Dados de mundo real: o impacto econômico da inclusão de antineoplásicos orais para as operadoras de saúde no Sistema de Saúde Suplementar do Brasil / Real world data: the economic impact of including oral antineoplastic agents for health care providers in the Brazilian Supplementary Health System

Objetivo: Avaliar o incremento mensal do custo por beneficiário da incorporação das terapias antineoplásicas orais se aprovado o PL nº 6.330/2019. Métodos: As características clínicas e dos medicamentos utilizados em pacientes em tratamento oncológico foram coletadas da base de dados de mundo real Auditron®, plataforma de avaliações de solicitações de pré-autorização de procedimentos médicos. Com base nas características dos pacientes, foram avaliadas as possibilidades de uso dos medicamentos antineoplásicos orais, conforme as diretrizes da NCCN e ESMO. O cálculo do custo incremental foi realizado utilizando o número total de pacientes diagnosticados com uma neoplasia específica e o número de pacientes aptos a receber antineoplásicos orais. Foi utilizada lista de preços CMED para cálculo dos custos de aquisição de medicamentos. Resultados: O custo incremental da incorporação de 34 drogas antineoplásicas orais em 2019 foi de R$ 5.362.642.580 (R$ 3.944.321.786- R$ 6.483.413.466), representando impacto mensal de R$ 9,50 por beneficiário. O custo incremental da incorporação de 21 drogas antineoplásicas orais em 2021 era de R$ 2.028.538.791 (R$ 1.485.919.710-R$ 3,016,407,794), representando impacto mensal de R$ 3,59 por beneficiário. Conclusão: A incorporação das drogas antineoplásicas orais acarretariam um baixo incremento mensal por beneficiário.

Objective: To evaluate the monthly increase in the cost per member of incorporating all oral neoplastic therapies if approved the bill 6,330/2019. Methods: The clinical characteristics and medications used by patients undergoing cancer treatment were collected from the real-world Auditron® database, a platform for evaluating requests for pre-authorization of medical procedures. Based on the characteristics of each patient, the possibility of using oral antineoplastic drugs according to the NCCN and ESMO guidelines was evaluated. The incremental cost calculation was performed using the total number of patients diagnosed with a specific neoplasm and the number of patients eligible to receive oral anticancer drugs. CMED price list was used to calculate drug acquisition costs. Results: The incremental cost of incorporating 34 neoplastic drugs in 2019 was R$ 5,362,642,580 (R$ 3,944,321,786- R$ 6,483,413,466), representing a monthly impact of R$ 9.50 per member. The incremental cost of incorporating 21 neoplastic drugs in 2021 was R$ 2,028,538,791 (R$ 1,485,919,710-R$ 3,016,407,794), representing a monthly impact of R$ 3.59 per beneficiary. Conclusion: The incorporation of oral anticancer drugs in the coverage of health plans following international and national treatment guidelines would result in a low monthly increase in the cost per beneficiary.

Number needed to treat analysis applied to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

AIMS: Considering that healthcare systems' financial resources are limited, we aimed to analyze the number needed to treat (NNT) and cost of preventing an event (COPE) related to drug use from Supplementary Health System (SSS) perspective. METHODS: Data from KEYNOTE-189 (NCT02578680) were considered, comparing pembrolizumab + chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone. A cost-per-responder model was developed considering the 24- and 12-month time horizons for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) endpoints, respectively. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) and restricted mean time-on-treatment (ToT) were determined for NNT and COPE calculation. Costs were reported in American dollars (USD) and reflect those related to drug use. The analysis was conducted for the total indicated population, and an exploratory assessment was carried out for subgroups with different programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels. RESULTS: Considering PFS data, the overall population NNTRMST to prevent a progression event with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was 2.63 (95%CI: 1.90-4.02) with an estimated COPE of 251,038 USD (95%CI: 181,359-383,717) in the 12-months follow-up. Regarding OS endpoint, overall NNTRMST and COPE were 3.18 (95%CI: 2.20-5.31) and 414,163 (95%CI: 286,528-691,573) USD respectively, in the 24 months follow-up. The PFS NNT was lower with higher levels of PD-L1 expression (1.71, 3.22 and 5.53 for PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PD-L1 1%-49%, and PD-L1 < 1% groups, respectively), while there was no such apparent relationship for OS (3.23, 4.37 and 2.80 for PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PD-L1 1%-49%, and PD-L1 < 1% groups, respectively). The 95%CIs overlapped for PFS and OS NNT across the PD-L1 subgroups. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of benefit of the pembrolizumab combination used for first-line non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment to improve survival compared to chemotherapy alone was confirmed. The exploratory analysis from the SSS perspective suggests no differences among the PDL-1 subgroups in terms of clinical benefit or economic impact.

Nonadherence or Nonpersistence to Intravitreal Injection Therapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.

TOPIC: Systematic review of risk factors for nonadherence and nonpersistence to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lack of adherence (nonadherence) or undertreatment (nonpersistence) with respect to evidence from clinical trials remains a significant barrier to optimizing real-world outcomes for patients with nAMD. Contributing factors and strategies to address this are poorly understood. METHODS: Studies that reported factors for nonadherence and nonpersistence to anti-VEGF therapy as well as studies examining strategies to improve this were included. Trial eligibility and data extraction were conducted according to Cochrane review methods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Method Assessment Tool and certainty of evidence evaluated according to the GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool. Data were collated descriptively. RESULTS: Of the 1284 abstract results screened, 124 articles were assessed in full and 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. Definitions of nonadherence and nonpersistence varied or were not reported. Nonpersistence occurred early, with up to 50% of patients stopping treatment by 24 months. High rates of nonadherence were similarly reported, occurring in 32% to 95% of patients. Certainty of this finding was downgraded to a moderate level because of the heterogeneity in definitions used across studies. Multiple factors determine nonadherence and nonpersistence, including at the condition, therapy, patient, social/economic, and health systems/healthcare team levels. Moderate quality evidence points to lower baseline vision and poorer response to treatment as condition-related variables. The effects of other factors were of lower certainty, predominantly due to small numbers and potential biases in retrospective assessment. Although many factors are not modifiable (e.g., patient comorbidity), other factors are potentially correctable (e.g., lack of transport or mismatched patient expectations). Evidence on strategies to improve adherence and persistence is limited, but where available, these have proven effective. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of factors related to poor patient adherence and persistence in nAMD could help identify at-risk populations and improve real-world outcomes. Further work is required to develop uniform definitions and establish high-quality evidence on interventions that can be easily implemented.

Systematic literature review on patterns of pharmacological treatment and adherence among patients with bipolar disorder type I in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder type I (BD-I) is a chronic condition characterized by mania episodes followed by syndromic recovery periods, usually permeated by depressive symptoma-tology and recurring acute manic episodes. It requires long-term pharmacological treatment; thus, it is critical to understand the patterns of drug therapy use and medication compliance to better plan health care policies and needs. This systematic literature review aims to study these data among patients with BD-I in the USA, focusing on medications to treat mania. METHODS: Articles published in the last 10 years to October 2016 were searched on MEDLINE and Embase. Studies on patterns of drug therapy, concordance of prescription with clinical practice guidelines, and adherence and persistence with pharmacological treatments for BD-I in the USA under observational conditions, with focus on treatments for mania, were selected. RESULTS: Treatment prevalence for BD-I is low in the USA, with the most current study showing a 46% 12-month rate. There is a lack of studies addressing the use of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics. Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) have been used by nearly all patients receiving oral antipsychotics since the 2000s. However, 30%-60% of individuals with BD do not receive appropriate treatment, and adherence to oral therapies is poor, with medication possession ratios ≥80% seen in only approximately 60% of patients. For persistence rates, results suggest that treatment duration is short for a condition with recommendation for at least 6 months of maintenance therapy. Literature indicates that LAI SGAs may be related to better adherence and persistence. CONCLUSION: There is a need for studies addressing specifically patterns of therapy and adherence to pharmacological treatment in BD-I patients in the USA to better understand the value of current standards, and an urgent need to improve the rates of adherence and persistence to BD-I pharmacotherapy and to increase the understanding of LAI SGAs' potential to address this issue.

Análise econômica do tratamento de tromboembolismo venoso com rivaroxabana em comparação com enoxaparina seguida de varfarina sob a perspectiva do Sistema de Saúde Suplementar brasileiro / Economic analysis of the treatment of venous thromboembolism with rivaroxaban in comparison with enoxaparin plus warfarin under the perspective of the Brazilian Private Healthcare System

Objetivo: O tromboembolismo venoso (TEV) está associado a um grande impacto em saúde. A rivaroxabana é uma das opções recomendadas para o tratamento de TEV, segundo diretrizes internacionais (American College of Chest Physicians ­ ACCP 2016) (Kearon et al., 2016). É um anticoagulante oral, inibidor direto do fator Xa, que possui a vantagem de não requerer monitoramento e ajuste de dose de acordo com parâmetros laboratoriais de coagulação. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar os custos diretos da rivaroxabana com a combinação de enoxaparina/varfarina e estimar o impacto orçamentário de sua introdução no Sistema de Saúde Suplementar brasileiro. Métodos: Realizaram-se análises de custo-minimização e impacto orçamentário comparando os tratamentos com rivaroxabana e enoxaparina/varfarina, em um horizonte temporal de um ano, sob a perspectiva do Sistema de Saúde Suplementar brasileiro. Foram considerados custos médicos diretos durante o período de internação hospitalar (medicamentos, hospitalização, acompanhamento ambulatorial e eventos adversos). A população de pacientes elegíveis foi estimada a partir de uma abordagem epidemiológica, considerando o sistema de saúde privado como um todo e para diferentes portes de operadoras de saúde. Resultados: Estimou-se que o tratamento de TEV com rivaroxabana pode gerar R$ 1.996,99 de economia comparado ao tratamento com enoxaparina/varfarina, principalmente devido à redução do tempo de hospitalização. O impacto orçamentário da introdução da rivaroxabana no Sistema de Saúde Suplementar apresentou economia de recursos potencial em todos os cenários analisados. A robustez do modelo foi testada por análises de sensibilidade determinísticas e a economia de recursos promovida pela rivaroxabana foi mantida em todas as variações. Conclusão: A rivaroxabana é uma alternativa para o tratamento de TEV que possui o potencial de gerar economia de recursos ao Sistema de Saúde Suplementar brasileiro.

Objective: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with a significant healthcare burden. Rivaroxaban is an oral anticoagulant, direct factor Xa inhibitor, that has the advantage of not requiring routine coagulation monitoring and dose adjustment according to laboratory parameters of coagulation. The objective of this study is to compare the direct costs of rivaroxaban with the combination of enoxaparin/warfarin and estimate the budget impact of the reimbursement by the Brazilian Private Healthcare System. Methods: A cost-minimization and a budget impact analysis were performed comparing rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin/warfarin, in one-year time horizon and under the perspective of the Brazilian Private Healthcare System. Medical direct costs were considered for the hospitalization period (drugs, hospitalization, outpatient care and adverse events). Eligible patients were estimated through an epidemiological approach for the healthcare system and stratified by health management organization profile. Results: Estimated total cost of VTE treatment with rivaroxaban may cause a R$ 1.996,99 economy comparing to enoxaparin/warfarin, mainly due to fewer hospitalization days. The budget impact of the reimbursement of rivaroxaban in the Brazilian Private Healthcare System presented potential resource in all scenarios evaluated. Robustness of the model was tested by deterministic sensitivity analysis in which the resource saving promoted by rivaroxaban was maintained in all variations. Conclusion: Rivaroxaban is an alternative for the treatment of VTE that has potential to promote resource for the Brazilian Private Healthcare System.

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone in previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of neoplasm-related death in the United States. Several studies analyzed the efficacy of bevacizumab combined with different chemotherapy regimens consisting on drugs such as 5-FU, capecitabine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab versus chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Data extracted from the studies were combined by using hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI). RESULTS: The final analysis included 9 trials comprising 3,914 patients. Patients who received the combined treatment (chemotherapy + bevacizumab) had higher response rates (RR = 0.89; 95 % CI: 0.82 to 0.96; p = 0.003) with heterogeneity, higher progression-free survival (HR = 0.69; 95 % CI: 0.63 to 0.75; p < 0.00001) and also higher overall survival rates (HR = 0.87; 95 % CI: 0.80 to 0.95; p = 0.002) with moderate heterogeneity. Regarding adverse events and severe toxicities (grade ≥ 3), the group receiving the combined therapy had higher rates of hypertension (RR = 3.56 95 % CI: 2.58 to 4.92; p < 0.00001), proteinuria (RR = 1.89; 95 % CI: 1.26 to 2.84; p = 0.002), gastrointestinal perforation (RR = 3.63; 95 % CI: 1.31 to 10.09; p = 0.01), any thromboembolic events (RR = 1.44; 95 % CI: 1.20 to 1.73; p = 0.0001), and bleeding (RR = 1.81; 95 % CI: 1.22 to 2.67; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The combination of chemotherapy with bevacizumab increased the response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with mCRC without prior chemotherapy. The results of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were comparatively higher in those subgroups of patients receiving bolus 5-FU or capecitabine-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, when compared to patients treated with infusional %-FU plus bevacizumab (no difference in PFS and OS). Regarding the type of cytotoxic scheme, regimens containing irinotecan and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy showed superior efficacy results when combined to bevacizumab.

Colony-stimulating factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia is a frequent adverse event experienced by people with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy, and is a potentially life-threatening situation. The current treatment is supportive care plus antibiotics. Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs), such as granulocyte-CSF (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF), are cytokines that stimulate and accelerate the production of one or more cell lines in the bone marrow. Clinical trials have addressed the question of whether the addition of a CSF to antibiotics could improve outcomes in individuals diagnosed with febrile neutropenia. However, the results of these trials are conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding G-CSF or GM-CSF to standard treatment (antibiotics) when treating chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in individuals diagnosed with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the search in March 2014 and covered the major electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and SCI. We contacted experts in hematology and oncology and also scanned the citations from the relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adults and children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed meta-analysis of the selected studies using Review Manager 5 software. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (15 comparisons) including a total of 1553 participants addressing the role of CSF plus antibiotics in febrile neutropenia were included. Overall mortality was not improved by the use of CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.16) P = 0.19; 13 RCTs; 1335 participants; low quality evidence). A similar finding was seen for infection-related mortality (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.20) P = 0.23; 10 RCTs; 897 participants; low quality evidence). Individuals who received CSF plus antibiotics were less likely to be hospitalized for more than 10 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.65 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.95) P = 0.03; 8 RCTs; 1221 participants; low quality evidence) and had more number of participants with a more faster neutrophil recovery (RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.81) P = 0.004; 5 RCTs; 794 participants; moderate quality evidence) than those treated with antibiotics alone. Similarly, participants receiving CSF plus antibiotics had shorter duration of neutropenia (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.70 (95% CI -2.65 to -0.76) P = 0.0004; 9 RCTs; 1135 participants; moderate quality evidence), faster recovery from fever (SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.90 to -0.09) P value = 0.02; 9 RCTs; 966 participants; moderate quality evidence) and shorter duration of antibiotics use (SMD -1.50 (95% CI -2.83 to -0.18) P = 0.03; 3 RCTs; 457 participants; low quality evidence) compared with participants receiving antibiotics alone. We found no significant difference in the incidence of deep venous thromboembolism (RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.72 to 3.93) P = 0.23; 4 RCTs; 389 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. We found higher incidence of bone or joint pain or flu-like symptoms (RR 1.59 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.42) P = 0.03; 6 RCTs; 622 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. Overall, the methodological quality of studies was moderate to low across different outcomes. The main reasons to downgrade the quality of evidence were inconsistency across the included studies and imprecision of results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of a CSF plus antibiotics in individuals with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia had no effect on overall mortality, but reduced the amount of time participants spent in hospital and improved their ability to achieve neutrophil recovery. It was not clear whether CSF plus antibiotics had an effect on infection-related mortality. Participants receiving CSFs had shorter duration of neutropenia, faster recovery from fever and shorter duration of antibiotics use.

Targeted therapy in triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of targeted therapy to conventional chemotherapy (CT) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: Several databases were searched, including Medline, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. The results are expressed as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio, with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: The final analysis included twelve trials comprising 2,054 patients with TNBC, which compared conventional CT alone against CT combined with targeted therapy (bevacizumab [Bev], sorafenib [Sor], cetuximab, lapatinib, and iniparib). PFS was superior in previously untreated patients with TNBC who received Bev plus CT compared to CT alone (fixed effect, HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.75; P<0.00001). Also, PFS was higher in one study that tested Bev plus CT combination in previously treated patients (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33-0.74; P=0.0006). Sor plus CT was also tested as first-line and second-line treatments. The pooled data of PFS favored the combination CT plus Sor (fixed effect, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.98; P=0.04). Comparisons of iniparib plus CT also had a better PFS than CT alone (fixed effect, HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90; P=0.002). CONCLUSION: Targeted therapy, when associated with conventional CT, demonstrated gains in the PFS of patients with TNBC.

Decision tree cnnstruction and cost-effectivenes analysis of treatment of ulceerative colitis with pentasa® mesalazine 2 g sachet / Construcao de arvore de decisao e analise de custo-efetividade do tratamento da retocolite ulcerativa com Pentasa (mesalazina) 2 g sache

Context Unspecified Ulcerative Rectocolitis is a chronic disease that affects between 0.5 and 24.5/105 inhabitants in the world. National and international clinical guidelines recommend the use of aminosalicylates (including mesalazine) as first-line therapy for induction of remission of unspecified ulcerative rectocolitis, and recommend the maintenance of these agents after remission is achieved. However, multiple daily doses required for the maintenance of disease remission compromise compliance with treatment, which is very low (between 45% and 65%). Use of mesalazina in granules (2 g sachet) once daily - Pentasa® sachets 2 g - can enhance treatment adherence, reflecting in an improvement in patients' outcomes. Objective To evaluate the evidence on the use of mesalazine for the maintenance of remission in patients with unspecified ulcerative rectocolitis and its effectiveness when taken once versus more than once a day. From an economic standpoint, to analyze the impact of the adoption of this dosage in Brazil's public health system, considering patients' adherence to treatment. Methods A decision tree was developed based on the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guidelines for Ulcerative Colitis, published by the Ministry of Health in the lobby SAS/MS n° 861 of November 4 th, 2002 and on the algorithms published by the Associação Brasileira de Colite Ulcerativa e Doença de Crohn, aiming to get the cost-effectiveness of mesalazine once daily in granules compared with mesalazine twice daily in tablets. Results The use of mesalazine increases the chances of remission induction and maintenance when compared to placebo, and higher doses are associated with greater chance of success without increasing the risk of adverse events. Conclusion The use of a single daily dose in the maintenance of remission is effective and related to higher patient compliance when compared to the multiple daily dose regimens, ...

Contexto A retocolite ulcerativa inespecífica é uma doença crônica que atinge entre 0,5 e 24,5/105 habitantes no mundo. Diretrizes clínicas nacionais e internacionais recomendam o emprego de aminosalicilatos (entre eles, a mesalazina) como terapia de primeira linha na indução da remissão da retocolite ulcerativa inespecífica, com manutenção destes agentes após a remissão. Mas as múltiplas doses diárias necessárias comprometem a adesão ao tratamento, que é muito baixa (entre 45% e 65%). A utilização de mesalazina em grânulos (sachê 2 g) dose única diária - Pentasa® sachê 2 g - pode aumentar a aderência ao tratamento, refletindo numa melhora nos desfechos dos pacientes. Objetivo Avaliar as evidências sobre o uso de mesalazina para a manutenção da remissão em pacientes com retocolite ulcerativa inespecífica e sua eficácia quando tomada uma vez versus mais de uma vez ao dia. Do ponto de vista econômico, avaliar o impacto que a adoção desta posologia teria para o sistema público de saúde do país, comparada ao tratamento padrão atual, considerando a adesão dos pacientes. Métodos Foi elaborada uma árvore de decisão construída a partir do Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas de Colite Ulcerativa, publicado pelo Ministério da Saúde na portaria SAS/MS n° 861, de 04 de novembro de 2002, e de algoritmos publicados pela Associação Brasileira de Colite Ulcerativa e Doença de Crohn, objetivando-se obter o custo-efetividade da mesalazina dose única diária em grânulos comparado com mesalazina duas vezes ao dia em comprimidos. Resultados O emprego de mesalazina aumenta as chances de indução da remissão e sua manutenção, quando comparado a ...

Lapatinib plus chemotherapy or endocrine therapy (CET) versus CET alone in the treatment of HER-2-overexpressing locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This paper reports a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of lapatinib plus chemotherapy or endocrine therapy (CET) versus CET alone in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing (HER-2+) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. The side effects of each treatment were analyzed. The data extracted from the studies were combined by using the hazard ratio or risk ratio with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 113 references were identified and screened. The final analysis included four trials comprising 1,073 patients with HER-2+. The overall response rate was higher in patients who received the combination of CET plus lapatinib (risk ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.71-0.85; P < 0.00001) but with significant heterogeneity (χ(2) = 15.61, df = 3; P = 0.001; I(2) = 81%). This result remained favorable to the use of lapatinib when a random-effects model analysis was performed (risk ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.62-0.94; P = 0.01). Progression-free survival was also higher in patients who received CET plus lapatinib (hazard ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.49-0.66; P < 0.00001) with no heterogeneity detected on this analysis (χ(2) = 3.05; df = 3; P = 0.38; I(2) = 1%). Overall survival was significantly longer in patients who received CET plus lapatinib (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.69-0.92; P = 0.002) without heterogeneity on this analysis (χ(2) = 1.26; df = 3; P = 0.74; I(2) = 0%). Regarding adverse events and severe toxicities (grade ≥3), the group receiving CET plus lapatinib had higher rates of neutropenia (risk ratio 2.08; 95% CI 1.64-2.62; P < 0.00001), diarrhea (risk ratio 4.82; 95% CI 3.14-7.41; P < 0.00001), and rash (risk ratio 8.03; 95% CI 2.46-26.23; P = 0.0006). CONCLUSION: The combination of CET plus lapatinib increased the overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival in patients with HER-2+ locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Decision tree construction and cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment of ulcerative colitis with pentasa® mesalazine 2 g sachet.

CONTEXT: Unspecified Ulcerative Rectocolitis is a chronic disease that affects between 0.5 and 24.5/105 inhabitants in the world. National and international clinical guidelines recommend the use of aminosalicylates (including mesalazine) as first-line therapy for induction of remission of unspecified ulcerative rectocolitis, and recommend the maintenance of these agents after remission is achieved. However, multiple daily doses required for the maintenance of disease remission compromise compliance with treatment, which is very low (between 45% and 65%). Use of mesalazina in granules (2 g sachet) once daily--Pentasa® sachets 2 g--can enhance treatment adherence, reflecting in an improvement in patients' outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence on the use of mesalazine for the maintenance of remission in patients with unspecified ulcerative rectocolitis and its effectiveness when taken once versus more than once a day. From an economic standpoint, to analyze the impact of the adoption of this dosage in Brazil's public health system, considering patients' adherence to treatment. METHODS: A decision tree was developed based on the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guidelines for Ulcerative Colitis, published by the Ministry of Health in the lobby SAS/MS n° 861 of November 4 th, 2002 and on the algorithms published by the Associação Brasileira de Colite Ulcerativa e Doença de Crohn, aiming to get the cost-effectiveness of mesalazine once daily in granules compared with mesalazine twice daily in tablets. RESULTS: The use of mesalazine increases the chances of remission induction and maintenance when compared to placebo, and higher doses are associated with greater chance of success without increasing the risk of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The use of a single daily dose in the maintenance of remission is effective and related to higher patient compliance when compared to the multiple daily dose regimens, with lower costs.

Implante por cateter de bioprótese valvular aórtica para tratamento de estenose valvar aórtica grave em pacientes inoperáveis sob perspectiva da saúde suplementar: análise de custo-efetividade / Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for the treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in inoperable patients under the perspective of the brazilian supplemental health system: cost-effectiveness analysis

INTRODUÇÃO: O implante por cateter de bioprótese valvular aórtica (TAVI, do inglês transcatheter aortic valve implantation) constitui nova modalidade de tratamento destinada, sobretudo, aos pacientes com elevado risco cirúrgico. Para esses pacientes, o TAVI resultou em aumento da sobrevivência e melhora da qualidade de vida, comparativamente ao tratamento padrão (medicamentoso, com ou sem valvuloplastia aórtica percutânea). Nosso objetivo foi realizar análise de custo-efetividade da implementação do TAVI no Sistema de Saúde Suplementar brasileiro. MÉTODOS: Foram desenvolvidos um modelo preditivo, para avaliar custo-efetividade real do procedimento em longo prazo, e uma regressão de Weibull com tempo horizonte de 5 e 10 anos, para estimar dados de sobrevida por mais de 24 meses. Adicionalmente, foi desenvolvido modelo de Markov sequencial e determinístico. Resultados foram expressos como razão de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) por anos de vida ganhos e anos de vida livres de progressão. RESULTADOS: Para o cenário padrão, no qual o custo da TAVI foi estipulado em R$ 65 mil, o valor da RCEI (custo/ano de vida salvo) em 5 anos foi de R$ 72.520,65. Alterando-se o tempo horizonte para 10 anos, esse valor diminuiu para R$ 41.653,01. CONCLUSÕES: O modelo apontou que o TAVI apresenta efetividade superior e maior custo incremental. Além disso, a incorporação do TAVI no Rol de Procedimentos e Eventos em Saúde da Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar acarretaria impacto orçamentário incremental nos próximos 5 anos, variando de R$ 70 milhões a R$ 121 milhões, compatível com o de outras tecnologias já incorporadas no âmbito da Saúde Suplementar.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a new modality of treatment especially dedicated to patients with high surgical risk. In these patients, TAVI increased survival and improved quality of life when compared to standard treatment (drug therapy with or without percutaneous aortic balloon valvuloplasty). Our objective was to perform a cost-efficacy analysis of the implementation of TAVI in the Brazilian Supplemental Health System. METHODS: We developed a predictive model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the procedure in the long-term, and a Weibull regression analysis with a time horizon of 5 and 10 years, to estimate survival data for over 24 months. In addition, a deterministic sequential Markov model was developed. Results were expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per years of life saved and progression-free years of life. RESULTS: In a standard scenario, where the cost of TAVI was estimated as R$ 65 millions, the ICER value (cost/year of life saved) in 5 years was R$ 72,520.65. When the time horizon was adjusted for 10 years, this amount decreased to R$ 41,653.01. CONCLUSIONS: The model indicated that TAVI has superior effectiveness and higher incremental cost. Furthermore, the incorporation of TAVI in the List of Health Procedures and Events of the Brazilian Supplemental Health System would have an incremental budgetary impact over the next 5 years, ranging from R$ 70 millions to R$ 121 millions, consistent with other technologies which have already been incorporated by the system.

Efficacy of bevacizumab (Bev) plus chemotherapy (CT) compared to CT alone in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of chemotherapy (CT) plus Bevacizumab (Bev) versus CT alone in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and side effects. We performed a meta-analysis (MA) of the published data, using a fixed effects model and an additional random effects model, when applicable. The results of the MA are expressed as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR), with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI95%). We analyzed the use of Bev in the doses of 7.5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg. RESULTS: The final analysis included 4 trials, comprising 2200 patients. The response rate was higher in patients who received the combination of CT plus Bev 7.5 mg/kg (RR=0.58; CI95%=0.46-0.74; p<0.00001) and Bev 15 mg/kg (RR=0.53; CI95%=0.45-0.63; p<0.00001) with moderate heterogeneity at dose of 15 mg/kg (Chi(2)=4.30, df=3 (P=0.23); I(2)=30%). The PFS length was longer in patients who received CT plus Bev 7.5 mg/kg (HR=0.78, CI95%=0.68-0.90; p=0.0005) and Bev 15 mg/kg (HR=0.72, CI95%=0.65-0.80; p<0.00001) with moderate heterogeneity (Bev 7.5 mg/kg: Chi(2)=1.43, df=1 (P=0.23); I(2)=30% and Bev 15 mg/kg: Chi(2)=7.43, df=3 (P=0.06); I(2)=60%). Differences in these end points remained in favor of CT plus Bev when made the analysis by random-effects model. Overall survival was longer in patients who received CT plus Bev 15 mg/kg (HR=0.89, CI95%=0.80-1.00; p=0.04), with moderate heterogeneity (Chi(2)=5.09, df=3 (P=0.17); I(2)=41%). The random-effects model analysis for this endpoint did not confirmed the difference seen in the fixed effects model analysis (HR=0.90, CI95%=0.76-1.07; p=0.23). Severe haematologic toxicities (grade>3), neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were more common among the patients that received Bev. CONCLUSION: The combination of CT plus Bev increased the response rate and progression-free survival of patients with NSCLC. With respect to overall survival the benefits of Bev remains uncertain.

Efficacy of palonosetron (PAL) compared to other serotonin inhibitors (5-HT3R) in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic (MoHE) treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing a single intravenous dose of palonosetron (PAL) 0.25 mg with other 5-HT(3)R in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic (MoHE) chemotherapy. METHODS: Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoints were the incidence of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. The side effects of each treatment were analyzed. A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of the use of corticosteroids. The results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) and the correspondent 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Five studies were included, with 2057 patients. PAL was compared with ondansetron, granisetron, and dolasetron. Patients in PAL group had less nausea, both acute (RR = 0.86; CI 95% = 0.76 to 0.96; p = 0.007) and delayed (RR = 0.82; CI95% = 0.75 to 0.89; p < 0.00001). They also had less acute vomiting (RR = 0.76; CI 95% = 0.66 to 0.88; p = 0.0002) and delayed vomiting (RR = 0.76; CI95% = 0.68 to 0.85; p < 0.00001). There were no statistical differences in side effects like headache (RR = 0.84; CI 95% = 0.61 to 1.17; p = 0.30), dizziness (RR = 0.40; CI 95% = 0.13 to 1.27; p = 0.12), constipation (RR = 1.29; CI 95% = 0.77 to 2.17; p = 0.33) or diarrhea (RR = 0.67; CI 95% = 0.24 to 1.85; p = 0.44). Patients receiving PAL presented less nausea and vomiting regardless of the use of corticoids. We found no statistical heterogeneity in the global analysis. CONCLUSION: PAL was more effective than the other 5-HT(3)R in preventing acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving MoHE treatments, regardless of the use of concomitant corticosteroids.