Economic evaluation of sunitinib versus pazopanib and best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Chile: cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed treatment comparison.

Background: Sunitinib and Pazopanib are two metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) treatment alternatives, however the health system in Chile does not consider coverage for any. The cost-effectiveness versus relevant comparator was assessed to support evidence-based decision making. Methods: A four health states Markov model was built: first, second line treatments, BSC and death. Benefits were measured in QALYs, and efficacy estimates were obtained from an indirect treatment comparison. A 10-year time horizon and a 3% undifferentiated discount rate were considered. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The costs of treating MRCC with Sunitinib were higher than Pazopanib and BSC. When comparing Sunitinib versus Pazopanib, the incremental benefit is small favoring Sunitinib (0.03 QALYs). The base case scenario shows an average ICER of PA versus BSC of US$62,327.11/QALY and of US$85,885/QALY for Sunitinib versus Pazopanib. The ICER was most sensitive to the OS relative to BSC, where evidence was associated to important bias. Conclusions: Sunitinib or Pazopanib can be considered cost-effective if a 3 GDP per-capita threshold is assumed. The decision between SU or PA is highly sensitive to the price of the drugs, rather than the outcomes. Therefore, the decision might be made based on cost-minimization exercise.

Estudio de impacto presupuestal de Daclatasvir asociado a Asunaprevir desde la perspectiva del sistema de salud público chileno.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact on the 2015 national health budget of incorporating Daclatasvir/Asunaprevir (DCV / ASV) for the treatment of Hepatitis C genotype 1b (HC1b) in Chile. METHODS: A Chilean HC1b patients cohort was modelled using local prevalence and incidence data. Two scenarios were built and compared, one were all patients receive Peginterferon/Ribavirin (PR) and another were all patients are treated with DCV/ASV. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of public health system of Chile assuming 100% reimbursement and a time horizon of 5 years. Costs associated with drug treatment, adverse events, other relevant resources and costs associated with disease complications were used. RESULTS: At a total DCV/ASV treatment price of USD $55,039, an additional of USD $65,6MM are required during the first year (prevalent cases) equivalent to 0.71% of the 2015 national health budget. From year 2 (incident cases), an additional of USD $12,3MM are needed (0.13% of the 2015 health budget). A price reduction of 33% (USD $36,693), requires an additional of USD $38,2MM the first year and USD $7,16MM from the second year (0.11% and 0.6% of the health budget). If the treatment price is reduced further (USD $18,347), an additional USD $10,9MM are required for the first year and USD $2,03MM from the second year (0.3% and 0.057% of the 2015 heath budget). CONCLUSION: The impact on the health budget ranges between 0.3% and 0.71% the first year and decreases to less than 0.15% from the second year considering the price assessed price range.

Reducing the costs of chemotherapy antiemetic prophylaxis: results of a pilot single institution randomized double blind trial comparing standard dose ondansetron versus low dose granisetron

Os antagonistas serotoninérgicos como o Granisetron (GRA) e Ondansetron (OND) são medicações antieméticas eficazes porém muito custosas. Neste estudo, comparamos a eficácia antiemética da menor dose endovenosa (EV)recomendada de GRA (10ug/kg) com a dose padrão e mais cara de 32 mg EV de OND administradas antes de quimioterapia de alto e moderado poder emetogênico a paciente previamente não tratados. Oitenta pacientes foram aleatorizados, 45 para GRA e 35 para OND. Ambos os grupos foram comparáveis em relação a idade, sexo, uso de álcool e poder emetogênico da quimioterapia administrada. A eficácia destas medicações foi medida 24 horas após a sua administração. Proteção completa de vômitos, náuseas e ambos náuseas e vômitos ocorreram em 68,5 versus 46.6 por cento (p=0.083), 45 por cento versus 40 por cento (p=0.77) e 42 por cento versus 22 por cento (p=0.08) dos pacientes tratados com OND e GRA, respectivamente. Não houve diferenças significativas entre os dois grupos em relação ao número de episódios de vômitos, intensidade da náusea, e na avaliação de qualidade de vida (QV) medida através do questionário FLIE ("Functional Living Index of Emesis"). O custo de aquisição do regime contendo GRA foi cerca de 5 vezes inferior ao de OND. Concluímos que, apesar de uma tendência favorecendo uma maior eficácia antiemética de OND, face à grande diferença em termos do preço de aquisição de ambos os regimes antieméticos, a utilização de GRA na dose de 10 ug/kg EV parece ser uma alternativa aceitável à mais custosa dose padrão de 32 mg EV de OND, sem prejuízo na avaliação de QV.