Incidence of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw in Patients With Breast Cancer During a 20-Year Follow-Up: A Population-Based Multicenter Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is one of the most important toxicities of antiresorptive therapy, which is standard practice for patients with breast cancer and bone metastases. However, the population-based incidence of MRONJ is not well established. We therefore performed a retrospective multicenter study to assess the incidence for a whole Austrian federal state (Tyrol). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study was conducted between 2000 and 2020 at all nine breast centers across Tyrol, Austria. Using the cancer registry, the total Tyrolean population was screened for all patients with breast cancer. All patients with breast cancer and bone metastases receiving antiresorptive therapy were finally included in the study. RESULTS: From 8,860 patients initially screened, 639 individuals were eligible and included in our study. Patients received antiresorptive therapy once per month without de-escalation of therapy. MRONJ was diagnosed in 56 (8.8%, 95% CI, 6.6 to 11.0) patients. The incidence of MRONJ was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.0 to 15.3) in individuals treated with denosumab only, 2.8% (95% CI, 0.7 to 4.8) in those treated with bisphosphonates only, and 16.3% (95% CI, 8.8 to 23.9) in the group receiving bisphosphonates followed by denosumab. Individuals developed MRONJ significantly earlier when treated with denosumab. Time to MRONJ after treatment initiation was 4.6 years for individuals treated with denosumab only, 5.1 years for individuals treated with bisphosphonates only, and 8.4 years for individuals treated with both consecutively. CONCLUSION: MRONJ incidence in breast cancer patients with bone metastases was found to be considerably higher, especially for patients receiving denosumab, when compared with available data in the literature. Additionally, patients treated with denosumab developed MRONJ significantly earlier.

Cost-effectiveness of applying high-sensitivity troponin I to a score for cardiovascular risk prediction in asymptomatic population.

INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification scores such as the European Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) are used to guide individuals on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Adding high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) to such risk scores has the potential to improve accuracy of CVD prediction. We investigated how applying hsTnI in addition to SCORE may impact management, outcome, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Characteristics of 72,190 apparently healthy individuals from the Biomarker for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Europe (BiomarCaRE) project were included into a discrete-event simulation comparing two strategies for assessing CVD risk. The standard strategy reflecting current practice employed SCORE (SCORE); the alternative strategy involved adding hsTnI information for further stratifying SCORE risk categories (S-SCORE). Individuals were followed over ten years from baseline examination to CVD event, death or end of follow-up. The model tracked the occurrence of events and calculated direct costs of screening, prevention, and treatment from a European health system perspective. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in € per quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) gained during 10 years of follow-up. Outputs were validated against observed rates, and results were tested in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: S-SCORE yielded a change in management for 10.0% of individuals, and a reduction in CVD events (4.85% vs. 5.38%, p<0.001) and mortality (6.80% vs. 7.04%, p<0.001). S-SCORE led to 23 (95%CI: 20-26) additional event-free years and 7 (95%CI: 5-9) additional QALYs per 1,000 subjects screened, and resulted in a relative risk reduction for CVD of 9.9% (95%CI: 7.3-13.5%) with a number needed to screen to prevent one event of 183 (95%CI: 172 to 203). S-SCORE increased costs per subject by 187€ (95%CI: 177 € to 196 €), leading to an ICER of 27,440€/QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis was performed with eligibility for treatment being the most sensitive. CONCLUSION: Adding a person's hsTnI value to SCORE can impact clinical decision making and eventually improves QALYs and is cost-effective compared to CVD prevention strategies using SCORE alone. Stratifying SCORE risk classes for hsTnI would likely offer cost-effective alternatives, particularly when targeting higher risk groups.

Diagnostic Prediction Model for Tuberculous Meningitis: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

No accurate and rapid diagnostic test exists for tuberculous meningitis (TBM), leading to delayed diagnosis. We leveraged data from multiple studies to improve the predictive performance of diagnostic models across different populations, settings, and subgroups to develop a new predictive tool for TBM diagnosis. We conducted a systematic review to analyze eligible datasets with individual-level participant data (IPD). We imputed missing data and explored three approaches: stepwise logistic regression, classification and regression tree (CART), and random forest regression. We evaluated performance using calibration plots and C-statistics via internal-external cross-validation. We included 3,761 individual participants from 14 studies and nine countries. A total of 1,240 (33%) participants had "definite" (30%) or "probable" (3%) TBM by case definition. Important predictive variables included cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) glucose, blood glucose, CSF white cell count, CSF differential, cryptococcal antigen, HIV status, and fever presence. Internal validation showed that performance varied considerably between IPD datasets with C-statistic values between 0.60 and 0.89. In external validation, CART performed the worst (C = 0.82), and logistic regression and random forest had the same accuracy (C = 0.91). We developed a mobile app for TBM clinical prediction that accounted for heterogeneity and improved diagnostic performance (https://tbmcalc.github.io/tbmcalc). Further external validation is needed.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Maintenance Pemetrexed Plus Best Supportive Care Compared With Best Supportive Care Alone in Treating Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Jordan.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care (BSC) in non-small cell lung cancer patients from a Jordanian healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A Markov model with 4 health states was developed to estimate life years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and the incremental cost-utility ratio of pemetrexed plus BSC versus BSC. A lifelong time horizon was used in the base-case analysis. The transition probabilities were estimated from the PARAMOUNT trial, the utility weights were taken from published literature, and costs were based on data and unit costs at King Hussein Cancer Center and the Jordan Food and Drug Administration. Both costs and outcomes were discounted using a 3%. The parameter uncertainty was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that pemetrexed plus BSC increased QALYs and cost compared with BSC. Pemetrexed plus BSC leads to incremental 0.255 QALYs and incremental costs of US $30 826, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of US $120 886/QALY. The results were sensitive to changes in the utility estimates during the progression-free health state, the progression health state, and the cost of postprogression medications The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of pemetrexed plus BSC being a cost-effective option compared with BSC is 0 at a threshold of $56 000. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance pemetrexed for non-small cell lung cancer is not a cost-effective option compared with BSC from a healthcare system perspective based on the listed price at a threshold of $56 000/QALY.

Methodological guidelines and publications of benefit-risk assessment for health technology assessment: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To map the available methodological guidelines and documents for conducting and reporting benefit-risk assessment (BRA) during health technologies' life cycle; and to identify methodological guidelines for BRA that could serve as the basis for the development of a BRA guideline for the context of health technology assessment (HTA) in Brazil. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: Searches were conducted in three main sources up to March 2023: (1) electronic databases; (2) grey literature (48 HTA and regulatory organisations) and (3) manual search and contacting experts. We included methodological guidelines or publications presenting methods for conducting or reporting BRA of any type of health technologies in any context of the technology's life cycle. Selection process and data charting were conducted by independent reviewers. We provided a structured narrative synthesis of the findings. RESULTS: From the 83 eligible documents, six were produced in the HTA context, 30 in the regulatory and 35 involved guidance for BRA throughout the technology's life cycle. We identified 129 methodological approaches for BRA in the documents. The most commonly referred to descriptive frameworks were the Problem, Objectives, Alternatives, Consequences, Trade-offs, Uncertainty, Risk and Linked decisions and the Benefit-Risk Action Team. Multicriteria decision analysis was the most commonly cited quantitative framework. We also identified the most cited metric indices, estimation and utility survey techniques that could be used for BRA. CONCLUSIONS: Methods for BRA in HTA are less established. The findings of this review, however, will support and inform the elaboration of the Brazilian methodological guideline on BRA for HTA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/69T3V.

Detection of Adverse Events With the Austrian Inpatient Quality Indicators.

OBJECTIVES: Indicators based on routine data are considered a readily available and cost-effective method for assessing health care quality and safety. The Austrian Inpatient Quality Indicators (A-IQI) have been introduced in all Austrian public hospitals as a mandatory quality measurement. The purpose of this study was to assess the value of conspicuous A-IQI in predicting the presence of adverse events (AEs). METHODS: We conducted an exploratory study comparing all indicator-positive patient cases contributing to 18 conspicuous A-IQI indicators to randomly selected indicator-negative control cases regarding the prevalence and severity of AEs. Structured medical record review using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool was used as the gold standard. RESULTS: In 421 chart reviews, we identified 158 AEs. 70.9% (n = 112) of the AEs were found in cases with a positive indicator. The relative risk of an AE occurring was 3.47 (95% confidence interval: 2.30, 5.24) in indicator-positive cases compared to indicator-negatives. The proportion of severe events (National Coordination Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention Index categories H and I) was 54.5% (n = 61) in indicator-positive cases and only 15.3% (n = 7) in indicator-negative cases. Overall sensitivity of the A-IQI was 68.2%, specificity 69.4%, positive predictive value 36.0%, and negative predictive value 89.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that significantly more AEs and more severe AEs were found in cases with positive A-IQI than in indicator-negative control cases. However, studies with larger numbers of cases and with larger numbers of conspicuous indicators are needed for the validation of the entire A-IQI indicator set.

The assessment of quality of care of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a population-based cohort in the District of Landeck in Austria.

INTRODUCTION: Structured diabetes care based on evidence-based guidelines is one of the main strategies to improve glycemic control and to reduce long-term complications in diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This study is based on the "Diabetes-Landeck Cohort", a population-based cohort of patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2DM). We assessed the quality of diabetes care and compared it between three groups of care units, that is, general practitioners (GP), diabetes specialists in private practice (DSPP), and hospitals (HOSP). RESULTS: The total study population comprised 1616 patients with T2DM, including 378 patients of GP, 281 of DSPP, and 957 from HOSP. We identified statistically significant differences: DSPP showed the highest percentage of structured training, sufficient training, eye examinations and foot examinations. The group HOSP showed the highest proportion for increased HbA1c≥ 7.5 and almost all long-term complications surveyed, that is, nephropathy (23.2%), neuropathy (14.4%), diabetic foot (5.1%), and cerebrovascular diseases (10.9%). CONCLUSION: This population-based cohort study on patients with T2DM in Austria showed significant differences in important quality-of-care process and outcome parameters across different groups of care units. Future research should also include prediction modeling for early warning and monitoring systems as well as adjustment for patient characteristics and duration and severity of disease.

Acceptability of Using Real-World Data to Estimate Relative Treatment Effects in Health Technology Assessments: Barriers and Future Steps.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence about the comparative effects of new treatments is typically collected in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In some instances, RCTs are not possible, or their value is limited by an inability to capture treatment effects over the longer term or in all relevant population subgroups. In these cases, nonrandomized studies (NRS) using real-world data (RWD) are increasingly used to complement trial evidence on treatment effects for health technology assessment (HTA). However, there have been concerns over a lack of acceptability of this evidence by HTA agencies. This article aims to identify the barriers to the acceptance of NRS and steps that may facilitate increases in the acceptability of NRS in the future. METHODS: Opinions of the authorship team based on their experience in real-world evidence research in academic, HTA, and industry settings, supported by a critical assessment of existing studies. RESULTS: Barriers were identified that are applicable to key stakeholder groups, including HTA agencies (eg, the lack of comprehensive methodological guidelines for using RWD), evidence generators (eg, avoidable deviations from best practices), and external stakeholders (eg, data controllers providing timely access to high-quality RWD). Future steps that may facilitate future acceptability of NRS include improvements in the quality, integration, and accessibility of RWD, wider use of demonstration projects to highlight the value and applicability of nonrandomized designs, living, and more detailed HTA guidelines, and improvements in HTA infrastructure relating to RWD. CONCLUSION: NRS can represent a crucial source of evidence on treatment effects for use in HTA when RCT evidence is limited.

Improving shared decision-making about cancer treatment through design-based data-driven decision-support tools and redesigning care paths: an overview of the 4D PICTURE project.

Background: Patients with cancer often have to make complex decisions about treatment, with the options varying in risk profiles and effects on survival and quality of life. Moreover, inefficient care paths make it hard for patients to participate in shared decision-making. Data-driven decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, support personalized care, improve health outcomes and promote health equity. However, decision-support tools currently seldom consider quality of life or individual preferences, and their use in clinical practice remains limited, partly because they are not well integrated in patients' care paths. Aim and objectives: The central aim of the 4D PICTURE project is to redesign patients' care paths and develop and integrate evidence-based decision-support tools to improve decision-making processes in cancer care delivery. This article presents an overview of this international, interdisciplinary project. Design methods and analysis: In co-creation with patients and other stakeholders, we will develop data-driven decision-support tools for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer and melanoma. We will support treatment decisions by using large, high-quality datasets with state-of-the-art prognostic algorithms. We will further develop a conversation tool, the Metaphor Menu, using text mining combined with citizen science techniques and linguistics, incorporating large datasets of patient experiences, values and preferences. We will further develop a promising methodology, MetroMapping, to redesign care paths. We will evaluate MetroMapping and these integrated decision-support tools, and ensure their sustainability using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. We will explore the generalizability of MetroMapping and the decision-support tools for other types of cancer and across other EU member states. Ethics: Through an embedded ethics approach, we will address social and ethical issues. Discussion: Improved care paths integrating comprehensive decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, their significant others and healthcare providers in decision-making and improve outcomes. This project will strengthen health care at the system level by improving its resilience and efficiency.

Improving the cancer patient journey and respecting personal preferences: an overview of the 4D PICTURE project The 4D PICTURE project aims to help cancer patients, their families and healthcare providers better undertstand their options. It supports their treatment and care choices, at each stage of disease, by drawing on large amounts of evidence from different types of European data. The project involves experts from many different specialist areas who are based in nine European countries. The overall aim is to improve the cancer patient journey and ensure personal preferences are respected.

Implementation of a comprehensive clinical risk management system in a university hospital.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events during hospital treatment are common and can lead to serious harm. This study reports the implementation of a comprehensive clinical risk management system in a university hospital and assesses the impact of clinical risk management on patient harms. METHODS: The clinical risk management system was rolled out over a period of eight years and consisted of a training of interdisciplinary risk management teams, external and internal risk audits, and the implementation of a critical incident reporting system (CIRS). The risks identified during the audits were analyzed according to the type, severity, and implementation of preventive measures. Other key figures of the risk management system were obtained from the annual risk reports. The number of liability cases was used as primary outcome measurement. RESULTS: Of the 1,104 risks identified during the risk audits, 56.2% were related to organization, 21.3% to documentation, 15.3% to treatment, and 7.2% to patient information and consent. The highest proportion of serious risks was found in the category organization (22.7%), the lowest in the category documentation (13.6%). Critical incident reporting identified between 241 and 370 critical incidents per year, for which in 79.5% to 83% preventive measures were implemented within twelve months. The frequency of incident reports per department correlated with the number of active risk managers and risk team meetings. Compared with the years prior to the introduction of the clinical risk management system, an average annual reduction of harms by 60.1% (95% CI: 57.1; 63.1) was observed two years after the implementation was completed. On average, the rate of harms dropped by 5% per year for each 10% increase in roll-out of the clinical risk management system (incidence rate ratio: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.93; 0.97) . CONCLUSION: The results of this project demonstrate the effectiveness of clinical risk management in detecting treatment-related risks and in reducing harm to patients.

Nature-based social interventions to address loneliness among vulnerable populations: a common study protocol for three related randomized controlled trials in Barcelona, Helsinki, and Prague within the RECETAS European project.

BACKGROUND: The negative effects of loneliness on population health and wellbeing requires interventions that transcend the medical system and leverage social, cultural, and public health system resources. Group-based social interventions are a potential method to alleviate loneliness. Moreover, nature, as part of our social and health infrastructure, may be an important part of the solutions that are needed to address loneliness. The RECETAS European project H2020 (Re-imagining Environments for Connection and Engagement: Testing Actions for Social Prescribing in Natural Spaces) is an international research project aiming to develop and test the effectiveness of nature-based social interventions to reduce loneliness and increase health-related quality of life. METHODS: This article describes the three related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that will be implemented: the RECETAS-BCN Trial in Barcelona (Spain) is targeting people 18+ from low socio-economic urban areas; the RECETAS-PRG Trial in Prague (Czech Republic) is addressing community-dwelling older adults over 60 years of age, and the RECETAS-HLSNK trial is reaching older people in assisted living facilities. Each trial will recruit 316 adults suffering from loneliness at least sometimes and randomize them to nature-based social interventions called "Friends in Nature" or to the control group. "Friends in Nature" uses modifications of the "Circle of Friends" methodology based on group processes of peer support and empowerment but including activities in nature. Participants will be assessed at baseline, at post-intervention (3 months), and at 6- and 12-month follow-up after baseline. Primary outcomes are the health-related quality-of-life according to 15D measure and The De Jong Gierveld 11-item loneliness scale. Secondary outcomes are health and psychosocial variables tailored to the specific target population. Nature exposure will be collected throughout the intervention period. Process evaluation will explore context, implementation, and mechanism of impact. Additionally, health economic evaluations will be performed. DISCUSSION: The three RECETAS trials will explore the effectiveness of nature-based social interventions among lonely people from various ages, social, economic, and cultural backgrounds. RECETAS meets the growing need of solid evidence for programs addressing loneliness by harnessing the beneficial impact of nature on enhancing wellbeing and social connections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Barcelona (Spain) trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT05488496. Registered 29 July 2022. Prague (Czech Republic) trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT05522140. Registered August 25, 2022. Helsinki (Finland) trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT05507684. Registered August 12, 2022.

Comparative Analysis of Instrumental Variables on the Assignment of Buprenorphine/Naloxone or Methadone for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Instrumental variable (IV) analysis provides an alternative set of identification assumptions in the presence of uncontrolled confounding when attempting to estimate causal effects. Our objective was to evaluate the suitability of measures of prescriber preference and calendar time as potential IVs to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone versus methadone for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: Using linked population-level health administrative data, we constructed five IVs: prescribing preference at the individual, facility, and region levels (continuous and categorical variables), calendar time, and a binary prescriber's preference IV in analyzing the treatment assignment-treatment discontinuation association using both incident-user and prevalent-new-user designs. Using published guidelines, we assessed and compared each IV according to the four assumptions for IVs, employing both empirical assessment and content expertise. We evaluated the robustness of results using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The study sample included 35,904 incident users (43.3% on buprenorphine/naloxone) initiated on opioid agonist treatment by 1585 prescribers during the study period. While all candidate IVs were strong (A1) according to conventional criteria, by expert opinion, we found no evidence against assumptions of exclusion (A2), independence (A3), monotonicity (A4a), and homogeneity (A4b) for prescribing preference-based IV. Some criteria were violated for the calendar time-based IV. We determined that preference in provider-level prescribing, measured on a continuous scale, was the most suitable IV for comparative effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone for the treatment of OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that prescriber's preference measures are suitable IVs in comparative effectiveness studies of treatment for OUD.

Long-term benefits and harms of early colorectal cancer screening in German individuals with familial cancer risk.

Individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) may benefit from early screening with colonoscopy or immunologic fecal occult blood testing (iFOBT). We systematically evaluated the benefit-harm trade-offs of various screening strategies differing by screening test (colonoscopy or iFOBT), interval (iFOBT: annual/biennial; colonoscopy: 10-yearly) and age at start (30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 years) and end of screening (65, 70 and 75 years) offered to individuals identified with familial CRC risk in Germany. A Markov-state-transition model was developed and used to estimate health benefits (CRC-related deaths avoided, life-years gained [LYG]), potential harms (eg, associated with additional colonoscopies) and incremental harm-benefit ratios (IHBR) for each strategy. Both benefits and harms increased with earlier start and shorter intervals of screening. When screening started before age 50, 32-36 CRC-related deaths per 1000 persons were avoided with colonoscopy and 29-34 with iFOBT screening, compared to 29-31 (colonoscopy) and 28-30 (iFOBT) CRC-related deaths per 1000 persons when starting age 50 or older, respectively. For iFOBT screening, the IHBRs expressed as additional colonoscopies per LYG were one (biennial, age 45-65 vs no screening), four (biennial, age 35-65), six (biennial, age 30-70) and 34 (annual, age 30-54; biennial, age 55-75). Corresponding IHBRs for 10-yearly colonoscopy were four (age 55-65), 10 (age 45-65), 15 (age 35-65) and 29 (age 30-70). Offering screening with colonoscopy or iFOBT to individuals with familial CRC risk before age 50 is expected to be beneficial. Depending on the accepted IHBR threshold, 10-yearly colonoscopy or alternatively biennial iFOBT from age 30 to 70 should be recommended for this target group.

Chronic Hepatitis C treatment for genotype 2 or 3 in Brazil: cost effectiveness analysis of peginterferon plus ribavirin as first choice treatment

Brazilian Guidelines to HCV treatment (2007) recommended that the first choice treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and genotype 2 or 3 is interferon alpha (IFN) plus ribavirin (RBV) for 24 weeks. The aim of this study is compare the cost and effectiveness to Hepatitis C treatment in patients with genotype 2 or 3 of peginterferon alpha (PEG) as the first choice of treatment within PEG for those that do not respond to IFN. The target population is CHC patients with genotype 2 or 3 in Brazil. The interventions are: PEG-SEC (first IFN plus RBV for 24 weeks, after, for non-responders and relapsers subsequently PEG plus RBV for 48 weeks); PEG-FIRST24 (PEG+RBV for 24 weeks). The type of the study is cost-effectiveness analysis. The data sources are: Effectiveness data from meta-analysis conducted on the Brazilian population. Treatment cost from Brazilian micro costing study is converted into USD (2010). The perspective is the Public Health System. The outcome measurements are Sustained Viral Response (SVR) and costs. PEG-FIRST24 (SVR: 87.8%, costs: USD 8,338.27) was more effective and more costly than PEG-SEC (SVR: 79.2%, costs: USD 5,852.99). The sensitivity analyses are: When SVR rates with IFN was less than 30% PEG-FIRST is dominant. On the other hand, when SVR with IFN was more then 75% PEG-SEC is dominant (SVR=88.2% and costs USD $ 3,753.00). PEG-SEC is also dominant when SVR to PEG24 weeks was less than 54%. In the Brazilian context, PEG-FIRST is more effective and more expensive than PEG-SEC. PEG-SEC could be dominant when rates of IFN therapy are higher than 75% or rates of PEG24 therapy are lower than 54%.

O protocolo brasileiro de tratamento da Hepatite C (2007) recomendava como primeira escolha para pacientes com hepatite C crônica e portadores de genótipo 2 ou 3 o tratamento com interferona alfa (IFN) associada à ribavirina (RBV), por 24 semanas. O objetivo deste estudo é comparar o custo e a efetividade para pacientes com hepatite C crônica e portadores do genótipo 2 ou 3 o uso de peguinterferon (PEG) como primeiro escolha com o PEG como secunda escolha para aqueles que não responderam ao tratamento com IFN. A população alvo compreende pacientes com hepatite C crônica portadores de genótipo 2 ou 3 no Brasil. As intervenções são: PEG-SEC (IFN + RBV por 24 semanas, para os não respondedores e recidivantes tratamento subsequente com PEG + RBV por 48 semanas; PEG-FIRST24 (PEG + RBV por 24 semanas). O tipo de estudo envolvido é Análise de Custo Efetividade. Os dados de efetividade são provenientes de um metanálise de estudos brasileiros e os dados de custo do tratamento de um estudo de custo do contexto brasileiro. A perspectiva é o Sistema Público de Saúde. Os desfechos avaliados foram Resposta Viral Sustentada (RVS) e Custos. PEG-FIRST24 (RVS: 87,8%, costs: USD 8.338,27) foi mais efetivo e apresentou maior custo que PEG-SEC (RVS: 79,2%, custo USD 5.852,99). A análise de sensibilidade demonstrou que PEG-SEC é dominado por PEG-FIRST24 quando RVS com IFN for menor que 30%. Por outro lado, quando RVS com IFN for maior que 75% PEG-SEC é dominante (RVS=88.2% e custo USD $ 3.753,00). PEG-SEC é também dominante quando RVS para PEG24 for menor que 54%. Conclusão: No contexto brasileiro, PEG-FIRST é mais efetivo e mais custoso que PEG-SEC. PEG-SEC poderia ser dominante quando as taxas de RVS do tratamento com IFN forem superiores a 75% ou as taxas de PEG24 forem inferiores a 54%.