Cost-effectiveness of hypofractionated versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for the treatment of men with early glottic cancer: a study in the Brazilian public and private health system.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate whether hypofractionated radiotherapy (HYPOFRT) is a cost-effective strategy than conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for early-stage glottic cancer (ESGC) in the Brazilian public and private health systems. METHODS: Adopting the perspective of the Brazilian public and private health system as the payer, a Markov model with a lifetime horizon was built to delineate the health states for a cohort of 65-year-old men after with ESGC treated with either HYPOFRT or CFRT. Probabilities of controlled disease, local failure, distant metastasis, and death and utilities scores were extracted from randomized clinical trials. Costs were based on the public and private health system reimbursement values. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, for both the public and private health systems, HYPOFRT dominated CFRT, being more effective and less costly, with a negative ICER of R$264.32 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (public health system) and a negative ICER of R$2870.69/ QALY (private health system). The ICER was most sensitive to the probability of local failure, controlled disease, and salvage treatment costs. For the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicates that there is a probability of 99.99% of HYPOFRT being cost-effective considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of R$2,000 ($905.39) per QALY (public sector) and willingness-to-pay threshold of R$16,000 ($7243.10) per QALY (private sector). The results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Considering a threshold of R$ 40,000 per QALY, HYPOFRT was cost-effective compared to CFRT for ESGC in the Brazilian public health system. The Net Monetary Benefit (NMB) is approximately 2,4 times (public health system) and 5,2 (private health system) higher for HYPOFRT than CFRT, which could open the opportunity of incorporating new technologies.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy for the treatment of surgically ineligible stage I non-small cell lung cancer in the Brazilian public health system.

Background: The Brazilian public health system does not pay for the use of Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) due to its costs and the absence of cost-effectiveness analysis showing its benefit. The present study aims to evaluate whether the SBRT is a more cost-effective strategy than the conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for surgically ineligible stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Brazilian public health system. Methods: Adopting the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Healthcare System (SUS) as the payer, a Markov model with a lifetime horizon was built to delineate the health states for a cohort of 75-years-old men with medically inoperable NSCLC after treatment with SBRT or CFRT. Transition probabilities and health states utilities were adapted from the literature. Costs were based on the public health system reimbursement values and simulated in the private sector. Findings: The SBRT strategy results in more quality-adjusted life-year (QALYs) and costs with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of R$ 164.86 (U$ 65.16) per QALY and R$ 105 (U$ 41.50) per life-year gained (LYG). This strategy was cost-effective, considering a willingness-to-pay of R$ 25,000 (U$ 9,881.42) per QALY. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was approximately twice higher. The outcomes were confirmed with 92% of accuracy in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Interpretation: Using a threshold of R$25,000 per QALY, SBRT was more cost-effective than CFRT for NSCLC in a public health system of an upper-middle-income country. SBRT generates higher NMB than CFRT, which could open the opportunity to incorporate new technologies. Funding: Varian Medical Systems.

Risk of ageism in the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds in the recommendations of the national commission for incorporation of technologies in the Brazilian Unified Health System / Risco de idadismo no uso de limiares de custo-efetividade nas recomendações da comissão nacional de incorporações de tecnologias no Sistema Único de Saúde no Brasil

Government agencies perform health technology assessment when evaluating requests to incorporate technologies in public health systems. To promote participation in this decisionmaking process, the National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies in the Unified Health System (CONITEC) makes its recommendations available for public consultation for 20 days, which may occasionally be reduced or extended. Recently, CONITEC published its recommendations about the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds in health care decisionmaking. When reviewing the criteria for alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds, given that they promote innovation and equity in the Brazilian Unified Health System, we realized that the criterion "diseases affecting individuals at the end of life" was excluded from the list. This viewpoint article is a request for CONITEC to reconsider this position. The report disregards technical aspects related to the use of quality-adjusted life years as a metric in patients with low life expectancy, indicating the potential to discriminate against older adults and ignore the practical considerations of international organizations on this topic.

A avaliação de tecnologias em saúde (ATS) subsidia as agências governamentais voltadas à avaliação dos pedidos de incorporação de tecnologias junto aos seus respectivos sistemas públicos de saúde. Para promover a participação da sociedade no processo de tomada de decisão para a incorporação de novas tecnologias, a Comissão Nacional de Incorporação de Tecnologias no Sistema Único de Saúde (CONITEC) disponibiliza suas recomendações em consulta pública por um prazo de 20 dias, que pode ser excepcionalmente reduzido ou estendido. Recentemente, a CONITEC disponibilizou para consulta pública suas recomendações sobre o uso de Limiar de Cursto-Efetividade (LCE) nas decisões em saúde. Ao revisar os critérios previamente considerados no início das discussões sobre contextos passíveis de LCE alternativos, por promoverem a inovação e equidade em saúde para o Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), percebemos que o critério "doenças acometendo indivíduos no final da expectativa de vida" foi excluído da lista de critérios de flexibilização. Este artigo de ponto de vista discute o pedido de reconsideração enviado à CONITEC para que a posição seja revista. O entendimento expresso no relatório desconsidera aspectos técnicos relacionados ao uso do QALY como métrica em pacientes com baixa expectativa de vida, além disso, tem potencial discriminatório em relação à população geriátrica e ignora considerações práticas de órgãos internacionais em relação ao tema.