Assuntos
Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 , Neoplasias , Percepção , Médicos , Padrões de Prática Médica/economia , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/economia , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Criança , Análise Custo-Benefício/legislação & jurisprudência , Análise Custo-Benefício/normas , Gastos em Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Gastos em Saúde/normas , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/economia , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/normas , Humanos , Oncologia/economia , Oncologia/legislação & jurisprudência , Medicare/economia , Medicare/normas , Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015/economia , Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015/legislação & jurisprudência , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/economia , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Neoplasias/economia , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Neoplasias/terapia , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Médicos/economia , Médicos/psicologia , Médicos/normas , Padrões de Prática Médica/legislação & jurisprudência , Padrões de Prática Médica/normas , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/normas , Estados UnidosRESUMO
The ASCO Value Framework, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering's DrugAbacus, and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculator are value-based methodologies that attempt to address the disproportionate increase in cancer care spending. These calculators can be used as an initial step for discussing cost versus value, but they fall short in recognizing the importance of the cancer journey because they do not fully factor the patient's perspective or the global cost of care. This timely review highlights both the limitations and the advantages of each value calculator and suggests opportunities for refinement. Practicing oncologists, payers, and manufacturers should be familiar with value-based calculators because the role these tools play in cost containment is likely to be hotly debated.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício/métodos , Custos de Medicamentos , Neoplasias/economia , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Humanos , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Taxa de SobrevidaRESUMO
The aim of this study was to assess the treatment patterns and safety of sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab in real-world clinical settings in US, Europe and Asia. Medical records were abstracted at 18 community oncology clinics in the US and at 21 tertiary oncology centers in US, Europe and Asia for 883 patients ≥ 18 years who had histologically/cytologically confirmed diagnosis of advanced RCC and received sunitinib (n=631), sorafenib (n=207) or bevacizumab (n=45) as first-line treatment. No prior treatment was permitted. Data were collected on all adverse events (AEs) and treatment modifications, including discontinuation, interruption and dose reduction. Treatment duration was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Demographics were similar across treatment groups and regions. Median treatment duration ranged from 6.1 to 10.7 months, 5.1 to 8.5 months and 7.5 to 9.8 months for sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab patients, respectively. Grade 3/4 AEs were experienced by 26.0, 28.0 and 15.6% of sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab patients, respectively. Treatment discontinuations occurred in 62.4 (Asia) to 63.1% (US) sunitinib, 68.8 (Asia) to 90.0% (Europe) sorafenib, and 66.7 (Asia) to 81.8% (US) bevacizumab patients. Globally, treatment modifications due to AEs occurred in 55.1, 54.2 and 50.0% sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab patients, respectively. This study in a large, global cohort of advanced RCC patients found that angiogenesis inhibitors are associated with high rates of AEs and treatment modifications. Findings suggest an unmet need for more tolerable agents for RCC treatment.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/administração & dosagem , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Indóis/administração & dosagem , Niacinamida/análogos & derivados , Compostos de Fenilureia/administração & dosagem , Pirróis/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Inibidores da Angiogênese/administração & dosagem , Inibidores da Angiogênese/efeitos adversos , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Ásia , Bevacizumab , Carcinoma de Células Renais/epidemiologia , Carcinoma de Células Renais/patologia , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/patologia , Europa (Continente) , Feminino , Humanos , Indóis/efeitos adversos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Niacinamida/administração & dosagem , Niacinamida/efeitos adversos , Compostos de Fenilureia/efeitos adversos , Pirróis/efeitos adversos , Sorafenibe , Sunitinibe , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados UnidosRESUMO
Safety and treatment patterns of sunitinib and sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) had been previously reported using retrospective chart review of patients treated in US tertiary centers. Because practice patterns may vary between hospital- and office-based settings, this study examined safety and treatment patterns of these agents in US community oncology clinics. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for 250 patients with mRCC treated at 18 community oncology clinics. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old and received ≥1 prescription for sunitinib (n = 131) or sorafenib (n = 119) as first-line anti-angiogenic treatment. Rates of adverse events (AEs) and treatment modifications were analyzed; reasons for treatment modifications were examined. Median duration of first-line sunitinib and sorafenib treatment was 5.9 and 5.5 months, respectively. Among patients treated with sunitinib and sorafenib, 86% (30%) and 87% (28%), respectively, experienced ≥1 all-grade (grade 3/4) AE. The most common AEs were fatigue/weakness in sunitinib (all-grade: 42%; grade 3/4: 5%) and skin rash in sorafenib (all-grade: 35%; grade 3/4: 6%). Sixty-two and 64% of patients treated with sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, had ≥1 treatment modification due to AEs. Recorded AE rates in patients with mRCC treated with angiogenesis inhibitors in community practice tended to be lower than in tertiary centers, possibly due to shorter treatment duration. Rates of treatment modifications due to AEs tended to be higher in community practice. This study provides evidence from an office-based setting of unmet need for agents that may provide improved tolerability in mRCC.