Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 8 de 8
Filtrar
Mais filtros

País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Lancet Oncol ; 22(10): 1367-1377, 2021 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34560006

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries. FINDINGS: 87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9-54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13-90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68-94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13-68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2-41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0-9% in high-income countries. INTERPRETATION: These data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines. FUNDING: None.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/provisão & distribuição , Medicamentos Essenciais/provisão & distribuição , Saúde Global , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde , Oncologistas , Adulto , Antineoplásicos/economia , Estudos Transversais , Custos de Medicamentos , Medicamentos Essenciais/economia , Feminino , Saúde Global/economia , Pesquisas sobre Serviços de Saúde , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde/economia , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde/economia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
2.
JCO Glob Oncol ; 7: 342-352, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33656910

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Delays and disruptions in health systems because of the COVID-19 pandemic were identified by a previous systematic review from our group. For improving the knowledge about the pandemic consequences for cancer care, this article aims to identify the effects of mitigation strategies developed to reduce the impact of such delays and disruptions. METHODS: Systematic review with a comprehensive search including formal databases, cancer and COVID-19 data sources, gray literature, and manual search. We considered clinical trials, observational longitudinal studies, cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, case series, and case studies. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by specific tools. The mitigation strategies identified were described in detail and their effects were summarized narratively. RESULTS: Of 6,692 references reviewed, 28 were deemed eligible, and 9 studies with low to moderate methodological quality were included. Five multiple strategies and four single strategies were reported, and the possible effects of mitigating delays and disruptions in cancer care because of COVID-19 are inconsistent. The only comparative study reported a 48.7% reduction observed in the number of outpatient visits to the hospital accompanied by a small reduction in imaging and an improvement in radiation treatments after the implementation of a multiple organizational strategy. CONCLUSION: The findings emphasize the infrequency of measuring and reporting mitigation strategies that specifically address patients' outcomes and thus a scarcity of high-quality evidence to inform program development. This review reinforces the need of adopting standardized measurement methods to monitor the impact of the mitigation strategies proposed to reduce the effects of delays and disruptions in cancer health care because of COVID-19.


Assuntos
COVID-19/epidemiologia , Institutos de Câncer , Disparidades nos Níveis de Saúde , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde , Oncologia/tendências , Neoplasias/terapia , Estudos Transversais , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos , Oncologia/organização & administração , Modelos Organizacionais , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Pandemias , Tempo para o Tratamento
3.
JCO Glob Oncol ; 7: 311-323, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33617304

RESUMO

PURPOSE: There has been noteworthy concern about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health services including the management of cancer. In addition to being considered at higher risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, people with cancer may also experience disruptions or delays in health services. This systematic review aimed to identify the delays and disruptions to cancer services globally. METHODS: This is a systematic review with a comprehensive search including specific and general databases. We considered any observational longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by specific tools. The delays and disruptions identified were categorized, and their frequency was presented. RESULTS: Among the 62 studies identified, none exhibited high methodological quality. The most frequent determinants for disruptions were provider- or system-related, mainly because of the reduction in service availability. The studies identified 38 different categories of delays and disruptions with impact on treatment, diagnosis, or general health service. Delays or disruptions most investigated included reduction in routine activity of cancer services and number of cancer surgeries; delay in radiotherapy; and delay, reschedule, or cancellation of outpatient visits. Interruptions and disruptions largely affected facilities (up to 77.5%), supply chain (up to 79%), and personnel availability (up to 60%). CONCLUSION: The remarkable frequency of delays and disruptions in health care mostly related to the reduction of the COVID-19 burden unintentionally posed a major risk on cancer care worldwide. Strategies can be proposed not only to mitigate the main delays and disruptions but also to standardize their measurement and reporting. As a high number of publications continuously are being published, it is critical to harmonize the upcoming reports and constantly update this review.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Atenção à Saúde/métodos , Neoplasias/terapia , Assistência Ambulatorial , Estudos Transversais , Atenção à Saúde/organização & administração , Atenção à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Neoplasias/radioterapia , Neoplasias/cirurgia
4.
J Bras Pneumol ; 46(4): e20180255, 2020.
Artigo em Português, Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32490907

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is an important health problem due to its high incidence and mortality. The treatment of metastatic disease improved after the molecular pathways of cancer came to be known. However, targeted therapy is unavailable to many patients treated within the Brazilian Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS, Unified Health Care System). Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib versus that of chemotherapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the SUS. METHODS: Different analytical models were developed based on data in the literature. The outcomes were presented in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained. All costs related to treatment and supportive therapies were included in the models. RESULTS: In one model, data from retrospective studies showed 2.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 1.169. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$48,451.29 (for gefitinib) to R$85,559.22 (for erlotinib). In another model, data from a meta-analysis showed -0.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 0.178. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$27,028.30 (for gefitinib) to R$75,203.26 (for erlotinib). CONCLUSIONS: There is no ideal analytical model for the SUS. However, targeted therapy with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors has been shown to be cost-effective in various scenarios. The adoption of drug price discounts will improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment.


Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases , Brasil , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Atenção à Saúde , Receptores ErbB , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/economia , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos
5.
J. bras. pneumol ; 46(4): e20180255, 2020. tab, graf
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1134876

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Objective: Lung cancer is an important health problem due to its high incidence and mortality. The treatment of metastatic disease improved after the molecular pathways of cancer came to be known. However, targeted therapy is unavailable to many patients treated within the Brazilian Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS, Unified Health Care System). Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib versus that of chemotherapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the SUS. Methods: Different analytical models were developed based on data in the literature. The outcomes were presented in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained. All costs related to treatment and supportive therapies were included in the models. Results: In one model, data from retrospective studies showed 2.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 1.169. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$48,451.29 (for gefitinib) to R$85,559.22 (for erlotinib). In another model, data from a meta-analysis showed −0.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 0.178. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$27,028.30 (for gefitinib) to R$75,203.26 (for erlotinib). Conclusions: There is no ideal analytical model for the SUS. However, targeted therapy with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors has been shown to be cost-effective in various scenarios. The adoption of drug price discounts will improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment.


RESUMO Objetivo: O câncer de pulmão é um importante problema de saúde pela sua alta incidência e mortalidade. O tratamento da doença metastática melhorou após o conhecimento de vias moleculares tumorais. Contudo, a terapia-alvo está indisponível para muitos pacientes do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Nosso objetivo foi avaliar a relação custo-efetividade de erlotinibe, gefitinibe e afatinibe vs. quimioterapia no tratamento do câncer de pulmão não pequenas células no contexto do SUS. Métodos: Foram desenvolvidos modelos analíticos distintos baseados em dados da literatura. Os desfechos foram apresentados em quality-adjusted life years (QALY, anos de vida ajustados pela qualidade) e incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, relação custo-efetividade incremental). Todos os custos relacionados ao tratamento e terapias de suporte foram incluídos nos modelos. Resultados: No primeiro modelo, dados de estudos retrospectivos apontaram 2,01 anos de vida salvos e uma média de ganho de QALY de 1,169. O ICER variou entre R$ 48.451,29 (gefitinibe) e R$ 85.559,22 (erlotinibe). No segundo modelo, dados de uma meta-análise evidenciaram −0,01 ano de vida salvos e uma média de ganho de QALY de 0,178. O ICER foi de R$ 27.028,30 (gefitinibe) a R$ 75.203,26 (erlotinibe). Conclusões: Não existe um modelo analítico ideal para o SUS. Contudo, diferentes cenários disponíveis na literatura mostram que a terapia-alvo com o uso dessas drogas é custo-efetiva. A adoção de descontos nos preços dos medicamentos melhorará a relação custo-efetividade do tratamento.

6.
Säo Paulo med. j ; 137(6): 505-511, Nov.-Dec. 2019. tab, graf
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS | ID: biblio-1094519

RESUMO

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Brazil. In the 2000s, better understanding of molecular pathways led to development of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted treatments that have improved outcomes. However, these treatments are unavailable in most Brazilian public healthcare services (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS). OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential number of years of life not saved, the budget impact of the treatment and strategies to improve access. DESIGN AND SETTING: Pharmacoeconomic study assessing the potential societal and economic impact of adopting EGFR-targeted therapy within SUS. METHODS: We estimated the number of cases eligible for treatment, using epidemiological data from the National Cancer Institute. We used data from a single meta-analysis and from the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) study as the basis for assessing differences in patients' survival between use of targeted therapy and use of chemotherapy. The costs of targeted treatment were based on the national reference and were compared with the amount reimbursed for chemotherapy through SUS. RESULTS: There was no life-year gain with EGFR-targeted therapy in the single meta-analysis (hazard ratio, HR, 1.01). The LCMC showed that 1,556 potential life-years were not saved annually. We estimated that the annual budget impact was 125 million Brazilian reais (BRL) with erlotinib, 48 million BRL with gefitinib and 52 million BRL with afatinib. Their incremental costs over chemotherapy per life-year saved were 80,329 BRL, 31,011 BRL and 33,225 BRL, respectively. A drug acquisition discount may decrease the budget impact by 30% (with a 20% discount). A fixed cost of 1,000 BRL may decrease the budget impact by 95%. CONCLUSION: Reducing drug acquisition costs may improve access to EGFR-targeted therapy for lung cancer.


Assuntos
Humanos , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/economia , Receptores ErbB/economia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economia , Quinazolinas/economia , Quinazolinas/uso terapêutico , Brasil , Orçamentos , Análise de Sobrevida , Análise Custo-Benefício/economia , Participação no Risco Financeiro/métodos , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/uso terapêutico , Terapia de Alvo Molecular/economia , Receptores ErbB/uso terapêutico , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde/economia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidade , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico
7.
Value Health Reg Issues ; 20: 47-50, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30856543

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Over the past 5 years, 55 new anticancer drugs have been launched worldwide. Considering the increasing costs of innovative treatments, both the number and the relevance of cost-effectiveness analyses have increased, meaningfully supporting decision making by stakeholders and policy makers. Notably, cost-effective treatments remain unavailable to patients because they are still unaffordable for a multitude of payers. OBJECTIVES: To discuss the differences between cost-effectiveness and affordability. METHODS: We reviewed the most relevant data on the divergences between cost-effectiveness and affordability. In addition, we included our recommendations to improve patients' access to innovative cancer therapies. RESULTS: The increasing costs of recently launched antineoplastic drugs, as high as $150 000 per year, represent a major barrier to patients' access to treatments globally. In Brazil, for example, patients' access to innovative treatments depends greatly on whether the individual has private health insurance. In the public health sector, patients' access to cost-effective innovative treatments varies according to the financial capacity of the facility, leading to inequalities within the same healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that because of the socioeconomic inequality mostly seen in lower and middle-income countries, it is difficult to define a cost-effectiveness threshold by region or a willingness-to-pay threshold affordable to the entire population. We consider that benchmark interventions might help to find an affordable willingness-to-pay threshold, and league table interventions might help policy makers, physicians, and the society to share the decision making.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/economia , Custos de Medicamentos , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde/economia , Neoplasias/economia , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Benchmarking , Análise Custo-Benefício , Farmacoeconomia , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde/organização & administração , Humanos , Seguro Saúde/economia , Seguro Saúde/organização & administração , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico
8.
Sao Paulo Med J ; 137(6): 505-511, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32159636

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Brazil. In the 2000s, better understanding of molecular pathways led to development of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted treatments that have improved outcomes. However, these treatments are unavailable in most Brazilian public healthcare services (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS). OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential number of years of life not saved, the budget impact of the treatment and strategies to improve access. DESIGN AND SETTING: Pharmacoeconomic study assessing the potential societal and economic impact of adopting EGFR-targeted therapy within SUS. METHODS: We estimated the number of cases eligible for treatment, using epidemiological data from the National Cancer Institute. We used data from a single meta-analysis and from the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) study as the basis for assessing differences in patients' survival between use of targeted therapy and use of chemotherapy. The costs of targeted treatment were based on the national reference and were compared with the amount reimbursed for chemotherapy through SUS. RESULTS: There was no life-year gain with EGFR-targeted therapy in the single meta-analysis (hazard ratio, HR, 1.01). The LCMC showed that 1,556 potential life-years were not saved annually. We estimated that the annual budget impact was 125 million Brazilian reais (BRL) with erlotinib, 48 million BRL with gefitinib and 52 million BRL with afatinib. Their incremental costs over chemotherapy per life-year saved were 80,329 BRL, 31,011 BRL and 33,225 BRL, respectively. A drug acquisition discount may decrease the budget impact by 30% (with a 20% discount). A fixed cost of 1,000 BRL may decrease the budget impact by 95%. CONCLUSION: Reducing drug acquisition costs may improve access to EGFR-targeted therapy for lung cancer.


Assuntos
Receptores ErbB/economia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economia , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/economia , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Brasil , Orçamentos , Análise Custo-Benefício/economia , Receptores ErbB/uso terapêutico , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde/economia , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidade , Terapia de Alvo Molecular/economia , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/uso terapêutico , Quinazolinas/economia , Quinazolinas/uso terapêutico , Participação no Risco Financeiro/métodos , Análise de Sobrevida
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA