Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Med Econ ; 24(1): 1185-1193, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34647849

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico
2.
J Med Econ ; 24(1): 291-298, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33538203

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Considering clinical benefits of new combination therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), this study aims to calculate the number needed to treat (NTT) and the cost of preventing an event (COPE) for pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P + A), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N + I) as first-line treatments, from the Brazilian private perspective. METHODS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data for intermediate- and poor-risk groups were obtained from KEYNOTE-426 and CHECKMATE-214 trials for P + A and N + I, respectively, versus sunitinib as mRCC first-line treatment. RESULTS: Considering a 12-month time horizon, 6 patients should be treated with P + A to prevent one death with sunitinib use, resulting in a COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Using N + I, NNT for 12-month OS rate was 13 compared to sunitinib, with a COPE of 6,357,965 BRL. Regarding PFS data, NNT was also 6 when comparing P + A versus sunitinib, with an estimated COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Estimated NNT was 20 comparing N + I and sunitinib, resulting in a COPE of 10,172,744 BRL. Cost differences between two treatment options, reached more than 6 million BRL for PFS, and 2 million BRL for OS. CONCLUSION: At the 12-month landmark, P + A suggests better economic scenario versus N + I as first-line mRCC treatment option for intermediate- and poor-risk groups, through an indirect comparison using sunitinib as a common comparator.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/economia , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economia , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/economia , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/efeitos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Axitinibe/economia , Axitinibe/uso terapêutico , Brasil , Carcinoma de Células Renais/patologia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Gastos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Recursos em Saúde/economia , Recursos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Ipilimumab/economia , Ipilimumab/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Renais/patologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Modelos Econômicos , Nivolumabe/economia , Nivolumabe/uso terapêutico , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Sunitinibe/economia , Sunitinibe/uso terapêutico , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...