[Economic burden assessment for the management of asthma patients at Mexico's National Institute for Respiratory Diseases]. / Evaluación de la carga económica para el tratamiento de pacientes con asma en el Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias de México.

OBJETIVO: Determinar la carga económica anual del asma, desde una perspectiva institucional y con base en la clasificación recomendada por GINA, en una cohorte retrospectiva de adultos atendidos en el Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias (INER) de México. MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional, longitudinal y retrospectivo, llevado a cabo a partir de la información recabada de 247 pacientes femeninas con asma. Se estimaron los costos directos anuales: visitas, pruebas de laboratorio, tratamiento farmacológico y de las crisis o exacerbaciones, para determinar la carga anual de la enfermedad desde una perspectiva institucional, y según la clasificación de la Iniciativa Global para el Asma. RESULTADOS: El costo promedio anual fue de $43,813,92, que aumentó en relación con la necesidad de aumento de dosis de corticoides inhalados y beta-agonistas de acción prolongada. El costo promedio de la consulta médica fue de $2004.57, $982.82 por gestión de crisis y $2645.95 por pruebas de laboratorio. El tratamiento farmacológico representó la principal carga económica, con un costo promedio anual de $38,180.58. CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados resaltan una carga económica del asma estimada en un costo anual por paciente de $43,813.92 MXN (DE=93,348.85), en el contexto del tercer nivel de atención en el sistema de salud público mexicano. La gravedad del asma, los tratamientos y los biológicos fueron los principales factores que aumentaron los costos directos de la atención.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the annual economic burden of the disease from an institutional perspective and based on GINA's recommended classification in a retrospective cohort of adults treated at Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias (INER) of Mexico City. METHODS: A retrospective, longitudinal observational study comprised by data from 247 female asthma patients, annual direct costs were estimated including: visits, laboratory tests, pharmacological treatment and management of crisis or exacerbations, to determine the annual burden of the disease from an institutional perspective and according to Global Initiative for Asthma classification. RESULTS: The average annual cost was $43,813.92, which increased in relation to the need of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta agonists dosage increase. The average doctor's appointment cost was $2,004.57, $982.82 for crisis management and $2,645.95 for laboratory testing. Pharmacological treatment represented the main economic burden with an annual average cost of $38,180.58. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight an economic burden of asthma estimated at an annual cost per patient of $43,813.92 MXN (SD=93,348.85) in the context of the third level of care in the Mexican public health system. The asthma severity and treatments such as biologics were the main factors that increased direct costs of care.

Hereditary angioedema: Patient journey approach in Mexico.

Objective: To understand the patient's journey with HAE from symptom initiation to diagnosis, treatment allocation, follow-up, and the impact of the disease on their quality of life in Mexico. Methods: A survey was administered to the patients with HAE. Participants completed a questionnaire covering five domains: patient journey; effects on productivity, school performance and daily activities; quality of life; anxiety and depression. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 17 surveys were analyzed (15 women and 2 men, age range: 23-67 years). Type I HAE was most common (71%), normal C1 inhibitor HAE was 12% and 18% did not know their HAE type. The average disease evolution was 13.7 years and the time from symptom initiation to diagnosis was 20 years. 59% of patients knew of one or two treatments available, 12% knew 3 treatments and 18% were aware of 4 or more, 12% were not aware of any treatments. 53% had a job, 18% referred a severely anxious state, 41% were depressed and all patients referred some social impact due to HAE. Conclusions: There is a need to reinforce the knowledge of general practitioners on HAE to promote an earlier diagnosis and awareness of rare diseases and their impact on quality of life among the general population and promote the removal of barriers to treatment.

Objetivo: Conocer el seguimiento pacientes mexicanos con angioedema hereditario, desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta el diagnóstico, prescripción del tratamiento y seguimiento, y repercusión en la calidad de vida. Métodos: Estudio transversal, llevado a cabo a partir de la aplicación de una encuesta a pacientes con angioedema hereditario, que abarcó cinco ámbitos: seguimiento del paciente; afectación en la productividad, el rendimiento escolar y las actividades cotidianas; calidad de vida; ansiedad y depresión. Las respuestas se analizaron mediante estadística descriptiva. Resultados: Se analizaron 17 encuestas (15 mujeres y 2 hombres, rango de edad: 23-67 años). El angioedema hereditario tipo I fue el más frecuente (71%), el angioedema hereditario clásico con inhibidor de C1 fue del 12%; y el 18% no conocía su tipo de angioedema hereditario. La evolución media de la enfermedad fue del 13.7 años y el tiempo transcurrido desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta el diagnóstico fue de 20 años. El 59% de los pacientes conocía uno o dos tratamientos disponibles y el 12% no conocía ninguno. El 53% tenía trabajo, el 18% refería un estado de ansiedad grave, el 41% tenía depresión y todos referían algún efecto social debido al angioedema hereditario. Conclusiones: Es necesario reforzar los conocimientos de los médicos acerca del angioedema hereditario para establecer el diagnóstico temprano, el conocimiento de las enfermedades raras, su repercusión en la calidad de vida entre la población y eliminar los factores que entorpecen el tratamiento.

Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-Minimization Analysis of Continuous Infusion of Low-Dose Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin in Patients With Unresectable Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is rare and aggressive neoplasia, with a poor prognosis; furthermore, the monetary cost of its treatment represents a major challenge for many patients. The economic burden this malignancy imposes is underscored by the fact that asbestos exposure, which is the most frequent risk factor, is much more prevalent in the lower socioeconomic population of developing countries. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost of continuous infusion of low-dose Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin (CIGC) as a treatment strategy for patients with unresectable MPM. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study to determine efficacy and safety of continuous infusion gemcitabine at a dose of 250 mg/m2 in a 6-h continuous infusion plus cisplatin 35 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle in patients with unresectable MPM. We also performed a cost-minimization analysis to determine if this chemotherapy regimen is less expensive than other currently used regimens. RESULTS: The median number of chemotherapy cycles was six (range 1-11 cycles); objective response rate was documented in 46.2%, and disease control rate was seen in 81.2%. Median PFS was 8.05 months (CI 95% 6.97-9.13); median OS was 16.16 months (CI 95% 12.5-19.9). The cost minimization analysis revealed savings of 66.4, 61.9, and 97.7% comparing CIGC with short-infusion gemcitabine plus cisplatin (SIGC), cisplatin plus pemetrexed (CP), and cisplatin plus pemetrexed and bevacizumab (CPB), respectively. Furthermore, this chemotherapy regimen proved to be safe at the administered dosage. CONCLUSION: CIGC is an effective and safe treatment option for patients with unresectable MPM; besides, this combination is a cost-saving option when compared with other frequently used chemotherapy schemes. Therefore, this treatment scheme should be strongly considered for patients with unresectable MPM and limited economic resources.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first and second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first line of treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have become the cornerstone treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer that harbor oncogenic EGFR mutations. The counterpart of these drugs is the financial burden that they impose, which often creates a barrier for accessing treatment in developing countries. The aim if the present study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of three different first and second generation TKIs. METHODS: We designed a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of three different TKIs (afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib) administered as first-line therapy for patients with NSCLC that harbor EGFR mutations. RESULTS: We included 99 patients with the following TKI treatment; 40 treated with afatinib, 33 with gefitinib, and 26 with erlotinib. Median PFS was not significantly different between treatment groups; 15.4 months (95% CI 9.3-19.5) for afatinib; 9.0 months (95% CI 6.3- NA) for erlotinib; and 10.0 months (95% CI 7.46-14.6) for gefitinib. Overall survival was also similar between groups: 29.1 months (95% CI 25.4-NA) for afatinib; 27.1 months (95% CI 17.1- NA) for erlotinib; and 23.7 months (95% CI 18.6-NA) for gefitinib. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean TKIs costs; being afatinib the most expensive treatment. This difference was observed in the daily cost of treatment (p < 0.01), as well as the total cost of treatment (p = 0.00095). Cost-effectiveness analysis determined that afatinib was a better cost-effective option when compared with first-generation TKIs (erlotinib and gefitinib). CONCLUSION: In our population, erlotinib, afatinib, and gefitinib were statistically equally effective in terms of OS and PFS for the treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC population. Owing to its marginally increased PFS and OS, the cost-effectiveness analysis determined that afatinib was a slightly better cost-effective option when compared with first-generation TKIs (erlotinib and gefitinib).

Prescription rheumatology practices among Mexican specialists.

BACKGROUND: We undertook this study to describe prescription practices and the degree of disease control in a large sample of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated by rheumatologists in Mexico. METHODS: Board-certified Mexican rheumatologists across the country were asked to assess consecutive RA and AS patients; 1208 patients completed a self-administered questionnaire with information on demographics, disease duration, co-morbidity, treatment, pain, disability and a validated Spanish version of instruments to measure physical function and quality of life. RESULTS: Of the 1096 RA patients, 88.1% were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), 1020 (93.3%) with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), 365 (33.4%) with steroids, and 70 (6.4%) with biological agents. Their mean Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-Di) score was 1.21+/-0.80, Disease Activity Index, 28 joint count (DAS 28) 3.9+/-1.29, and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI), 3.94+/-2.01. Regarding the 112 AS patients, 110 (98.2%) received NSAIDs, 90 (80.4%) were on DMARDs, 11 (9.8%) took steroids, and 11 (9.8%) received biological agents, their functional status shown as Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) score of 4.4+/-2.5. Among the 1110 DMARD users, only 64 received one drug, and a great proportion used two or more DMARDs; 81 subjects (16.2%) were on biological agents, in any combination. RA patients more commonly used methotrexate, 791 (72%) cases, and hydroxychloroquine. Taking into account their diagnosis, the combination most prescribed was NSAIDs plus DMARDs in 660 subjects (54.7%). CONCLUSIONS: DMARDs in combination with other drug are the most frequently prescribed therapeutic scheme for RA and AS patients. These schemes used for both conditions by Mexican rheumatologists are in line with current international recommendations.