ABSTRACT
AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments, such as erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and osimertinib, for patients diagnosed with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. MATERIALS & METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Two Bayesian NMAs were performed independently, by using the polynomial fraction method to fit Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and progression-free survival. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty. RESULTS: The ICER was calculated for the four first-line treatments by comparing them with gefitinib, and the ratios obtained were as follows: 166,416/QALY for osimertinib, 183,682/QALY for dacomitinib, 167,554/QALY for afatinib, 36,196/QALY for erlotinib. It was seen that patients who received osimertinib presented higher QALYs (0.49), followed by dacomitinib (0.33), afatinib (0.32), erlotinib (0.31), and gefitinib (0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Gefitinib is the most cost-effective treatment. In terms of QALYs gained, Osimertinib was more effective than all other TKIs. Nevertheless, with a Spanish threshold of 24,000/QALY, the reduction in the acquisition cost of osimertinib will have to be greater than 70%, to obtain a cost-effectiveness alternative.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Afatinib , Bayes Theorem , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/genetics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , ErbB Receptors/genetics , Erlotinib Hydrochloride , Gefitinib , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Lung Neoplasms/genetics , Mutation , Protein Kinase InhibitorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The implementation of opioid switch (OS) as a strategy in non-malignant chronic pain has been scarcely proved. This article aims to evaluate the results of OS in a Pain Treatment Unit. METHODS: This is an observational retrospective study in which all patients who had been subjeted to OS for a period of 18 months were selected. All of them had been treated with opiods plus adyuvants for more than 6 months and had a visual analog scale (VAS) of at least 5, either with or without adverse effects. Two variables were defined: clinical improvement, as a reduction equal or superior to 3 in VAS or the elimination of two or more adverse effects; equianalgesic dose reduction is the difference between initial and final opioid dose. RESULTS: 7 out of 9 (77%) patients showed clinical improvement. Median equianalgesic dose reduction was 37% (-72% +18%). Five patients (55%) presented adverse effects to opioids before the OS but only one (11%) after OS. CONCLUSIONS: OS was beneficial for the management of non-malignant chronic pain patients who have poor response to opioid treatment and/or with adverse effects. A secure OS should include a reduction in equianalgesic opioid dose. Prospective studys would achieve a mayor consensus for the applicance of OS in non-malignant chronic pain treatment.
Objetivo: Analizar la mejoría clínica de los pacientes sometidos a cambio de opioide y describir el protocolo utilizado para el cambio. Método: Estudio observacional retrospectivo. Se seleccionaron pacientes sometidos a cambio de opioide en el periodo de estudio (18 meses). Fueron criterios para cambio de opioide: tratamiento con fármacos escalón 3 de la escalera de la OMS junto a coadyuvantes durante más de 6 meses y presentar una escala análogo visual del dolor de al menos 5, con o sin efectos adversos asociados. Se definieron las variables: mejoría clínica, como una disminución superior o igual a 3 de escala análogo-visual, o la supresión de dos o más efectos adversos; y reducción de dosis equianalgésica, que se calculó mediante comparación de dosis equianalgésicas del opioide inicial y final. Resultados: Se estudiaron 9 pacientes de los que la variable mejoría clínica resultó positiva en 7 de ellos (77%). La reducción de dosis media fue del 37% (-72% +18%) con respecto a la dosis equianalgésica. Cinco pacientes (55%) presentaban reacciones adversas antes del cambio de opioide; mientras que sólo uno (11%) tras la intervención. Conclusiones: El cambio de opioide fue ventajoso en el manejo de pacientes con dolor crónico no oncológico y baja respuesta al tratamiento opioide y/o con efectos adversos. Para realizar un cambio de opioide con seguridad se debe reducir dosis inicialmente del nuevo opioide. Estudios prospectivos bien diseñados permitirían alcanzar mayor consenso para la aplicación del cambio de opioide en el manejo del dolor crónico no oncológico.
Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Chronic Pain/drug therapy , Drug Substitution , Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic/therapeutic use , Administration, Oral , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Analgesia, Epidural , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Analgesics, Opioid/adverse effects , Chills/chemically induced , Constipation/chemically induced , Female , Fentanyl/administration & dosage , Fentanyl/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydromorphone/administration & dosage , Hydromorphone/therapeutic use , Infusions, Parenteral , Male , Middle Aged , Morphine/administration & dosage , Morphine/therapeutic use , Retrospective Studies , Therapeutic Equivalency , Transdermal Patch , Visual Analog ScaleABSTRACT
Objetivo: Analizar la mejoría clínica de los pacientes sometidos a cambio de opioide y describir el protocolo utilizado para el cambio. Método: Estudio observacional retrospectivo. Se seleccionaron pacientes sometidos a cambio de opioide en el periodo de estudio (18 meses). Fueron criterios para cambio de opioide: tratamiento con fármacos escalón 3 de la escalera de la OMS junto a coadyuvantes durante más de 6 meses y presentar una escala análogo visual del dolor de al menos 5, con o sin efectos adversos asociados. Se definieron las variables: mejoría clínica, como una disminución superior o igual a 3 de escala análogo-visual, o la supresión de dos o más efectos adversos; y reducción de dosisequi analgésica, que se calculó mediante comparación de dosisequi analgésicas del opioide inicial y final. Resultados: Se estudiaron 9 pacientes de los que la variable mejoría clínica resultó positiva en 7 de ellos (77%). La reducción de dosis media fue del 37% (-72% +18%) con respectoa la dosis equianalgésica. Cinco pacientes (55%) presentaban reacciones adversas antes del cambio de opioide; mientras que sólo uno (11%) tras la intervención. Conclusiones: El cambio de opioide fue ventajoso en el manejo de pacientes con dolor crónico no oncológico y baja respuesta al tratamiento opioide y/o con efectos adversos. Para realizar un cambio de opioide con seguridad se debe reducir dosis inicialmente del nuevo opioide. Estudios prospectivos bien diseñados permitirían alcanzar mayor consenso para la aplicación del cambio de opioide en el manejo del dolor crónico no oncológico (AU)
Background: The implementation of opioid switch (OS) as astrategy in non-malignant chronic pain has been scarcely proved. This article aims to evaluate the results of OS in a PainTreatment Unit. Methods: This is an observational retrospective study in which all patients who had been subjected to OS for a period of 18months were selected. All of them had been treated with opiods plus adjuvant for more than 6 months and had a visual analog scale (VAS) of at least 5, either with or without adverse effects. Two variables were defined: clinical improvement, as a reduction equal or superior to 3 in VAS or the elimination of two or more adverse effects; equianalgesic dose reduction is the difference between initial and final opioid dose. Results: 7 out of 9 (77%) patients showed clinical improvement. Median equianalgesic dose reduction was 37% (-72%+18%). Five patients (55%) presented adverse effects to opioids before the OS but only one (11%) after OS. Conclusions: OS was beneficial for the management of on-malignant chronic pain patients who have poor responseto opioid treatment and/or with adverse effects. A secure OS should include a reduction in equianalgesic opioid dose. Prospective studys would achieve a mayor consensus for the applicance of OS in non-malignant chronic pain treatment (AU)
