ABSTRACT
OBJETIVOS: Comparar custos e benefícios clínicos de três terapias adicionais à metformina (MF) para pacientes com diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DMT2). MÉTODOS: Um modelo de simulação de eventos discretos foi construído para estimar a relação custo-utilidade (custo por QALY) da saxagliptina como uma terapia adicional à MF comparada à rosiglitazona ou pioglitazona. Um modelo de impacto orçamentário (BIM - Budget Impact Model) foi construído para simular o impacto econômico da adoção de saxagliptina no contexto do Sistema Suplementar de Saúde brasileiro. RESULTADOS: O custo de aquisição da medicação para o grupo de pacientes hipotéticos analisados, para o horizonte temporal de três anos, foi de R$ 10.850.185,00, R$ 14.836.265,00 e R$ 14.679.099,00 para saxagliptina, pioglitazona e rosiglitazona, respectivamente. Saxagliptina exibiu menores custos e maior efetividade em ambas as comparações, com economias projetadas para os três primeiros anos de -R$ 3.874,00 e -R$ 3.996,00, respectivamente. O BIM estimou uma economia cumulativa de R$ 417.958,00 com o reembolso da saxagliptina em três anos a partir da perspectiva de uma operadora de plano de saúde com 1 milhão de vidas cobertas. CONCLUSÃO: Da perspectiva da fonte pagadora privada, a projeção é de que o acréscimo de saxagliptina à MF poupe custos quando comparado ao acréscimo de rosiglitazona ou pioglitazona em pacientes com DMT2 que não atingiram a meta de hemoglobina glicada (HbA1c) com metformina em monoterapia. O BIM, para a inclusão de saxagliptina nas listas de reembolso das operadoras de planos de saúde, indicou uma economia significativa para o horizonte de 3 anos.
OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and clinical benefits of three additional therapies to metformin (MF) for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was built to estimate the cost-utility ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) of saxagliptine as an additional therapy to MF when compared to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. A budget impact model (BIM) was built to simulate the economic impact of saxagliptine use in the context of the Brazilian private health system. RESULTS: The acquiring medication costs for the hypothetical patient group analyzed in a time frame of three years, were R$ 10,850,185, R$ 14,836,265 and R$ 14,679,099 for saxagliptine, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively. Saxagliptine showed lower costs and greater effectiveness in both comparisons, with projected savings for the first three years of R$ 3,874 and R$ 3,996, respectively. The BIM estimated cumulative savings of R$ 417,958 with the repayment of saxagliptine in three years from the perspective of a health plan with 1,000,000 covered individuals. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of private paying source, the projection is that adding saxagliptine with MF save costs when compared with the addition of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone in patients with DM2 that have not reached the HbA1c goal with metformin monotherapy. The BIM of including saxagliptine in the reimbursement lists of health plans indicated significant savings on the three-year horizon.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , /drug therapy , Hypoglycemic Agents/administration & dosage , Adamantane/administration & dosage , Adamantane/analogs & derivatives , Adamantane/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , /economics , Dipeptides/administration & dosage , Dipeptides/economics , Drug Therapy, Combination/economics , Hypoglycemic Agents/economics , Metformin/administration & dosage , Metformin/economics , Private Sector , Thiazolidinediones/administration & dosage , Thiazolidinediones/economicsABSTRACT
Objetivo: Determinar la relación costo efectividad incremental del agregado de saxagliptina o sulfonilureas en Colombia a personas con DMT2 que no logran alcanzar metas glucémicas con metformina, durante un período máximo de 20 años. Metodología: Se realizó un estudio de costo efectividad, utilizando un modelo de simulación de eventos discretos con incremento de tiempo fijo (Diabetes Cardiff Model). Las características de la cohorte de pacientes y el perfil de eficacia para cada tratamiento se obtuvieron de la literatura. El costo de los medicamentos se obtuvo de SISMED y Farmaprecios. Los costos de los eventos macro y microvasculares se basaron en el POS, Manual Tarifario SOAT y consulta con experto local. La tasa de descuento en costos y beneficios fue 3,5 por ciento. Resultados: En el grupo tratado con saxagliptina registramos menos eventos fatales y no fatales y menos episodios de hipoglucemia. En ambas estrategias los mayores costos correspondieron a los medicamentos, seguidos por los asociados al tratamiento del infarto de miocardio. El costo incremental de la terapia con saxagliptina fue de US$ 555.552 a 20 años. El tratamiento con saxagliptina redundó en un mayor número de Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad (AVAC) y Años de Vida Ganados (AVG), respecto al obtenido con sulfonilureas. El costo por AVAC fue de US$ 2.190. Los resultados de costo efectividad fueron robustos al análisis de sensibilidad. Conclusión: El agregado de saxagliptina a pacientes que no logran un control glucémico adecuado con metformina, es muy costo efectiva comparada con el agregado de sulfonilureas.
Objective: To determine in Colombia, the cost effectiveness ratio of the saxagliptin or sulphonylureas addition to patients with T2DM who fail to achieve glycemic goals with metformin, for a maximum period of 20 years. Methods: We performed a cost effectiveness analysis, using a discrete event simulation model with fixed time step (Cardiff Diabetes Model). The characteristics of the cohort of patients and efficacy profile for each treatment were obtained from the literature. The cost of medication was obtained from SISMED and Farmaprecios. The costs of macro and microvascular events were based on POS tariffs, SOAT Manual and consultation with local expert. The discount rate on costs and benefits was 3.5 percent. Results: The group treated with saxagliptin had fewer fatal and nonfatal events and fewer episodes of hypoglycemia than the one with sulfonylureas. In both strategies the higher cost corresponds to the drugs, followed by those associated with the treatment of myocardial infarction. The incremental cost of saxagliptin therapy was US$ 555.552 to 20 years. Saxagliptin treatment resulted in a greater number of quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) and life-years gained (LYG) than that obtained with sulfonylureas. The cost per QALY was US$ 2,190. Cost-effectiveness results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: Addition of saxagliptin to patients who do not achieve adequate glycemic control with metformin, is highly cost-effective compared with the addition of sulphonylureas.