[Cost-effectiveness analysis of etanercept compared with other biologic therapies in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis]. / Etanercept y otras terapias biológicas en artritis reumatoide. Un análisis de costo-efectividad.

OBJECTIVE: to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis of etanercept compared with other biologic therapies in the treatment of moderate or severe rheumatoid arthritis in patients with previous unresponse to immune selective anti-inflammatory derivatives failure. METHODS: a pharmacoeconomic model based on decision analysis to assess the clinical outcome after giving etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab or tocilizumab to treat moderate or severe rheumatoid arthritis was employed. Effectiveness of medications was assessed with improvement rates of 20 % or 70 % of the parameters established by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR 20 and ACR 70). RESULTS: the model showed that etanercept had the most effective therapeutic response rate: 79.7 % for ACR 20 and 31.4 % for ACR 70, compared with the response to other treatments. Also, etanercept had the lowest cost ($149,629.10 per patient) and had the most cost-effective average ($187,740.40 for clinical success for ACR 20 and $476,525.80 for clinical success for ACR 70) than the other biologic therapies. CONCLUSIONS: we demonstrated that treatment with etanercept is more effective and less expensive compared to the other drugs, thus making it more efficient therapeutic option both in terms of means and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Objetivo: analizar la relación costo-efectividad del etanercept en comparación con otras terapias biológicas para tratar la artritis reumatoide moderada o severa en pacientes con falla previa a fármacos antirreumáticos modificadores de la enfermedad. Métodos: se empleó un modelo farmacoeconómico basado en el análisis de decisiones para valorar la evolución clínica con etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab o tocilizumab para tratar artritis reumatoide moderada o severa. Los parámetros de efectividad fueron las tasas de mejoría igual o superior a 20 % (ACR 20) y de mejoría igual o superior a 70 % (ACR 70). Resultados: etanercept tuvo la mayor efectividad terapéutica: en 79.7 % de los pacientes se observó una ACR 20 y en 31.4 %, una ACR 70. También tuvo el menor costo asociado ($149 629.1 por paciente) y fue más costo-efectiva ($187 740.4 por éxito clínico para obtener ACR 20 y $476 525.8 por éxito clínico para obtener ACR 70) que las demás terapias biológicas. Conclusiones: el etanercept fue el fármaco más efectivo y menos costoso, por lo que resulta la opción terapéutica más eficiente, desde el punto de vista de la relación costo-efectividad media y en términos incrementales para el tratamiento de la artritis reumatoide.

[Treatment patterns in advanced breast cancer with anthracycline and taxanes and their costs in three public hospitals of Mexico]. / Patrones de tratamiento y costo de atención del cáncer de mama avanzado con falla a antraciclinas y taxanos en 3 hospitales públicos de México.

OBJECTIVES: In Mexico, breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality among females. For patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes (AT), there are limited treatment options. There is a scarcity of data regarding clinical management of this population and treatment costs at this stage of the disease. The objective of this study was to describe the treatment patterns of care for metastatic breast cancer after AT and the associated cost from the point-of-view of the Mexican Public Health Care Sector. METHODS: Between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2007, a retrospective cohort of adult female ABC patients resistant to AT was developed by reviewing and extracting key data from medical charts. We conducted a retrospective, transversal and descriptive analysis of the patient data. Target population data files were obtained from 414 patients from 3 public hospitals in México. RESULTS: Capecitabine, vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide were the most commonly prescribed agents, however clinical drug therapy management of the disease was different within and among the three hospitals included in the study. This difference translated into a disparity of prescription costs, ranging from an average of $122.22 pesos/patient/month (cyclophosphamide, IC 95% $94.43-$150.01) to $37,835.53 pesos/patient/month (capecitabine+trastuzumab IC 95% $34,953.18-$40,717.88) for the first treatment after AT. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight a lack of standardized care for patients and suggest that differences in treatment patterns are not only a reflection of scarcity of scientific data and diversity of prescription preferences among physicians but also of economic restrictions. Ultimately, there is a clear unmet medical need to be addressed through evidence-based medicine alternatives that support efficacy and cost effectiveness treatments.