Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A pharmacoeconomic analysis from Italian guidelines for the management of prolactinomas.
Basile, Michele; Valentini, Ilaria; Attanasio, Roberto; Cozzi, Renato; Persichetti, Agnese; Samperi, Irene; Scoppola, Alessandro; Auriemma, Renata Simona; De Menis, Ernesto; Esposito, Felice; Ferrante, Emanuele; Iatì, Giuseppe; Mazzatenta, Diego; Poggi, Maurizio; Rudà, Roberta; Tortora, Fabio; Cruciani, Fabio; Mitrova, Zuzana; Saulle, Rosella; Vecchi, Simona; Cappabianca, Paolo; Paoletta, Agostino; Bozzao, Alessandro; Caputo, Marco; Doglietto, Francesco; Ferraù, Francesco; Lania, Andrea Gerardo; Laureti, Stefano; Lello, Stefano; Locatelli, Davide; Maffei, Pietro; Minniti, Giuseppe; Peri, Alessandro; Ruini, Chiara; Settanni, Fabio; Silvani, Antonio; Veronese, Nadia; Grimaldi, Franco; Papini, Enrico; Cicchetti, Americo.
Afiliación
  • Basile M; High School of Economy and Management of Health Systems, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome.
  • Valentini I; High School of Economy and Management of Health Systems, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome.
  • Attanasio R; AME Scientific Committee, Milan.
  • Cozzi R; ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Endocrinology Department, Milan.
  • Persichetti A; Ministry of Interior, Department of Firefighters, Public Rescue and Civil Defense, Rome.
  • Samperi I; Endocrinology, ASL Novara, Piedmont.
  • Scoppola A; Endocrinology, Ospedale Santo Spirito, Rome.
  • Auriemma RS; Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Endocrinology Section, 'Federico II' University of Naples, Naples.
  • De Menis E; Internal Medicine 2, Treviso Hospital, Treviso and Functional Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, AULSS 2 Veneto.
  • Esposito F; Neurosurgical Clinic, Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, Federico II' University of Naples, Naples.
  • Ferrante E; Endocrinology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan.
  • Iatì G; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Messina, Messina.
  • Mazzatenta D; Department of Biomedical and NeuroMotor Sciences (DIBINEM), University of Bologna, IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Programma Neurochirurgia Ipofisi - Pituitary Unit, Bologna.
  • Poggi M; Endocrinology, Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, S. Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome.
  • Rudà R; Division of Neurology, Castelfranco Veneto and Treviso Hospital, Treviso Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini", University of Turin, Turin.
  • Tortora F; Radiology Unit, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University "Federico II", Naples.
  • Cruciani F; Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Region Health Service, Rome.
  • Mitrova Z; Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Region Health Service, Rome.
  • Saulle R; Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Region Health Service, Rome.
  • Vecchi S; Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Region Health Service, Rome.
  • Cappabianca P; Neurosurgical Clinic, Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, Federico II' University of Naples, Naples.
  • Paoletta A; ULSS6 Euganea, Endocrinology, Padova.
  • Bozzao A; Neuroradiology, S. Andrea Hospital, NESMOS Department (Neuroscience, Mental Health, Sensorial Organs), Sapienza University of Rome, Rome.
  • Caputo M; Laboratorio Analisi Cliniche e Microbiologia, Synlab SRL, Calenzano (FI).
  • Doglietto F; Institute of Neurosurgery, Catholic University School of Medicine, Rome.
  • Ferraù F; Department of Human Pathology of Adulthood and Childhood 'G. Barresi', University of Messina, Messina.
  • Lania AG; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Endocrinology Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Humanitas University, Rozzano (MI).
  • Laureti S; General Practitioner, USL Umbria 1, Perugia.
  • Lello S; Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
  • Locatelli D; Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, ASST Sette Laghi, Varese.
  • Maffei P; Department of Medicine (DIMED), 3rd Medical Clinic, Padua University, Padua.
  • Minniti G; Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena.
  • Peri A; Pituitary Diseases and Sodium Alterations Unit, AOU Careggi, Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "Mario Serio", University of Florence, Florence.
  • Ruini C; Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna.
  • Settanni F; Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory, City of Health and Science University Hospital, Turin.
  • Silvani A; Department of Neuro-Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milano.
  • Veronese N; ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Endocrinology Department, Milan.
  • Grimaldi F; AME past president, Udine.
  • Papini E; Endocrinology, Ospedale Regina Apostolorum, Albano Laziale (RM) - Italy.
  • Cicchetti A; High School of Economy and Management of Health Systems, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38230389
ABSTRACT

Background:

Prolactinoma, the most common pituitary adenoma, is usually treated with dopamine agonist (DA) therapy like cabergoline. Surgery is second-line therapy, and radiotherapy is used if surgical treatment fails or in relapsing macroprolactinoma.

Objective:

This study aimed to provide economic evidence for the management of prolactinoma in Italy, using a cost-of-illness and cost-utility analysis that considered various treatment options, including cabergoline, bromocriptine, temozolomide, radiation therapy, and surgical strategies.

Methods:

The researchers conducted a systematic literature review for each research question on scientific databases and surveyed a panel of experts for each therapeutic procedure's specific drivers that contributed to its total cost.

Results:

The average cost of the first year of treatment was €2,558.91 and €3,287.40 for subjects with microprolactinoma and macroprolactinoma, respectively. Follow-up costs from the second to the fifth year after initial treatment were €798.13 and €1,084.59 per year in both groups. Cabergoline had an adequate cost-utility profile, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3,201.15 compared to bromocriptine, based on a willingness-to-pay of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in the reference economy. Endoscopic surgery was more cost-effective than cabergoline, with an ICER of €44,846.64. Considering a willingness-to-pay of €40,000/QALY, the baseline findings show cabergoline to have high cost utility and endoscopic surgery just a tad above that.

Conclusions:

Due to the favorable cost-utility profile and safety of surgical treatment, pituitary surgery should be considered more frequently as the initial therapeutic approach. This management choice could lead to better outcomes and an appropriate allocation of healthcare resources.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Guideline Aspecto: Patient_preference Idioma: En Revista: Glob Reg Health Technol Assess Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Guideline Aspecto: Patient_preference Idioma: En Revista: Glob Reg Health Technol Assess Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article