with students experiencing distress and mental health concerns. This study was conducted as one of the activities of the Subcommittee to inform policy to address the following research objective: to describe the experiences, perceptions, and knowledge of both students and faculty members of UP Manila regarding distress. Methods: An online survey tool was created using the results from seven online focus group discussions among 20 faculty of UP Manila. The survey was conducted for one month among faculty and students sampled from the seven colleges of UP Manila and the three extension campuses of the Schools of Health Sciences. The different categories which were consistently perceived as important by both faculty and students as well as those with disparity in the perceptions between faculty and students were described and discussed. Results: A total of 136 faculty (F) and 290 students (S) participated in the study, representing 39% vs 98% (F vs S) of the target sample, respectively. Results showed that among the effects of stressors for students, avoidance of schoolwork (F79 vs S70.3%) and sleep disturbance (F79.4 vs S72.4%), were perceived by both faculty and students as the most frequently perceived response of students to stress.Among the causes of stress, unclear boundaries between school and home (F73.5 vs S63.1%), family duties (F76.5 vs S50.7%), lack of socialization (F89 vs S57.6%), limited recreational activity (F76.5 vs S64.8%), adapting to new ways of socialization (F67.6 vs S53.8%), and internet signal (F99.3 vs S88.3%) were perceived by both faculty and students as the most frequently perceived causes of stress. Among the coping mechanisms, connecting with friends online (F86.8 vs S69.7%), listening to music (F72.8 vs S78.3%), browsing social media (F82.4 vs S81%), viewing movies (F84.6 vs S74.5%), and sleeping or resting (F67.6 vs S84.1%) were perceived by both faculty and students as the most employed by students to cope with stress.Results also show that there were marked disparities in the perceptions of faculty and students. Among the effects of stressors, the largest disparities were in non-performance in academics (F86 vs S51.7%) and academic failure (F76.5 vs S53.8%). Of the causative factors, the largest disparities were in the areas of death (F94.1 vs S14.5%) or sickness in the family (F66.9 vs S0%), family issues (F82.4 vs S24.5%), financial concerns (F89 vs S36.9%), absence of physical connectedness and interaction, (F94.9 vs S23.8%) lack of socialization (F89 vs S57.6%), owning a gadget (F73.5 vs S22.1%), and lack of funds for the internet (F79.4 vs S22.4%).Among the support systems available in the university (psychosocial, academic and wellness activities of the colleges), 70% of the faculty perceived that the students were aware of the support process offered by the university. In contrast, 28% of students were aware of the support services offered to them. Conclusion This study shows that UP Manila faculty and students perceived stress due to the effects of COVID-19 on teaching, learning, and everyday living. Distress among student respondents was commonly perceived to be caused by family concerns, environmental restrictions, connectivity issues, and experiencing a sense of lack. While support services and mental health programs have been in place within the university, only 28% of students perceive that students in distress were aware of the process in receiving support.
Adaptation, Psychological ; Mental Health ; COVID-19 ; Education

BACKGROUND: The Clinic for the Therapy Services (CTS) has considered reverting to face-to-face service delivery due to the downward trend in COVID-19 cases in the Philippines. However, the clinic has yet to investigate the willingness of the clients to this mode as a basis for its effective implementation. OBJECTIVES: The study described the readiness of CTS clients in returning to face-to-face therapy amidst the pandemic. It also discussed the factors affecting readiness based on a survey. METHODOLOGY: Fifty-five screened survey responses on the readiness of clients in returning to face-to-face therapy were gathered from January 30 to February 28, 2021. These underwent retrospective data analysis. Eight prospective online key informant interviews were conducted for clarifications in May 2022. This study utilized a descriptive analysis of quantitative categorical variables and a thematic content analysis of qualitative data. RESULTS: The majority of the respondents (35) stated readiness to attend face-to-face therapy followed by those who answered “No” (11), “Maybe” (5), and others (4). Factors that may have affected readiness included travel, characteristics of face-to-face therapy, health conditions, vaccine, and COVID-19 concerns. Frequently preferred health and safety strategies were the provision of hygiene products, disinfection, limited people inside the clinic, separate therapy areas, and ventilation. CONCLUSION Most of the respondents expressed willingness to receive face-to-face therapy in April or May of 2021. Feasibility of travel and decreased number of COVID-19 cases may have encouraged willingness to attend. Those who were hesitant reported concerns with traveling, characteristics of face-to-face therapy, health conditions, the COVID-19 situation, and the vaccine.
rehabilitation ; COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in the Philippines and can present as acute coronary syndrome. Hospitalization for ACS has epidemiologic and economic burden. In fact, last 2017, there were 1.52% or 152 admissions for every 10,000 hospitalized patients for medical conditions in PhilHealth-accredited hospitals locally. However, coronary angioplasty was performed in only less than 1% of these cases mainly because of its cost and the out-of-pocket expense that the treatment entail, when primary percutaneous intervention has been proven to be effective in reducing mortality in STEMI and early invasive intervention performed during index hospitalization for NSTEMI is likewise recommended. Moreover, there is a big disparity between the current case rates for ACS for medical therapy alone and for invasive intervention compared to the actual ACS hospitalization cost.

1) To propose revisions to the current PhilHealth case rates for acute coronary syndrome (ACS); and 2) To determine the budget impact of the proposed ACS case rates.

The Philippine Heart Association with the assistance of a technical working group undertook the study. A panel of experts composed of general and invasive cardiologists from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao was formed. The ACS hospitalization costs based on the recent study by Mendoza were presented and discussed during the focus group discussions with the panelists. Issues pertinent to their localities that may affect the costs were discussed. The proposed revised costs on the particular ACS conditions and therapeutic regimens were then voted and agreed upon. A budget impact analysis of the proposed case rates was then performed.

The proposed case rates for ACS ranged from Php 80,000 (for low risk unstable angina given medical treatment) to Php 530,000 (for ST-elevation myocardial infarction initially given a thrombolytic agent then underwent PCI which necessitated the use of three stents). The budget impact analysis showed that the proposed ACS rates would require an additional PHP 1.5 billion to 2.3 billion during the first year of a 3- versus 5-year implementation period, respectively. The period of implementation will be affected by budgetary constraints as well as the availability of cardiac catheterization facilities in the country.

The proposed revised PhilHealth hospitalization coverage for ACS is more reflective or realistic of the ACS hospitalization costs in contrast with the current PhilHealth case rates. The corresponding budget impact analysis of these proposed case rates showed that PHP 7.6 billion is needed for full implementation. However, given the budget constraints, the percentage of the total costs for the first and subsequent years of implementation may be modified.

BACKGROUND

Hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has epidemiologic and economic burden. The coverage for hospitalization in the local setting is much less than the actual costs. Many patients do not consent to or avail of the optimal and timely management because of financial challenges.

The paper aimed to propose revised PhilHealth case rates/packages for ACS, namely: 1) unstable angina (UA), 2) non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and 3) STelevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

A consensus panel was organized to provide inputs such as cost and other matters pertaining to the revision of the PhilHealth ACS case rates/packages. The results of the cost of hospitalization of the different ACS conditions derived from a study on hospitalization cost for ACS were presented to the panel. Several focused group discussions were held afterward for propositioning new case rates through votation and by nominal group technique, using the costs from the study as the bases of rate adjustment.

Final costs agreed upon by the consensus panel for medical management alone for UA, NSTEMI, and STEMI were adjusted or amended in increments of Php 20,000, (80,000, 100,000, and 120,000, respectively). Thrombolysis of a patient admitted for STEMI increased the cost to Php 140,000. An additional cost of Php 150,000 was added on top of the cost for medical management and coronary angiogram for NSTE- ACS for PCI with use of a single stent. For STEMI, the same category had an additional cost of Php 180,000. For each additional stent used for all clinical scenarios undergoing PCI, Php 65,000 was added, to cover up to a total of 3 stents.

Based on the consensus process with Philippine Heart Association ACS panelists, the cost proposed ranges from 80,000 pesos to 530,000 pesos depending on the clinical scenarios.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the budget impact of the proposed revised PhilHealth case rate packages for acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

This budget impact analysis used the static approach or cost calculator modeling method. The prevalence of hospitalization for coronary artery disease in all PhilHealth-accredited hospitals in the country in 2017 and the data from the ACS registry project of the Philippine Heart Association were used in this study. The study multiplied the present PhilHealth coverage with the number of ACS hospitalization claims to come up with the total cost of ACS hospitalization in the next three years with the assumptions that the eligible population and the ACS PhilHealth case rates will remain constant for these years. The future ACS hospitalization costs were also determined if the proposed case rates were used rather than the current PhilHealth case rates. The cost of re-admissions was considered as savings in hospitalization cost (due to prevention of admissions if the appropriate interventions were given) and were deducted from the future total cost of ACS hospitalizations.

The annual total ACS hospitalization cost using the current case rates was Php 1,134,683,000. Using the proposed case rates, the total hospitalization costs over five years was Php 2,653,019,000 in the first year (proposed case rates implemented to only 20% of the ACS patients) and increased to Php 8,726,364,000 by year 5 (full implementation of the proposed case rates or to 100% of ACS patients). This resulted in a lower incremental cost in the first year of implementation compared with a less gradual implementation over 3 years. The total incremental costs would amount to PHP7.6 billion for full implementation.

The study provided the budget impact of the proposed revised ACS case rates. The incremental cost is relatively huge, however the benefits of providing coverage of guidelinedirected therapy including invasive strategies for ACS must be considered.

INTRODUCTION: Oral ivermectin is an approved first-line option to topical permethrin in Europe and Japan for the treatment of classic scabies, while combination oral ivermectin and topical permethrin is used in clinical practice for extensive or recurrent cases. There is unclear evidence on comparative efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin versus topical permethrin or its combination in the treatment of classic scabies.

METHODS: We searched PubMed from January 1, 2016 up to August 7, 2021 for systematic reviews that included RCTs comparing oral ivermectin versus topical permethrin or its combination in the clinical treatment of scabies. We described the characteristics of included studies, assessed reporting quality, and summarized results and conclusion.

RESULTS: We included five systematic reviews. Permethrin did not differ from oral ivermectin in cure rate at the 3 to 6-week time point but had an earlier cure at 1-2 weeks. Adverse effects did not significantly diff er and were few, mild, and transient with both treatments. The evidence ranged widely from low to high certainty and mainly came from three moderate-to-high quality systematic reviews. Combination oral ivermectin and topical permethrin was ranked higher in efficacy but lower in safety compared to either drug alone in one moderate validity network meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION: There is varying certainty of evidence suggesting comparable efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin versus topical permethrin. Limited evidence suggest higher efficacy and lower safety of combination oral ivermectin and topical permethrin compared to either drug alone. An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis is warranted.

KEYWORDS: scabies, ivermectin, permethrin, effectiveness, efficacy, safety