Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad para esclerosis múltiple
ilustraciones, graficas
- Autores:
-
Sánchez González, Edna Zoraya
- Tipo de recurso:
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2022
- Institución:
- Universidad Nacional de Colombia
- Repositorio:
- Universidad Nacional de Colombia
- Idioma:
- spa
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repositorio.unal.edu.co:unal/82647
- Palabra clave:
- Esclerosis Múltiple
Costos y Análisis de Costo
Multiple Sclerosis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Esclerosis múltiple remitente-recurrente
Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas
Toma de decisiones
Calidad metodológica
Terapia modificadora de la enfermedad
Transferibilidad
Multiple Sclerosis
Relapsing-remitting
Cost-benefit analysis
Systematic review of health economic evaluations
Decisions making
Disease-modifying therapies
- Rights
- openAccess
- License
- Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional
| id |
UNACIONAL2_ec021e672c8424b6da0f724c39baea45 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unal.edu.co:unal/82647 |
| network_acronym_str |
UNACIONAL2 |
| network_name_str |
Universidad Nacional de Colombia |
| repository_id_str |
|
| dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv |
Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad para esclerosis múltiple |
| dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv |
Systematic review of economic evaluations of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis |
| title |
Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad para esclerosis múltiple |
| spellingShingle |
Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad para esclerosis múltiple Esclerosis Múltiple Costos y Análisis de Costo Multiple Sclerosis Costs and Cost Analysis Esclerosis múltiple remitente-recurrente Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas Toma de decisiones Calidad metodológica Terapia modificadora de la enfermedad Transferibilidad Multiple Sclerosis Relapsing-remitting Cost-benefit analysis Systematic review of health economic evaluations Decisions making Disease-modifying therapies |
| title_short |
Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad para esclerosis múltiple |
| title_full |
Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad para esclerosis múltiple |
| title_fullStr |
Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad para esclerosis múltiple |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad para esclerosis múltiple |
| title_sort |
Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad para esclerosis múltiple |
| dc.creator.fl_str_mv |
Sánchez González, Edna Zoraya |
| dc.contributor.advisor.none.fl_str_mv |
Díaz Rojas, Jorge Augusto |
| dc.contributor.author.none.fl_str_mv |
Sánchez González, Edna Zoraya |
| dc.contributor.researchgroup.spa.fl_str_mv |
Ram (Red Para El Uso Adecuado de Medicamentos) |
| dc.subject.other.spa.fl_str_mv |
Esclerosis Múltiple Costos y Análisis de Costo |
| topic |
Esclerosis Múltiple Costos y Análisis de Costo Multiple Sclerosis Costs and Cost Analysis Esclerosis múltiple remitente-recurrente Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas Toma de decisiones Calidad metodológica Terapia modificadora de la enfermedad Transferibilidad Multiple Sclerosis Relapsing-remitting Cost-benefit analysis Systematic review of health economic evaluations Decisions making Disease-modifying therapies |
| dc.subject.other.eng.fl_str_mv |
Multiple Sclerosis Costs and Cost Analysis |
| dc.subject.proposal.spa.fl_str_mv |
Esclerosis múltiple remitente-recurrente Revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas Toma de decisiones Calidad metodológica Terapia modificadora de la enfermedad Transferibilidad |
| dc.subject.proposal.eng.fl_str_mv |
Multiple Sclerosis Relapsing-remitting Cost-benefit analysis Systematic review of health economic evaluations Decisions making Disease-modifying therapies |
| description |
ilustraciones, graficas |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-11-04T19:09:58Z |
| dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-11-04T19:09:58Z |
| dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv |
2022 |
| dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv |
Trabajo de grado - Maestría |
| dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion |
| dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv |
Text |
| dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TM |
| status_str |
acceptedVersion |
| dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/82647 |
| dc.identifier.instname.spa.fl_str_mv |
Universidad Nacional de Colombia |
| dc.identifier.reponame.spa.fl_str_mv |
Repositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombia |
| dc.identifier.repourl.spa.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/ |
| url |
https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/82647 https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/ |
| identifier_str_mv |
Universidad Nacional de Colombia Repositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombia |
| dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv |
spa |
| language |
spa |
| dc.relation.indexed.spa.fl_str_mv |
RedCol LaReferencia |
| dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv |
Indicadores Banco Mundial (US); 2012 - Gasto en salud, (total % del PIB). [Citado de Enero 14 de 2020] Disponible en: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?view=map&locations=CO Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Gasto de Salud en Colombia. Indicadores de gasto en atención en salud Años 2013 – 2015. [Citado 14 de Octubre 2021] Disponible en: https://www.minsalud.gov.co/proteccionsocial/Financiamiento/Paginas/indicadores_generales.aspx Collazo M; Sosa I. La farmacoeconomía: ¿Debe ser de interés para evaluar la eficiencia en la toma de decisiones? Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Quím. Farm., Vol. 40 (1), 54-66, 2011. World Health Organization. Neurological Disorders: Public health challenges Jun 2011[Citado 3 de Enero 2014], Disponible en: http://www.who.int/mental_health/neurology/chapter_3_a_neuro_disorders_public_h_challenges.pdf Sánchez JL, et al. Prevalencia de la Esclerosis Múltiple en Colombia. Rev Neurol 2000;31:1101-1103 Resolución 5265 de 2018. Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Por la cual se actualiza el listado de enfermedades huérfanas y se dictan otras disposiciones. 27 de noviembre de 2018 Toro J, et al. Prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Bogotá, Colombia. Neuroepidemiology 2007;28:33-38 Cubillos L, Alfonso E. Análisis descriptivo preliminar de los recobros en el sistema general de seguridad social en salud 2002 a 2005. Programa de apoyo a la reforma de salud. Crédito BID 910/OC-CO Jiménez-Pérez CH, et al. Estado actual de la esclerosis múltiple en Colombia. Acta Neurol Colomb. 2015; 31(4): 385-390 Romero M, et al. Costos de la Esclerosis Múltiple en Colombia. Value Health 2011;14(5 suppl1):S48- S50 Interferon Beta-1a. En: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com Interferon Beta-1b. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Green wood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com (Citado: 11/08/2021) Glatiramer. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com Natalizumab. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com Fingolimod. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com Cladribine. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com Alemtuzumab. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com Ocrelizumab. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com) Dimethyl Fumarate. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com) Teriflunomide. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com Peginterferon beta-1a. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com Ministerio de Salud. Guía Clínica Esclerosis Múltiple. Santiago, Chile. 2010 Tratamiento modificador de enfermedad en pacientes con diagnóstico de esclerosis múltiple. México: Secretaría de Salud; 2010 Carnero Contentti, E. (2012). Criterios diagnósticos para esclerosis múltiple: Revisión de los criterios de McDonald 2010. Neurología Argentina, 4(2), 102-104 Carmosino MJ, et al. Initial evaluations for multiple sclerosis in a university multiple sclerosis center: outcomes and role of magnetic resonance imaging in referral. Arch Neurol 2005 62(4):585-90 Gasperini, C (2001/. Differential diagnosis in multiple sclerosis. Neurol Sci. 2001; 22(2):93-7 Izquierdo G. Evaluación clínica de la esclerosis múltiple: cuantificación mediante la utilización de escalas. Rev Neurol 2003; 36 (2): 145-152 Henze T, et al. (2006). Symptomatic treatment of multiple sclerosis. European Neurology. 56:78-105 INVIMA: Base de datos de Consulta de Registros Sanitarios. Bogotá, Colombia: Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. [Consultado en Diciembre de 2021] Ministerio de la Protección Social – COLCIENCIAS. Guía Metodológica para la elaboración de Guías Atención Integral en el Sistema General de Seguridad Social en Salud Colombiano. Bogotá, Colombia. 2010 Oliva J et al. Evaluación económica de medicamentos: experiencias y vías de avance. Una visión complementaria. Gac Sanit. 2008;22(4):358-61 Dilla T, Sacristán J. Evaluación Económica de Intervenciones Sanitarias. Ediciones Doyma, S.L. Barcelona, 2006 López Bastida J. et al. Propuesta de guía para la evaluación económica aplicada a las tecnologías sanitarias. Madrid: Plan Nacional para el SNS del MSC. Servicio de Evaluación del Servicio Canario de la Salud; 2008. Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias: SESCS Nº 2006/22 Drummond M.(2007) Métodos para la evaluación económica de los programas de asistencia sanitaria. Edición Díaz de Santos. 2007: 173-76 Muenning P. Designing and Conducting Cost - Effectiveness Analyses in Medicine and Health Care. San Francisco: 2002 Espinoza M. Evaluación Económica para la toma de decisiones sobre cobertura en salud: ¿qué debe saber el profesional de la salud? Rev Chil Cardiol 2017; 36: 144-53 Higgins JPT, et al (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022 Mathes T, et al. Methods for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a systematic review, comparison, and synthesis of method literature.Med Decis Making. 2014;34(7):826‐840 Chiou CF, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003 Jan;41(1):32-44 Welte R, et al. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. PharmacoEconomics. 2004; 22(13):85 Luhnen, et al. Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: A structured analysis of characteristics and methods applied. Res Synth Methods. 2019; 10(2):195-206 Wijnen B, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016; Dec;16(6):723-732 Noyes, K., et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis: A population-based study. Neurology, 2011; 77(4), 355-363 O’Day, K., et al. M. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. Journal of Medical Economics. 2011; 14(5), 617-627 Sánchez-de la Rosa, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of disease modifiying drugs (interferons and glatiramer acetate) as first line treatments in remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis patients. Journal of Medical Economics. 2012; 15(3), 424-433 Agashivala, N., & Kim, E. Cost-effectiveness of early initiation of Fingolimod versus delayed initiation after 1 year of intramuscular interferon beta-1a in patients with multiple sclerosis. Clinical Therapeutics. 2012; 34(7), 1583-1590 Lee, S., et al. Cost-effectiveness of Fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States. Journal of Medical Economics. 2012; 15(6), 1088-1096 Imani, A., & Golestani, M. Cost-utility analysis of disease-modifying drugs in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Iran. Iranian Journal of Neurology. 2012: 11(3), 87-90 Pan F, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness model of interferon beta-1b in the early treatment of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Clin Ther. 2012; 34(9):1966-76 Nikfar, S.,et al. Cost-effectiveness of different interferon beta products for relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: Decision analysis based on long-term clinical data and switchable treatments. Daru: Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. 2013; 21(1), 50 Darbà, J., Kaskens, L., & Sánchez-de la Rosa, R. Cost-effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and interferon beta-1a for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, based on the CombiRx study. Journal of Medical Economics- 2014; 17(3), 215-222 Dembek, C., et al. Cost-effectiveness of injectable disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in Spain. The European Journal of Health Economics: HEPAC: Health Economics in Prevention and Care. 2014; 15(4), 353-362 Zhang, X., Hay, J. W., & Niu, X. Cost effectiveness of fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate and intramuscular interferon-β1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2015; 29(1), 71-81 O’Day, K., et al Cost-effectiveness of Natalizumab vs Fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: Analyses in Sweden. Journal of Medical Economics. 2015;18(4), 295-302 Hernandez, L., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of peginterferon beta-1a compared with interferon beta-1a and glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States. Journal of Medical Economics. 2016; 19(7), 684-695 Mauskopf, J., et al. Cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Journal of Medical Economics. 2016; 19(4), 432-442 Chevalier, J., et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A French Societal Perspective. PloS One. 2016; 11(3), e0150703 Su, W et al. The cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada. Journal of Medical Economics. 2016; 19(7), 718-727 Montgomery, S. M., et al. A discrete event simulation to model the cost-utility of Fingolimod and Natalizumab in rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(5), 474-482 Yang, H., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Ocrelizumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(10), 1056-1065 Sawad, A. B., et al. Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for treatment relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2017; 6(2), 97-108 Alsaqa’aby, M. F., et al. Cost-effectiveness of oral agents in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis compared to interferon-based therapy in Saudi Arabia. Annals of Saudi Medicine. 2017; 37(6), 433-443 Dashputre, A. A., Kamal, K. M., & Pawar, G. Cost-Effectiveness of Peginterferon Beta-1a and Alemtuzumab in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy. 2017; 23(6), 666-676 Montgomery, S. M., et al. Costs and effectiveness of Fingolimod versus Alemtuzumab in the treatment of highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK: Re-treatment, discount, and disutility. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(9), 962-973 Soini, E., Joutseno, J., & Sumelahti, M.-L. Cost-utility of First-line Disease-modifying Treatments for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. Clinical Therapeutics, 2017; 39(3), 537-557.e10 Hernandez, L., et al. Peginterferon beta-1a versus other self-injectable disease-modifying therapies in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Scotland: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(3), 228-238 Bozkaya, D., et al. The cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(3), 297-302 Frasco, M. A., et al. Incremental net monetary benefit of Ocrelizumab relative to subcutaneous interferon β -1a. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(10), 1074-1082 Hettle, R., Harty, G., & Wong, S. L. Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets, Alemtuzumab, and Natalizumab in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in England. Journal of Medical Economics. 2018; 21(7), 676-686 Chanatittarat, C., et al. Cost-Utility Analysis Of Multiple Sclerosis Treatment In Thailand. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2018; 34(6), 584-592 Zimmermann, M., et al. Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: A Cost-Utility Analysis. CNS Drugs. 2018; 32(12), 1145-1157 Hashemi-Meshkini, A., et al. Pegylated versus non-pegylated interferon beta 1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Iranian Journal of Neurology. 2018; 17(3), 123-128 Michels, R. E., et al. Cost Effectiveness of Cladribine Tablets for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in The Netherlands. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2019; 17(6), 857-873 Furneri, G., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of escalating to natalizumab or switching among immunomodulators in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy. BMC Health Services Research. 2019; 19(1), 436 Taheri, S., Sahraian, M. A., & Yousefi, N. Cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab and natalizumab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatment in Iran: Decision analysis based on an indirect comparison. Journal of Medical Economics. 2019; 22(1), 71-84 Chirikov, V., et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Alemtuzumab in the Treatment of Relapsing Forms of Multiple Sclerosis in the United States. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2019; 22(2), 168-176 Xu, Y., et al. Cost-effectiveness of Teriflunomide Compared to Interferon Beta-1b for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Patients in China. Clinical Drug Investigation. 2019; 39(3), 331-340 Walter, E., et al. Cost-utility analysis of alemtuzumab in comparison with interferon beta, fingolimod, and natalizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria. Journal of Medical Economics. 2019; 22(3), 226-237 Rezaee, M.,et al.Fingolimod versus natalizumab in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study in Iran. Journal of Medical Economics. 2019; 22(4), 297-305 Giovannoni, G., et al. Glatiramer acetate as a clinically and cost-effective treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis over 10 years of use within the National Health Service: Final results from the UK Risk Sharing Scheme. Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical, 2019; 5(4), 2055217319893103 Poveda, J. L., et al. Cost-effectiveness of Cladribine Tablets and Fingolimod in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in Spain. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. 2020;20(3), 295-303 Pinheiro, B., et al Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets versus Fingolimod in patients with highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis in Portugal. Journal of Medical Economics. 2020; 23(5), 484-491 Lasalvia, P., et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Natalizumab Compared With Fingolimod for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Treatment in Colombia. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2020; 23, 13-18 Ayati N, et al. Cladribine tablets are a cost-effective strategy in high-disease activity relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in Iran. Curr J Neurol. 2021;20(3):146–53 Espinoza, M. A., et al. A Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Cladribine Versus Alemtuzumab, Ocrelizumab and Natalizumab for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis with High Disease Activity in Chile. PharmacoEconomics. 2021 Bohlega, S., et al. Economic Evaluation of Cladribine Tablets in Patients With High Disease Activity–Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2021; 25, 189-195 |
| dc.rights.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| dc.rights.license.spa.fl_str_mv |
Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional |
| dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.extent.spa.fl_str_mv |
xiii, 76 páginas |
| dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv |
Universidad Nacional de Colombia |
| dc.publisher.program.spa.fl_str_mv |
Bogotá - Ciencias - Maestría en Ciencias - Farmacología |
| dc.publisher.faculty.spa.fl_str_mv |
Facultad de Ciencias |
| dc.publisher.place.spa.fl_str_mv |
Bogotá, Colombia |
| dc.publisher.branch.spa.fl_str_mv |
Universidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotá |
| institution |
Universidad Nacional de Colombia |
| bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/82647/1/license.txt https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/82647/2/1078367163.2022.pdf https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/82647/3/1078367163.2022.pdf.jpg |
| bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
eb34b1cf90b7e1103fc9dfd26be24b4a 3d0cff31ec8b3c58c29c612500fa6644 dbd5bbf1c8450b0f2a2fe361ae4f23a8 |
| bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombia |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
repositorio_nal@unal.edu.co |
| _version_ |
1814089791306727424 |
| spelling |
Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacionalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Díaz Rojas, Jorge Augustoec3d060d221609e5088d2b55505c5f5cSánchez González, Edna Zoraya084c4d258f624768435e9de2d9ae2016Ram (Red Para El Uso Adecuado de Medicamentos)2022-11-04T19:09:58Z2022-11-04T19:09:58Z2022https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/82647Universidad Nacional de ColombiaRepositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombiahttps://repositorio.unal.edu.co/ilustraciones, graficasRevisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad para esclerosis múltiple Objetivo. Llevar a cabo una revisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad aprobado en Colombia para esclerosis múltiple tipo remitente-recurrente. Materiales y métodos. Se llevó a cabo la búsqueda de evaluaciones económicas para la condición de interés en bases de datos especializadas como Medline, Embase, NHS EED entre otras. Se extrajo la información relevante a través de una matriz estandarizada y se evaluó la calidad de los estudios por medio de la herramienta QHES. Posteriormente, a través del instrumento propuesto por Welte et al, se evaluó la transferibilidad de los estudios considerados de alta calidad. Resultados. Con la búsqueda se recuperaron 1046 títulos, tras la depuración 45 artículos fueron incluidos en la revisión para análisis de texto completo los cuáles a su vez alimentaron la matriz de extracción de datos. Tras la evaluación de la calidad metodológica 23 estudios obtuvieron 75 puntos o más de acuerdo con la escala QHES y estos fueron evaluados con el instrumento de Welte en relación a las características metodológicas, del sistema de salud y de la población determinando que ninguno era transferible al contexto colombiano. Conclusiones. Los estudios incluidos en la revisión presentan alta heterogeneidad, hecho que dificulta definir cuál es la mejor alternativa para el tratamiento de la esclerosis múltiple remitente-recurrente y aún más para transferir los resultados al contexto colombiano. Sin embargo, este tipo de abordaje permite establecer los mejores parámetros para el desarrollo de una evaluación de novo, ahorrando de esta manera tiempo y recursos en la toma de decisiones. (Texto tomado de la fuente)Systematic review of economic evaluations of disease-modifying therapies in Multiple Sclerosis. Objective. To carry out a systematic review of economic evaluations of disease-modifying therapies in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis approved in Colombia. Materials and Methods. It was conducted a search of economic evaluations published until December 2021 in specialized databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS EED among others. Relevant information was extracted through a standardized matrix based on the literature and the quality of the studies was later evaluated using the QHES tool. Subsequently, through the instrument proposed by Welte et al, it was found that none can be transferable for the Colombian context. Findings. From the search 1046 titles were retrieved. After filtering, 45 articles were included in the review for full text analysis, which in turn fed the data extraction matrix and were subject to methodological quality assessment. Regarding the evaluation of transferability, a selection of 23 studies was included, which obtained a score higher than 75 and were analyzed in relation to their methodological, health system and population characteristics. Conclusion. The studies included in the systematic review display a high heterogeneity, a fact that makes it difficult to define which is the best alternative for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and even more so to transfer the results to the Colombian context. However, this type of approach allows establishing the best parameters for the development of a de novo evaluation, thus saving time and resources in decision making process.MaestríaMagíster en Ciencias - FarmacologíaFarmacoeconomíaxiii, 76 páginasapplication/pdfspaUniversidad Nacional de ColombiaBogotá - Ciencias - Maestría en Ciencias - FarmacologíaFacultad de CienciasBogotá, ColombiaUniversidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede BogotáEsclerosis MúltipleCostos y Análisis de CostoMultiple SclerosisCosts and Cost AnalysisEsclerosis múltiple remitente-recurrenteRevisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicasToma de decisionesCalidad metodológicaTerapia modificadora de la enfermedadTransferibilidadMultiple SclerosisRelapsing-remittingCost-benefit analysisSystematic review of health economic evaluationsDecisions makingDisease-modifying therapiesRevisión sistemática de evaluaciones económicas del tratamiento modificador del curso de la enfermedad para esclerosis múltipleSystematic review of economic evaluations of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosisTrabajo de grado - Maestríainfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionTexthttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TMRedColLaReferenciaIndicadores Banco Mundial (US); 2012 - Gasto en salud, (total % del PIB). [Citado de Enero 14 de 2020] Disponible en: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?view=map&locations=COMinisterio de Salud y Protección Social. Gasto de Salud en Colombia. Indicadores de gasto en atención en salud Años 2013 – 2015. [Citado 14 de Octubre 2021] Disponible en: https://www.minsalud.gov.co/proteccionsocial/Financiamiento/Paginas/indicadores_generales.aspxCollazo M; Sosa I. La farmacoeconomía: ¿Debe ser de interés para evaluar la eficiencia en la toma de decisiones? Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Quím. Farm., Vol. 40 (1), 54-66, 2011.World Health Organization. Neurological Disorders: Public health challenges Jun 2011[Citado 3 de Enero 2014], Disponible en: http://www.who.int/mental_health/neurology/chapter_3_a_neuro_disorders_public_h_challenges.pdfSánchez JL, et al. Prevalencia de la Esclerosis Múltiple en Colombia. Rev Neurol 2000;31:1101-1103Resolución 5265 de 2018. Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Por la cual se actualiza el listado de enfermedades huérfanas y se dictan otras disposiciones. 27 de noviembre de 2018Toro J, et al. Prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Bogotá, Colombia. Neuroepidemiology 2007;28:33-38Cubillos L, Alfonso E. Análisis descriptivo preliminar de los recobros en el sistema general de seguridad social en salud 2002 a 2005. Programa de apoyo a la reforma de salud. Crédito BID 910/OC-COJiménez-Pérez CH, et al. Estado actual de la esclerosis múltiple en Colombia. Acta Neurol Colomb. 2015; 31(4): 385-390Romero M, et al. Costos de la Esclerosis Múltiple en Colombia. Value Health 2011;14(5 suppl1):S48- S50Interferon Beta-1a. En: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.comInterferon Beta-1b. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Green wood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com (Citado: 11/08/2021)Glatiramer. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.comNatalizumab. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.comFingolimod. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.comCladribine. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.comAlemtuzumab. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.comOcrelizumab. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com)Dimethyl Fumarate. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.com)Teriflunomide. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.comPeginterferon beta-1a. In: IBM Micromedex® DRUGDEX® (electronic version). IBM Watson Health/EBSCO Information Services, Greenwood Village, USA. [Citado 11 de agosto 2021.Disponible en: https://www.dynamed.comMinisterio de Salud. Guía Clínica Esclerosis Múltiple. Santiago, Chile. 2010Tratamiento modificador de enfermedad en pacientes con diagnóstico de esclerosis múltiple. México: Secretaría de Salud; 2010Carnero Contentti, E. (2012). Criterios diagnósticos para esclerosis múltiple: Revisión de los criterios de McDonald 2010. Neurología Argentina, 4(2), 102-104Carmosino MJ, et al. Initial evaluations for multiple sclerosis in a university multiple sclerosis center: outcomes and role of magnetic resonance imaging in referral. Arch Neurol 2005 62(4):585-90Gasperini, C (2001/. Differential diagnosis in multiple sclerosis. Neurol Sci. 2001; 22(2):93-7Izquierdo G. Evaluación clínica de la esclerosis múltiple: cuantificación mediante la utilización de escalas. Rev Neurol 2003; 36 (2): 145-152Henze T, et al. (2006). Symptomatic treatment of multiple sclerosis. European Neurology. 56:78-105INVIMA: Base de datos de Consulta de Registros Sanitarios. Bogotá, Colombia: Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. [Consultado en Diciembre de 2021]Ministerio de la Protección Social – COLCIENCIAS. Guía Metodológica para la elaboración de Guías Atención Integral en el Sistema General de Seguridad Social en Salud Colombiano. Bogotá, Colombia. 2010Oliva J et al. Evaluación económica de medicamentos: experiencias y vías de avance. Una visión complementaria. Gac Sanit. 2008;22(4):358-61Dilla T, Sacristán J. Evaluación Económica de Intervenciones Sanitarias. Ediciones Doyma, S.L. Barcelona, 2006López Bastida J. et al. Propuesta de guía para la evaluación económica aplicada a las tecnologías sanitarias. Madrid: Plan Nacional para el SNS del MSC. Servicio de Evaluación del Servicio Canario de la Salud; 2008. Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias: SESCS Nº 2006/22Drummond M.(2007) Métodos para la evaluación económica de los programas de asistencia sanitaria. Edición Díaz de Santos. 2007: 173-76Muenning P. Designing and Conducting Cost - Effectiveness Analyses in Medicine and Health Care. San Francisco: 2002Espinoza M. Evaluación Económica para la toma de decisiones sobre cobertura en salud: ¿qué debe saber el profesional de la salud? Rev Chil Cardiol 2017; 36: 144-53Higgins JPT, et al (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022Mathes T, et al. Methods for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a systematic review, comparison, and synthesis of method literature.Med Decis Making. 2014;34(7):826‐840Chiou CF, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003 Jan;41(1):32-44Welte R, et al. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. PharmacoEconomics. 2004; 22(13):85Luhnen, et al. Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: A structured analysis of characteristics and methods applied. Res Synth Methods. 2019; 10(2):195-206Wijnen B, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016; Dec;16(6):723-732Noyes, K., et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis: A population-based study. Neurology, 2011; 77(4), 355-363O’Day, K., et al. M. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. Journal of Medical Economics. 2011; 14(5), 617-627Sánchez-de la Rosa, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of disease modifiying drugs (interferons and glatiramer acetate) as first line treatments in remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis patients. Journal of Medical Economics. 2012; 15(3), 424-433Agashivala, N., & Kim, E. Cost-effectiveness of early initiation of Fingolimod versus delayed initiation after 1 year of intramuscular interferon beta-1a in patients with multiple sclerosis. Clinical Therapeutics. 2012; 34(7), 1583-1590Lee, S., et al. Cost-effectiveness of Fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States. Journal of Medical Economics. 2012; 15(6), 1088-1096Imani, A., & Golestani, M. Cost-utility analysis of disease-modifying drugs in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Iran. Iranian Journal of Neurology. 2012: 11(3), 87-90Pan F, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness model of interferon beta-1b in the early treatment of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Clin Ther. 2012; 34(9):1966-76Nikfar, S.,et al. Cost-effectiveness of different interferon beta products for relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: Decision analysis based on long-term clinical data and switchable treatments. Daru: Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. 2013; 21(1), 50Darbà, J., Kaskens, L., & Sánchez-de la Rosa, R. Cost-effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and interferon beta-1a for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, based on the CombiRx study. Journal of Medical Economics- 2014; 17(3), 215-222Dembek, C., et al. Cost-effectiveness of injectable disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in Spain. The European Journal of Health Economics: HEPAC: Health Economics in Prevention and Care. 2014; 15(4), 353-362Zhang, X., Hay, J. W., & Niu, X. Cost effectiveness of fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate and intramuscular interferon-β1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2015; 29(1), 71-81O’Day, K., et al Cost-effectiveness of Natalizumab vs Fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: Analyses in Sweden. Journal of Medical Economics. 2015;18(4), 295-302Hernandez, L., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of peginterferon beta-1a compared with interferon beta-1a and glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States. Journal of Medical Economics. 2016; 19(7), 684-695Mauskopf, J., et al. Cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Journal of Medical Economics. 2016; 19(4), 432-442Chevalier, J., et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A French Societal Perspective. PloS One. 2016; 11(3), e0150703Su, W et al. The cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada. Journal of Medical Economics. 2016; 19(7), 718-727Montgomery, S. M., et al. A discrete event simulation to model the cost-utility of Fingolimod and Natalizumab in rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(5), 474-482Yang, H., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Ocrelizumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(10), 1056-1065Sawad, A. B., et al. Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for treatment relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2017; 6(2), 97-108Alsaqa’aby, M. F., et al. Cost-effectiveness of oral agents in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis compared to interferon-based therapy in Saudi Arabia. Annals of Saudi Medicine. 2017; 37(6), 433-443Dashputre, A. A., Kamal, K. M., & Pawar, G. Cost-Effectiveness of Peginterferon Beta-1a and Alemtuzumab in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy. 2017; 23(6), 666-676Montgomery, S. M., et al. Costs and effectiveness of Fingolimod versus Alemtuzumab in the treatment of highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK: Re-treatment, discount, and disutility. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(9), 962-973Soini, E., Joutseno, J., & Sumelahti, M.-L. Cost-utility of First-line Disease-modifying Treatments for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. Clinical Therapeutics, 2017; 39(3), 537-557.e10Hernandez, L., et al. Peginterferon beta-1a versus other self-injectable disease-modifying therapies in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Scotland: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(3), 228-238Bozkaya, D., et al. The cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(3), 297-302Frasco, M. A., et al. Incremental net monetary benefit of Ocrelizumab relative to subcutaneous interferon β -1a. Journal of Medical Economics. 2017; 20(10), 1074-1082Hettle, R., Harty, G., & Wong, S. L. Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets, Alemtuzumab, and Natalizumab in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in England. Journal of Medical Economics. 2018; 21(7), 676-686Chanatittarat, C., et al. Cost-Utility Analysis Of Multiple Sclerosis Treatment In Thailand. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2018; 34(6), 584-592Zimmermann, M., et al. Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: A Cost-Utility Analysis. CNS Drugs. 2018; 32(12), 1145-1157Hashemi-Meshkini, A., et al. Pegylated versus non-pegylated interferon beta 1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Iranian Journal of Neurology. 2018; 17(3), 123-128Michels, R. E., et al. Cost Effectiveness of Cladribine Tablets for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in The Netherlands. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2019; 17(6), 857-873Furneri, G., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of escalating to natalizumab or switching among immunomodulators in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy. BMC Health Services Research. 2019; 19(1), 436Taheri, S., Sahraian, M. A., & Yousefi, N. Cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab and natalizumab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatment in Iran: Decision analysis based on an indirect comparison. Journal of Medical Economics. 2019; 22(1), 71-84Chirikov, V., et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Alemtuzumab in the Treatment of Relapsing Forms of Multiple Sclerosis in the United States. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2019; 22(2), 168-176Xu, Y., et al. Cost-effectiveness of Teriflunomide Compared to Interferon Beta-1b for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Patients in China. Clinical Drug Investigation. 2019; 39(3), 331-340Walter, E., et al. Cost-utility analysis of alemtuzumab in comparison with interferon beta, fingolimod, and natalizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria. Journal of Medical Economics. 2019; 22(3), 226-237Rezaee, M.,et al.Fingolimod versus natalizumab in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study in Iran. Journal of Medical Economics. 2019; 22(4), 297-305Giovannoni, G., et al. Glatiramer acetate as a clinically and cost-effective treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis over 10 years of use within the National Health Service: Final results from the UK Risk Sharing Scheme. Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical, 2019; 5(4), 2055217319893103Poveda, J. L., et al. Cost-effectiveness of Cladribine Tablets and Fingolimod in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in Spain. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. 2020;20(3), 295-303Pinheiro, B., et al Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets versus Fingolimod in patients with highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis in Portugal. Journal of Medical Economics. 2020; 23(5), 484-491Lasalvia, P., et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Natalizumab Compared With Fingolimod for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Treatment in Colombia. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2020; 23, 13-18Ayati N, et al. Cladribine tablets are a cost-effective strategy in high-disease activity relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in Iran. Curr J Neurol. 2021;20(3):146–53Espinoza, M. A., et al. A Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Cladribine Versus Alemtuzumab, Ocrelizumab and Natalizumab for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis with High Disease Activity in Chile. PharmacoEconomics. 2021Bohlega, S., et al. Economic Evaluation of Cladribine Tablets in Patients With High Disease Activity–Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2021; 25, 189-195AdministradoresEstudiantesPúblico generalResponsables políticosLICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-85879https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/82647/1/license.txteb34b1cf90b7e1103fc9dfd26be24b4aMD51ORIGINAL1078367163.2022.pdf1078367163.2022.pdfTesis de Maestría en Ciencias - Farmacologíaapplication/pdf1754674https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/82647/2/1078367163.2022.pdf3d0cff31ec8b3c58c29c612500fa6644MD52THUMBNAIL1078367163.2022.pdf.jpg1078367163.2022.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg5055https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/unal/82647/3/1078367163.2022.pdf.jpgdbd5bbf1c8450b0f2a2fe361ae4f23a8MD53unal/82647oai:repositorio.unal.edu.co:unal/826472023-08-10 23:04:14.625Repositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombiarepositorio_nal@unal.edu.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 |