Implante transcateter de valva aórtica para o tratamento da estenose aórtica grave: uma revisão sistemática de estudos de avaliação econômica completa / Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review of complete economic evaluation studies

Objetivo: Comparar o implante transcateter de valva aórtica (TAVI) ao tratamento conservador em pacientes inoperáveis ou à cirurgia de troca valvar (SAVR) em pacientes com risco cirúrgico alto ou intermediário conforme a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), por meio de uma revisão sistemática de avaliações econômicas completas. Avaliar a variabilidade de modelos econômicos, parâmetros, pressupostos e sua influência nos resultados finais. Métodos: Foi realizada uma busca da literatura nas bases Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SciELO e International HTA Base e busca manual. Foram incluídas análises econômicas completas baseadas em modelos econômicos publicadas entre 2011 e 2022, em português, inglês e espanhol. A qualidade dos estudos foi avaliada usando o instrumento QHES (Quality of Health Economic Studies). Resultados: Foram incluídos 36 estudos, majoritariamente análises de custo-utilidade (64%), da Europa (41%), utilizando dados de eficácia dos estudos PARTNER. O modelo de Markov (61%) foi predominante. O custo da prótese do TAVI foi um parâmetro de impacto na análise de sensibilidade nos três grupos. Os estudos alcançaram uma boa qualidade no instrumento QHES. Conclusão: O TAVI tendeu a ser custo-efetivo em relação aos comparadores. Os modelos não foram homogêneos nos parâmetros, horizontes temporais e taxa de desconto, podendo impactar a custo-efetividade do TAVI e dificultar a comparação dos resultados entre diferentes países e perspectivas.

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to conservative treatment in inoperable patients or to valve replacement surgery (SAVR) in patients at high or intermediate surgical risk according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), through a systematic review of comprehensive economic evaluations. Evaluate the variability of economic models, parameters, assumptions and their influence on final results. Methods: A literature search was performed in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SciELO and International HTA Base and manual search. Complete economic analyzes based on economic models published between 2011 and 2022 in Portuguese, English and Spanish were included. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the QHES (Quality of Health Economic Studies) instrument. Results: Thirty-six studies were included, mostly cost-utility analyses (64%), from Europe (41%), and using efficacy data from the PARTNER studies. The Markov model (61%) was predominant. The cost of the TAVI prosthesis was the most important parameter in the sensitivity analysis in the three groups. The studies achieved a good quality in QHES instrument. Conclusion: TAVI tended to be cost-effective relative to comparators. The models were not homogeneous in parameters, time horizons and discount rate, which may have an impact on the cost-effectiveness of TAVI, making it difficult to compare the results between different countries and perspectives.

Análise de impacto orçamentário dos inibidores da PARP no tratamento do carcinoma de ovário avançado a partir de evidências de mundo real sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal referência em oncologia / Budget impact analysis of PARP inhibitors in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer from on real-world evidence the perspective of a federal hospital reference in oncology

Objetivo: Avaliar o impacto orçamentário do tratamento com iPARP como primeira linha de manutenção, comparado ao tratamento-padrão a partir de evidências de mundo real sob a perspectiva de um hospital público referência em oncologia no Rio de Janeiro. Métodos: Foi aplicada uma análise de impacto orçamentário para estimar a introdução das tecnologias iPARP, olaparibe e niraparibe, em comparação com o cenário referência, utilizando dados de eficácia e evidências de mundo real, e considerando os custos globais de tratamento da doença em cinco anos. Este estudo foi aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa, CAAE: 95157018.9.0000.5274. Resultados: A análise demonstrou que o cenário referência apresentou um impacto orçamentário no valor de R$ 3.578.768,04 em cinco anos. No cenário alternativo, o custo incremental do olaparibe chegou a ser 23,8% maior, comparado ao niraparibe, atingindo um custo de R$ 23.736.459,20 versus R$ 18.076.951,81, respectivamente. Os parâmetros que apresentaram maior impacto nas análises para a tecnologia olaparibe foram a difusão da tecnologia e o preço do medicamento. Contudo, para o niraparibe, os parâmetros de maior impacto foram a duração do tratamento, a difusão da tecnologia e a dose utilizada, demonstrando maior suscetibilidade de variação. Conclusão: Os iPARP no tratamento de pacientes com carcinoma de ovário avançado, apesar de apresentarem custo incremental de aproximadamente R$ 23 milhões em cinco anos, apontam para uma potencial redução de custos associados à progressão da doença.

Objective: Assess the budgetary impact of treatment with iPARP as a first line of maintenance, compared to standard treatment based on real-world evidence from the perspective of a public hospital reference in oncology at Rio de Janeiro. Methods: A budget impact analysis was applied to estimate the introduction of iPARP, olaparib and niraparib technologies, compared to the reference scenario, using efficacy data and real-world evidence, and considering the global costs of treating the disease in five years. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee, CAAE: 95157018.9.0000.5274. Results: The analysis showed that the reference scenario presented a budgetary impact of R$ 3,578,768.04 in five years. In the alternative scenario, the incremental cost of olaparib reached 23.8% higher compared to niraparib, reaching a cost of R$ 23,736,459.20 versus R$ 18,076,951.81, respectively. The parameters that had the greatest impact on the analyzes for the olaparib technology were technology diffusion and drug price. However, for niraparib, the parameters with the greatest impact were the duration of treatment, the diffusion of the technology and the dose used, demonstrating greater susceptibility to variation. Conclusion: iPARP in the treatment of patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma, despite having an incremental cost of approximately R$ 23 million in five years, point to a potential reduction in costs associated with disease progression.

Cost-Utility of the CDK 4/6 Inhibitors for Postmenopausal Women With Luminal Advanced Breast Cancer in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: Several trials have demonstrated the benefit of the CDK 4/6 inhibitors for postmenopausal women with luminal advanced breast cancer. This research aims to compare the cost-utility of the CDK 4/6 inhibitors in patients with no history of resistance to endocrine therapy. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of treatments from the Brazilian public health system perspective over a lifetime horizon (30 years) with 5% annual discount rate for both benefits and costs. Efficacy parameters were extracted from the pivotal studies. Costs were based on open data from the Brazilian Ministry of Health. The utilities were calculated according to the overall population preferences from a British study. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The most cost-effective drug was ribociclib (US$50 748/QALY), followed by abemaciclib (US$64 052/QALY) and palbociclib (US$65 289/QALY). The univariate analysis showed that the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was mainly sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio. The one thousand-probabilistic simulation showed that all ICUR values were above classical thresholds such as 1 to 3 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Even though there is no established willingness to pay threshold in Brazil, the estimated ICUR for CDK 4/6 inhibitors is >6 times the Brazilian GDP per capita (GDP per capita = US$5694.73), which might be a barrier to their inclusion in the Brazilian public health system.

Cost Utility of Prasugrel in Postangioplasty Diabetic Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To prevent thrombotic events after angioplasty, current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and thienopyridine. Clopidogrel is the only thienopyridine currently available in the Brazilian National Health System. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel, an alternative thienopyridine, compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and diabetes mellitus who underwent angioplasty. METHODS: A state-transition Markov model was created to simulate the progression of diabetic patients after angioplasty. The model had a lifetime horizon and discounted outcomes at a 5% annual rate. The risks of myocardial infarction and death were calculated using data from the diabetes subgroup, and the risks of bleeding were calculated using data from the overall group from the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition With Prasugrel Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38 trial. Direct costs were estimated using official Brazilian open data. Quality of life values were obtained through literature search. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Prasugrel was associated with more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (5.03 vs 4.94) and higher costs (US$975.11 vs US$575.97), resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of US$4303.86/QALY. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the costs of prasugrel had the greatest impact on ICUR, followed by the initial age entering the cohort. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, all ICUR values simulations were less than one Brazilian gross domestic product per capita/QALY (US $5802.86). CONCLUSIONS: Given the appealing economic profile, the clinical debate between reducing the risk of myocardial infarction and increasing the risk of bleeding may overcome economic concerns in the Brazilian National Health System.

Stated Preferences in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

INTRODUCTION: The different alternatives for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment can increase survival but cause important adverse events. Therefore, patients' preference can play a critical role in decision-making. Among stated preference methods, discrete choice experiment (DCE) is the most applied in health care to elicit preferences. This research aims to elicit patients' preference evaluating the trade-off between the risks (adverse events) and benefits (survival) of systemic treatments, from the perspective of Brazilian patients with locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent NSCLC. METHODS: A DCE was performed following the steps of attributes selection; construction of tasks and respondents' preference elicitation. Patients chose between 2 hypothetical treatments described by the attributes tiredness, hair loss, skin rash, hospitalization, administration mode and survival. A paper-and-pencil survey method was used to elicit the answers from the participants. The statistical data analysis used a mixed logit model to predict the relative importance of the attributes. RESULTS: Most of the 65 patients interviewed were men (53.8%), mean age of 65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-67) years and lung cancer stage IV (67.7%). Except for hospitalization and administration mode, the attributes coefficients were statistically significant (p < 0.005) for patients' preferences. Patients would require a minimum survival gain of 11.72 (CI: 10.28-4.22) months and 19.72 (CI: 17.31-7.09) months to accept a treatment that causes severe tiredness and severe skin rash, respectively. The market share of the treatments was calculated according to the DCE aggregate-level estimation, considering the impact of each treatment's side effects. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin had an estimated market share of 31%, followed by gefitinib (27%), erlotinib (24%) and docetaxel (18%). CONCLUSION: In general, less than a year of survival gain would not suffice for the appearance of severe skin rash or tiredness.

[Cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib for metastatic renal cancer from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System]. / Custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe para câncer renal metastático na perspectiva de um hospital do Sistema Único de Saúde.

Renal cancer is the 13th most frequent neoplasm in the world. From 2010 to 2014, renal cancer accounted for 1.43% of cancer deaths in Brazil. The treatment of choice for metastatic renal cancer is tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib and pazopanib. This article assesses cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer. A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the perspective of a federal hospital under the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). TKI effectiveness and safety outcomes were applied to the decision tree model. Clinical data were extracted from patient charts, and direct costs were consulted from official Ministry of Health sources. The cost of 10 months of treatment, including the costs of the TKI, procedures and management of adverse events, was BRL 98,677.19 for pazopanib and BRL 155,227.11 for sunitinib. The drugs displayed statistically equivalent effectiveness and statistically different safety outcomes, with pazopanib displaying better results. In this setting, pazopanib is the dominant technology when the treatment costs are analyzed together with the costs of managing adverse events.

O câncer renal é a 13ª neoplasia mais frequente no mundo. Entre 2012 e 2016, representou 1,48% das mortes por câncer no Brasil. A terapia de escolha para o tratamento de câncer renal metastático são os inibidores de tirosina quinase (ITK), sunitinibe e pazopanibe. Este artigo avalia o custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe no tratamento de câncer renal metastático. Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal do Sistema Único de Saúde. No modelo de árvore de decisão foram aplicados os desfechos de efetividade e segurança dos ITK. Os dados clínicos foram extraídos de prontuários e os custos diretos consultados em fontes oficiais do Ministério da Saúde. O custo de 10 meses de tratamento, englobando o valor dos ITK, procedimentos e manejo de eventos adversos, foi de R$ 98.677,19 para o pazopanibe e R$ 155.227,11 para o sunitinibe. Os medicamentos apresentaram efetividade estatisticamente equivalente e diferença estatisticamente significativa para o desfecho de segurança, no qual o pazopanibe obteve o melhor resultado. O pazopanibe, nesse contexto, é a tecnologia dominante quando os custos de tratamento são associados aos de manejo de eventos adversos.

El cáncer renal es la 13ª neoplasia más frecuente en el mundo. Entre 2010 y 2014, representó un 1,43% de las muertes por cáncer en Brasil. La terapia de elección para el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico son los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa (ITK), sunitinib y pazopanib. Este artículo evalúa el costo-efectividad entre pazopanib y sunitinib en el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico. Se realizó un análisis de costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva de un hospital federal del Sistema Único de Salud. En el modelo de árbol de decisión se aplicaron los desenlaces de efectividad y seguridad de los ITK. Los datos clínicos se extrajeron de registros médicos, y los costos directos consultados en fuentes oficiales del Ministerio de Salud. El costo de 10 meses de tratamiento, englobando el valor de los ITK, procedimientos y gestión de eventos adversos, fue de BRL 98.677,19 con el pazopanib y BRL 155.227,11 con el sunitinib. Los medicamentos presentaron efectividad estadísticamente equivalente y diferencia estadísticamente significativa para el desenlace de seguridad, en el que el pazopanib obtuvo el mejor resultado. El pazopanib, en este contexto, es la tecnología dominante cuando los costes de tratamiento están asociados a los de la gestión de eventos adversos.

Custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe para câncer renal metastático na perspectiva de um hospital do Sistema Único de Saúde / Cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib for metastatic renal cancer from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System / Costo-efectividad entre el pazopanib y el sunitinib para el cáncer renal metastásico desde la perspectiva del Sistema Único de Salud

Resumo: O câncer renal é a 13ª neoplasia mais frequente no mundo. Entre 2012 e 2016, representou 1,48% das mortes por câncer no Brasil. A terapia de escolha para o tratamento de câncer renal metastático são os inibidores de tirosina quinase (ITK), sunitinibe e pazopanibe. Este artigo avalia o custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe no tratamento de câncer renal metastático. Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal do Sistema Único de Saúde. No modelo de árvore de decisão foram aplicados os desfechos de efetividade e segurança dos ITK. Os dados clínicos foram extraídos de prontuários e os custos diretos consultados em fontes oficiais do Ministério da Saúde. O custo de 10 meses de tratamento, englobando o valor dos ITK, procedimentos e manejo de eventos adversos, foi de R$ 98.677,19 para o pazopanibe e R$ 155.227,11 para o sunitinibe. Os medicamentos apresentaram efetividade estatisticamente equivalente e diferença estatisticamente significativa para o desfecho de segurança, no qual o pazopanibe obteve o melhor resultado. O pazopanibe, nesse contexto, é a tecnologia dominante quando os custos de tratamento são associados aos de manejo de eventos adversos.

Abstract: Renal cancer is the 13th most frequent neoplasm in the world. From 2010 to 2014, renal cancer accounted for 1.43% of cancer deaths in Brazil. The treatment of choice for metastatic renal cancer is tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib and pazopanib. This article assesses cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer. A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the perspective of a federal hospital under the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). TKI effectiveness and safety outcomes were applied to the decision tree model. Clinical data were extracted from patient charts, and direct costs were consulted from official Ministry of Health sources. The cost of 10 months of treatment, including the costs of the TKI, procedures and management of adverse events, was BRL 98,677.19 for pazopanib and BRL 155,227.11 for sunitinib. The drugs displayed statistically equivalent effectiveness and statistically different safety outcomes, with pazopanib displaying better results. In this setting, pazopanib is the dominant technology when the treatment costs are analyzed together with the costs of managing adverse events.

Resumen: El cáncer renal es la 13ª neoplasia más frecuente en el mundo. Entre 2010 y 2014, representó un 1,43% de las muertes por cáncer en Brasil. La terapia de elección para el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico son los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa (ITK), sunitinib y pazopanib. Este artículo evalúa el costo-efectividad entre pazopanib y sunitinib en el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico. Se realizó un análisis de costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva de un hospital federal del Sistema Único de Salud. En el modelo de árbol de decisión se aplicaron los desenlaces de efectividad y seguridad de los ITK. Los datos clínicos se extrajeron de registros médicos, y los costos directos consultados en fuentes oficiales del Ministerio de Salud. El costo de 10 meses de tratamiento, englobando el valor de los ITK, procedimientos y gestión de eventos adversos, fue de BRL 98.677,19 con el pazopanib y BRL 155.227,11 con el sunitinib. Los medicamentos presentaron efectividad estadísticamente equivalente y diferencia estadísticamente significativa para el desenlace de seguridad, en el que el pazopanib obtuvo el mejor resultado. El pazopanib, en este contexto, es la tecnología dominante cuando los costes de tratamiento están asociados a los de la gestión de eventos adversos.