ABSTRACT
Objetivo: Analisar o custo-efetividade da trombólise com alteplase no tratamento de acidente vascular isquêmico (AVCi) agudo em até 4,5 horas após início dos sintomas em comparação com tratamento clínico conservador, sob a perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) no Brasil. Métodos: Construiu-se um modelo de Markov para simular o tratamento de AVCi agudo e suas consequências em curto e longo prazo. Foram conduzidas análises de custo-efetividade (anos de vida ganhos, AVG) e custo-utilidade (anos de vida ajustados pela qualidade de vida, QALY), considerando um horizonte temporal de tempo de vida. Parâmetros de eficácia e segurança foram obtidos em uma metanálise de dados individuais, considerando tratamento em até 3 horas e 3-4,5 horas. Os custos agudos e crônicos foram obtidos por análise secundária de dados de um hospital público brasileiro e expressos em reais (R$). Foram conduzidas análises de sensibilidade determinística e probabilística. Utilizou-se como limiar de disposição a pagar (LDP) 1 PIB (produto interno bruto) per capita para 2019 no Brasil (R$ 31.833,50). Resultados: O tratamento com alteplase vs. conservador resultou em incremento de 0,22 AVG, 0,32 QALY e R$ 4.320,12 em custo, com razão de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) estimada em R$ 19.996,43/AVG e R$ 13.383,64/QALY. Ambas as estimativas foram mais sensíveis a variações na efetividade e nos custos de tratamento agudo com alteplase. Para RCEI/AVG e RCEI/QALY, 70,7% e 93,1% das simulações na análise de sensibilidade probabilística estavam abaixo do LDP, respectivamente. Conclusões: O tratamento com alteplase até 4,5 horas após o início dos sintomas tem elevada probabilidade de ser custo-efetivo na perspectiva do SUS.
Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis with alteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke up to 4.5 hours after the onset of symptoms as compared to conservative medical treatment from the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System. Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate the treatment of acute stroke and the associated short- and long-term consequences. Cost-effectiveness (life-years gained, LYG) and cost-utility (quality-adjusted life years, QALY) analyses were performed considering a lifetime horizon. Efficacy and safety parameters were obtained from a meta-analysis of individual data, considering treatment within 3 hours and 3-4.5 hours after the onset of symptoms. Acute and chronic costs were derived from a secondary analysis of data obtained from a Brazilian public hospital and expressed in Brazilian reais (R$). Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. The willingness to pay threshold (WPT) was established as 1 GDP per capita for 2019 in Brazil (R$ 31,833.50). Results: Treatment with alteplase vs. conservative medical treatment was associated with an increase of 0.22 in LYG, 0.32 in QALY, and R$ 4,320.12 in cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated as R$ 19,996.43/LYG and R$ 13,383.64/QALY. Variations in effectiveness and costs of acute alteplase treatment had the greatest impact on sensitivity analyses. Considering ICER/LYG and ICER /QALY, 70.7% and 93.1% of the simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis were below the WPT, respectively. Conclusions: Treatment with alteplase up to 4.5 hours after the onset of symptoms has a high probability of being cost-effective from the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System.
Subject(s)
Unified Health System , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Tissue Plasminogen Activator , StrokeABSTRACT
Objetivo: Comparar os custos e efetividade do afatinibe versus pemetrexede associado a cisplatina (PEM/CIS), erlotinibe e gefitinibe no tratamento de primeira linha de pacientes com câncer de pulmão não pequenas células (CPNPC) com mutação no receptor de fator de crescimento epidermoide (EGFR+) localmente avançado ou metastático, no Sistema de Saúde Suplementar brasileiro. Métodos: O modelo de Markov foi utilizado para estimar anos de vida livres de progressão (PFLY), anos de vida (LY), anos de vida ajustados pela qualidade (QALY) e desfechos clínicos por sete anos. Utilizaram-se dados de sobrevida, segurança e utilidade dos estudos LUX-Lung 1, 3 e 6 e LUCEOR. A eficácia comparativa versus gefitinibe e erlotinibe foi estimada utilizando modelos bayesianos de comparação indireta. A utilização dos recursos foi estimada por painel de especialistas, e custos diretos foram estimados utilizando-se bases de dados oficiais. Resultados: Afatinibe mostrou aumento da sobrevida livre de progressão (0,41 PFLY), sobrevida global (0,16 LY) e qualidade de vida (0,21 QALY) com custo incremental (R$ 8.549), resultando em razão de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) de R$ 20.639/PFLY. Comparado ao erlotinibe, o afatinibe mostrou aumento de 0,46 PFLY, 0,13 LY e 0,20 QALY, com menor custo (-R$ 21.327). Comparado ao gefitinibe, o afatinibe mostrou incrementos de 0,53 PFLY, 0,37 LY, 0,34 QALY, com custo incremental de R$ 24.890, resultando em RCEI de R$ 46.709/PFLY. Considerando-se três vezes o PIB per capita como limiar de custo-efetividade (R$ 86.628), o afatinibe é custo-efetivo versus PEM/CIS e gefitinibe e dominante quando comparado ao erlotinibe. Conclusão: Sugere-se que o afatinibe é uma opção custo-efetiva quando comparado ao PEM/CIS, erlotinibe e gefitinibe no tratamento de primeira linha de pacientes com CPNPC EGFR+.
Objective: To compare costs and effectiveness of afatinib versus pemetrexed plus cisplatin (PEM/ CIS), erlotinib and gefitinib, as first line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFR+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Brazilian Private Healthcare System. Methods: A Markov model was used to estimate 7year progression-free life years (PFLY), life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and clinical outcomes of afatinib. Partitioned survival, safety and utility data from the LUX-Lung 1, 3 and 6 and LUCEOR trials were used. Comparative effectiveness versus gefitinib and erlotinib was estimated using Bayesian indirect treatment comparison. Resource use was estimated by an expert panel and direct costs were estimated from official databases. Results: Compared with PEM/CIS, afatinib was associated with increased progression free survival (0.41 PFLY), increased overall survival (0.16 LY) and increased quality of life (0.21 QALY) with incremental cost (BRL 8,549), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BRL 20.639/PFLY. Compared to erlotinib, afatinib was associated with additional 0.46 PFLY, 0.13 LY and 0.20 QALYs with lower cost (- BRL 21,327). When compared to gefitinib, afatinib was associated with incremental 0.53 PFLY, 0.37 LY and 0.34 QALY and increased cost (BRL 24,890), resulting in an ICER of BRL 46,709/PFLY. Considering 3 PIB per capita as a threshold (BRL 86,628), afatinib is a cost-effective technology versus PEM/CIS and gefitinib and dominant when compared to erlotinib. Conclusion: Findings suggest that afatinib is a cost-effective option, when compared to PEM/CIS, erlotinib and gefitinib, as first line treatment in EGFR+ NSCLC patients.
Subject(s)
Humans , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Lung NeoplasmsABSTRACT
Nesta revisão, são explicados os fenômenos envolvidos nas trocas de fluidos e solutos através da membrana peritoneal, tanto na situação fisiológica quanto no contexto da diálise peritoneal. Para tanto, são utilizados os modelos matemáticos desenvolvidos para estudo do transporte pela membrana, tais como o "Modelo de Poros" e o "Modelo Distributivo". Os ganhos científicos com as pesquisas nesse campo são contemplados e as áreas que merecem pesquisas adicionais também são citadas. Assim, o estado atual do conhecimento fisiológico a respeito dessa modalidade de terapia renal substitutiva, no que se refere aos eventos relacionados à membrana peritoneal, encontra-se sintetizado nesse manuscrito.
In this review, phenomena involved in fluid and solute exchange through the peritoneal membrane, both in the physiologic and in the peritoneal dialysis settings, are explained. For that purpose, mathematical models developed for the study of molecule transport through the membrane, such as the "Pore Model" and the "Distributive Model" are used. Scientific accomplishments in the field are described and areas that require additional research are also cited. Knowledge about the physiologic mechanisms involved in this renal replacement therapy modality, concerning events directly related to the peritoneal membrane itself, is synthesized in this manuscript.
Subject(s)
Dialysis Solutions/pharmacokinetics , Peritoneal Dialysis , Peritoneum/metabolism , Biological Transport , Models, TheoreticalABSTRACT
Ultrafiltration failure in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis is a condition with an incidence that increases over time. It is related to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and is a major cause of the abandonment of the treatment technique. Because the number of patients undergoing renal replacement therapy is increasing with society aging and because approximately 10 percent of this population is treated with peritoneal dialysis, this matter is becoming more common in everyday practice for clinicians involved in the care of patients with chronic renal failure. In this review, we summarize the available measures used to prevent and treat ultrafiltration failure and the current state of research in the field, both in the experimental and clinical settings, focusing on the possible clinical applications of recent findings.