Cost-Effectiveness of Onasemnogene Abeparvovec Compared With Nusinersen and Risdiplam in Patients With Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 1 in Brazil: Custo-Efetividade do Onasemnogeno Abeparvoveque (AVXS-101) em Comparação ao Nusinersena e Risdiplam em Pacientes com Atrofia Muscular Espinhal Tipo 1 no Brasil.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the onasemnogene abeparvovec in relation to nusinersen and risdiplam in the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy type 1 from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System. METHODS: A Markov model was built on a lifetime horizon. Short-term data were obtained from clinical trials of the technologies and from published cohort survival curves (long term). Costs were measured in current 2022 local currency (R$) values and benefits in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Utility values were derived from type 1 spinal muscular atrophy literature, whereas costs related to technologies and maintenance care in each health state were obtained from official sources of reimbursement in Brazil. Deterministic and probabilistic, as well as scenario, sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with the less costly strategy (nusinersen), the use of onasemnogene abeparvovec resulted in an incremental cost of R$2.468.448,06 ($975 671.169 - purchasing power parity [PPP]) and a 3-QALY increment and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$742.890,92 ($293 632.774 - PPP)/QALY. Risdiplam had an extended dominance from other strategies, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$926.586,22 ($366 239.612 - PPP)/QALY compared with nusinersen. Sensitivity analysis showed a significant impact of the follow-up time of the cohort and the cost of acquiring onasemnogene abeparvovec. CONCLUSIONS: Over a lifetime horizon, onasemnogene abeparvovec seems to be a potentially more effective option than nusinersen and risdiplam, albeit with an incremental cost. Such a trade-off should be weighed in efficiency criteria during decision making and outcome monitoring from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System.

Aprepitant in pediatric patients using moderate and highly emetogenic protocols: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: To review the efficacy and safety of aprepitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone (triple therapy) in children and adolescents on moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Scielo, Lilacs, Cochrane and congress abstracts published until September 2016 were used as data sources. Two reviewers independently selected manuscripts and extracted data. A third reviewer solved discrepancies in study selection and data extraction. The primary outcome was overall complete response (no vomiting from 0 to 120 h). Secondary outcomes were: response in acute phase, delayed phase and reported toxicities. Each study was considered a unit of analysis. Summarized relative risks were recalculated based on reported data. All meta-analyses used a random-effects model and heterogeneity was reported using the I2 method. RESULTS: From 1004 studies, we screened 288 titles and abstracts and included three trials for data extraction. The population comprised 451 patients. Most patients were males, ranging from 6 months to 19 years of age, and weighing from 6 to 134 kg. Bone cancer was the most incident (≥50%) neoplasm, followed by rhabdomyosarcoma and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Triple therapy was associated with a reduced risk of developing chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) (RR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.34-0.67). There were no differences in incidence of febrile neutropenia between groups (RR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.66-1.58). CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy decreased CIV risk, without increasing the occurrence of febrile neutropenia. However, this review could not address which subpopulations would most benefit from using this strategy. Future studies should focus on assessing risk factors for nausea and vomiting, as many patients did not achieve a complete antiemetic response.