Distinct models to assess the cost-effectiveness of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the Brazilian Unified Health Care System / Diferentes modelos para avaliar a relação custo-efetividade de inibidores de tirosina quinase do EGFR no tratamento do câncer de pulmão não pequenas células metastático no contexto do Sistema Único de Saúde

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.

Potential life years not saved due to lack of access to anti-EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for lung cancer treatment in the Brazilian public healthcare system: Budget impact and strategies to improve access. A pharmacoeconomic study

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.

Custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe para câncer renal metastático na perspectiva de um hospital do Sistema Único de Saúde / Cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib for metastatic renal cancer from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System / Costo-efectividad entre el pazopanib y el sunitinib para el cáncer renal metastásico desde la perspectiva del Sistema Único de Salud

Resumo: O câncer renal é a 13ª neoplasia mais frequente no mundo. Entre 2012 e 2016, representou 1,48% das mortes por câncer no Brasil. A terapia de escolha para o tratamento de câncer renal metastático são os inibidores de tirosina quinase (ITK), sunitinibe e pazopanibe. Este artigo avalia o custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe no tratamento de câncer renal metastático. Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal do Sistema Único de Saúde. No modelo de árvore de decisão foram aplicados os desfechos de efetividade e segurança dos ITK. Os dados clínicos foram extraídos de prontuários e os custos diretos consultados em fontes oficiais do Ministério da Saúde. O custo de 10 meses de tratamento, englobando o valor dos ITK, procedimentos e manejo de eventos adversos, foi de R$ 98.677,19 para o pazopanibe e R$ 155.227,11 para o sunitinibe. Os medicamentos apresentaram efetividade estatisticamente equivalente e diferença estatisticamente significativa para o desfecho de segurança, no qual o pazopanibe obteve o melhor resultado. O pazopanibe, nesse contexto, é a tecnologia dominante quando os custos de tratamento são associados aos de manejo de eventos adversos.

Abstract: Renal cancer is the 13th most frequent neoplasm in the world. From 2010 to 2014, renal cancer accounted for 1.43% of cancer deaths in Brazil. The treatment of choice for metastatic renal cancer is tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib and pazopanib. This article assesses cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer. A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the perspective of a federal hospital under the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). TKI effectiveness and safety outcomes were applied to the decision tree model. Clinical data were extracted from patient charts, and direct costs were consulted from official Ministry of Health sources. The cost of 10 months of treatment, including the costs of the TKI, procedures and management of adverse events, was BRL 98,677.19 for pazopanib and BRL 155,227.11 for sunitinib. The drugs displayed statistically equivalent effectiveness and statistically different safety outcomes, with pazopanib displaying better results. In this setting, pazopanib is the dominant technology when the treatment costs are analyzed together with the costs of managing adverse events.

Resumen: El cáncer renal es la 13ª neoplasia más frecuente en el mundo. Entre 2010 y 2014, representó un 1,43% de las muertes por cáncer en Brasil. La terapia de elección para el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico son los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa (ITK), sunitinib y pazopanib. Este artículo evalúa el costo-efectividad entre pazopanib y sunitinib en el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico. Se realizó un análisis de costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva de un hospital federal del Sistema Único de Salud. En el modelo de árbol de decisión se aplicaron los desenlaces de efectividad y seguridad de los ITK. Los datos clínicos se extrajeron de registros médicos, y los costos directos consultados en fuentes oficiales del Ministerio de Salud. El costo de 10 meses de tratamiento, englobando el valor de los ITK, procedimientos y gestión de eventos adversos, fue de BRL 98.677,19 con el pazopanib y BRL 155.227,11 con el sunitinib. Los medicamentos presentaron efectividad estadísticamente equivalente y diferencia estadísticamente significativa para el desenlace de seguridad, en el que el pazopanib obtuvo el mejor resultado. El pazopanib, en este contexto, es la tecnología dominante cuando los costes de tratamiento están asociados a los de la gestión de eventos adversos.

Adaptación a Colombia y Venezuela del modelo económico dasatinib primera línea del York Health Economics Consortium para el tratamiento de la leucemia mieloide crónica / Adaptation to Colombia and Venezuela of the economic model Dasatinib first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, developed by the York Health Economics Consortium

Objetivo: Basados en una evaluación económica de costo-efectividad del dasatinib primera línea en el tratamiento de la leucemia mieloide crónica (LMC) realizada por el Consorcio de York, y previo análisis de transferibilidad de datos, se realizó una adaptación de ésta a Colombia y Venezuela. Se compararon los costos y la relación de costo-efectividad del uso de la dosis de 100 mg/día de dasatinib versus 400 mg/día de imatinib y 600 mg/día de nilotinib para cada fase de la enfermedad, como tratamientos de primera línea, con incrementos a 140 mg/día de dasatinib, 800 mg/día de imatinib y 800 mg/día de nilotinib en una segunda línea de tratamiento. Métodos: El modelo original consideró aquellos pacientes con diagnóstico de LMC que no hubieran recibido tratamiento previo. Para realizar la adaptación de la evaluación económica se asumieron las probabilidades de cambio, para lo cual se consideraron tres fases, crónica, acelerada y muerte, a lo largo de toda la vida y con una tasa de descuento del 3,5 por ciento para los costos y beneficios. Los resultados del modelo incluyeron los costos de cada alternativa de tratamiento con dasatinib, nilotinib o imatinib y los años de vida ajustados a calidad ganada. Los costos se expresan en pesos colombianos y bolívares fuertes del año 2011. Resultados: El dasatinib produjo la mayor cantidad de años de vida ajustados a calidad, tanto para Colombia como para Venezuela con 10,67 y 10,53 QALYs respectivamente, en comparación con 10,10 y 9,97 QALYs en cada caso para el imatinib y 10,50 y 10,36 QALYs para el nilotinib. Los costos esperados por QALY en Colombia fueron de $ 108.174.020 para el dasatinib, $ 80.826.556 para el imatinib y $ 134.747.281 para el nilotinib. En Venezuela fueron de BsF 222.970 para el dasatinib, BsF 213.142 para el imatinib y BsF 269.193 para el nilotinib. El dasatinib fue dominante sobre el nilotinib en ambos países. Conclusiones: El dasatinib fue más efectivo...

Objective: To adapt an economic model of frontline dasatinib treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia developed by the York Consortium to the health care settings in Colombia and Venezuela. Methods: The original model considered treatment of naïve patients with CML and a Markov's model with probabilities of change between chronic, accelerated phases and death, over a patient’s lifetime. The applied discount rate is 3.5 percent for both costs and benefits. Direct medical and treatment costs, and mortality rates were taken from the local published data and WHO life tables. Costs are expressed in 2011 Colombian pesos and Venezuelan strong bolivars. Results: Dasatinib 100 mg/day as frontline treatment for CML produced the greatest number of QALYs, both in Colombia and Venezuela with 10.67 and 10.53 QALYs respectively, compared with 10.10 and 9.97 QALYs for imatinib and 10.50 and 10.36 QALYs for nilotinib. The expected cost per QALY in Colombia was $ 108.174.020 for dasatinib, $ 80.826.556 for imatinib and $ 134.747.281 for nilotinib. The expected cost per QALY in Venezuela was BsF 222.970 for dasatinib, BsF 213.142 for imatinib and BsF 269.193 for nilotinib. Dasatinib was dominant to nilotinib in both countries. Conclusions: In the frontline treatment for CML in Colombia and Venezuela, dasatinib had greater QALYs than both imatinib and nilotinib, and demonstrated cost-effectiveness relative to nilotinib. There was an increase in overall costs, due to the increase in life years gained and thus a greater use of overall health care resources.