RESUMEN

Objective: To generate data on the costs associated with the diagnosis and treatment of obstructive ypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) from the perspective of the private health system in Brazil. Methods: A modified Delphi panel including seven different specialists (three clinical cardiologists with experience in obstructive HCM, two hemodynamicists with experience in septal ablation and two cardiac surgeons with expertise in myectomy), from two Brazilian states (São Paulo and Pernambuco), was conducted between August and November 2022. Two rounds of questions about the use of healthcare resources according to the functional class (NYHA I-IV) and a panel in a virtual platform were conducted to obtain the final consensus. Micro-costing defined costs and unit values were determined based on official price lists. Results: The total diagnosis cost per patient was estimated at BRL 11,486.81. The obstructive HCM management costs analysis showed average annual costs per patient of BRL 17,026.74, BRL 19,401.46, BRL 73,310.07, and BRL 94,885.75 for the functional classes NYHA I, NYHA II, NYHA III, and NYHA IV, respectively. The average costs per patient related to procedures in a year were BRL 12,698.53, BRL 13,462.30, BRL 58,841.67, and BRL 75,595.90 for the functional classes NYHA I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Conclusions: The annual costs of HCM management increased according to the functional class, highlighting the need for safe and effective strategies to improve patient's NYHA functional class while promoting a decrease in the need for invasive therapies.

Objetivo: Gerar dados acerca dos custos associados ao diagnóstico e tratamento da cardiomiopatia hipertrófica (CMH) obstrutiva, sob a perspectiva do sistema de saúde privado no Brasil. Métodos: Um painel Delphi modificado incluindo sete especialistas (três cardiologistas clínicos com experiência em CMH obstrutiva, dois hemodinamicistas com experiência em ablação de septo e dois cirurgiões cardíacos com experiência em miectomia) de dois estados brasileiros (São Paulo e Pernambuco) foi conduzido entre agosto e novembro de 2022. Foram realizadas duas rodadas de perguntas acerca da utilização de recursos de acordo com a classe funcional (NYHA I-IV) e uma reunião virtual para obtenção do consenso final. Os custos foram definidos por meio de microcusteio, e os valores unitários foram definidos com base em listas de preço oficiais. Resultados: O custo total do diagnóstico por paciente foi estimado em R$ 11.486,81. A análise de custos de manejo da CMH obstrutiva mostrou custos médios anuais por paciente de R$ 17.026,74, R$ 19.401,46, R$ 73.310,07 e R$ 94.885,75 para as classes funcionais NYHA I, NYHA II, NYHA III e NYHA IV, respectivamente. Os custos médios por paciente relacionados a procedimentos em um ano foram de R$ 12.698,53, R$ 13.462,30, R$ 58.841,67 e R$ 75.595,90 para as classes NYHA I, II, III e IV, respectivamente. Conclusões: Os custos anuais com o manejo da CMH aumentam de acordo com a classe funcional, destacando a necessidade de estratégias seguras e eficazes capazes de melhorar a classe funcional NYHA do paciente, ao mesmo tempo que promove diminuição da necessidade de terapias invasivas.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (PEM + AXI) have demonstrated significant clinical benefits as first-line (1 L) treatments for intermediate/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of NIVO + IPI versus PEM + AXI from a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective, utilizing a novel approach to estimate comparative efficacy between the treatments. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model (progression-free, progressed, and death) was developed to estimate costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) over a 40-year time horizon. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons between NIVO + IPI and PEM + AXI, clinical data for NIVO + IPI was obtained from CheckMate 214 (NCT02231749) and for PEM + AXI from KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331). A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted to account for the imbalance of treatment effect modifiers between the trials. Patient characteristics, resource use, health state utilities, and costs were based on Brazilian-specific sources. Costs and health outcomes were both discounted by 5% annually in line with Brazilian guidelines. The robustness of the results was evaluated through extensive sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses. RESULTS: When comparing the matched versus unmatched OS, PFS, and TTD curves there was no noteworthy difference. NIVO + IPI was associated with cost savings (R$ 350,232), higher LYs (5.54 vs. 4.61), and QALYs (4.74 vs. 3.76) versus PEM + AXI, resulting in NIVO + IPI dominating PEM + AXI. Key model drivers were the treatment duration for PEM, NIVO, and AXI. NIVO + IPI remained dominant in all scenario analyses, which indicated that model results were robust to alternative modelling inputs or assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and potentially cost-saving 1 L treatment option when compared with PEM + AXI for intermediate/poor-risk a RCC patients in the Brazilian private healthcare system.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objetivo: Determinar o impacto da adesão ao tratamento antirretroviral sobre a utilização de recursos e custos relacionados ao manejo do HIV/AIDS no Brasil. Métodos: Uma revisão sistemática da literatura foi conduzida em dezembro/2019. Foram incluídos estudos com pacientes adultos, brasileiros, com diagnóstico de HIV/AIDS, que apresentassem dados de adesão terapêutica, utilização de recursos e custos associados ao tratamento. Resultados: Foram localizadas 964 referências, três delas elegíveis para inclusão. O custo total foi estimado em 227.362,00 BRL em seis meses (N = 100 ­ custos diretos e indiretos) e em 579.264,80 BRL por ano (N = 157 ­ custos diretos) em indivíduos aderentes ao tratamento. Já em 40 pacientes não aderentes, o custo total estimado, considerando apenas os custos diretos, foi de 136.023,25 BRL por ano. Ao padronizar essas estimativas pelo período de análise e tamanho amostral, pacientes não aderentes demonstram um menor custo total quando comparados àqueles aderentes ao tratamento [170.029,06 BRL (custos diretos) versus 184.479,24 BRL (custos diretos) e 227.362,00 BRL (custos diretos e indiretos)]. No entanto, o grupo de pacientes não aderentes ao tratamento demonstrou maior custo, com diferença estatisticamente significativa para consultas e necessidade de internação hospitalar. A razão de custo-efetividade incremental para indivíduos aderentes à terapia antirretroviral (7.622 BRL por resposta clínica) foi menor quando comparada ao grupo de indivíduos não aderentes (9.716 BRL por resposta clínica). Conclusões: Apesar da escassez de estudos que avaliem a relação entre a adesão ao tratamento e os custos com o manejo do HIV/AIDS no Brasil, os achados corroboram a hipótese de que a não adesão ao tratamento pode gerar um maior custo.

Objective: To determine the impact of adherence to antiretroviral treatment on resource utilization and costs in the management of HIV/AIDS patients in Brazil. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in December 2019. Eligibility criteria considered Brazilian adults with HIV/AIDS, presenting data on treatment adherence, resource utilization, and treatment-associated costs. Results: The search retrieved 964 references and three were eligible for inclusion. Total cost was estimated at 227,362.00 BRL in six months (N = 100 ­ direct and indirect costs) and 579,264.80 BRL per year (N = 157 ­ direct costs) in individuals adhering to the treatment. In 40 non-adherent patients, estimated total cost, considering only direct costs, was 136,023.25 BRL per year. When estimates were standardized by the analysis period and sample size, non-adherent patients demonstrate a lower total cost when compared to those adhering to the treatment [170,029.06 BRL (direct costs) versus 184,479.24 BRL (direct costs) and 227,362.00 BRL (direct and indirect costs)]. However, the group of patients who did not adhere to the treatment showed a higher cost, with a statistically significant difference, for consultations and the need for hospitalization. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adherent (7,622 BRL per clinical response) was smaller when compared to non-adherent group (9,716 BRL per clinical response). Conclusions: Despite the scarcity of studies evaluating the relationship between adherence to treatment and costs with the management of HIV/AIDS in Brazil, data found corroborates the hypothesis that non-adherence to treatment may be associated with higher costs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

O debate sobre a necessidade de melhoria da utilização de recursos em saúde fez aumentar o interesse em evidências do mundo real (EMR) nos últimos anos. No sétimo congresso Latino-Americano da Sociedade Internacional de Farmacoeconomia e Pesquisa de Desfechos, diferentes palestrantes exploraram como o manejo desses dados pode auxiliar no processo de tomada de decisão. Quatro membros representando diferentes segmentos do Sistema de Saúde Suplementar (SSS) brasileiro foram convidados a participar de um painel de especialistas, a fim de entender suas percepções sobre o assunto. O nível de confiança na informação atualmente disponível variou entre 70% e 90% e os dados são utilizados na rotina de tomada de decisão. Considerando a utilização de evidências para prever decisões, os especialistas relatam não existir uma matriz institucional, mas que as informações existentes são utilizadas na construção de modelos preditivos por meio da criação de pacotes de serviços. A priorização da tomada de decisão é hoje essencialmente baseada em estimativas de custos. Apesar disso, são observadas diferentes situações em que dados de mundo real podem balizar esse processo. Existiu consenso de que uma mudança de paradigmas está ocorrendo e que esses processos representam um futuro plausível. O uso de EMR é de grande importância no processo de tomada de decisão na perspectiva do SSS e, acima de tudo, no suporte de modelos de saúde baseados em valor, sendo recomendado pela Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar como um pilar estratégico para a sustentabilidade do sistema.

The debate about the needs for healthcare resource utilization improvement has been soaring during the last years. As a result, discussions on enhancements of the decision-making process through the leverage of real-world evidence (RWE) has also been fostered. In the 7th Latin American congress of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, different speakers explored how the management of these data support real-life healthcare decisions. Four members representing different segments from the Brazilian Supplementary Healthcare System (SHS) were invited to participate on an expert panel in order to understand their perceptions on this subject. The confidence level on available data ranges from 70% to 90% and information is used on decision-making routine. When the use of real-world evidence to predict decision was considered, panelists reported the absence of an institutional decision matrix, but that existing information is used to build predictive models through the creation of service packages. The prioritization of decision-making today is essentially based on the estimation of costs. However, different situations in which real-world data can guide this process are observed. There was a consensus on a paradigm shift ongoing and that these processes represent a plausible future. The use of RWE is of great importance on decision-making process from the SHS perspective and, above all, in a support of value-based healthcare model which is recommended by Brazilian private agency (ANS) as the strategic pillar to system sustainability

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: A large number of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies have been published in developed countries. However, Brazilian HEE literature in oncology has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the scientific literature has provided a set of HEE in oncology capable of supporting decision making in the Brazilian context. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify and characterize studies in this field. We searched multiple databases selecting partial and full HEE studies in oncology (1998-2013). Results: Fifty-five articles were reviewed, of these, 33 (60%) were full health economic evaluations. Type of cancers most frequently studied were: breast (38.2%), cervical (14.6%), lung (10.9%) and colorectal (9.1%). Procedures (47.3%) were the technologies most frequently evaluated. In terms of the intended purposes of the technologies, most (63.6%) were treatments. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported have been below the cost-effectiveness threshold suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO). Conclusions: There has been an increase in the number of HEEs related to cancer in Brazil. These studies may support decision-making processes regarding the coverage of and reimbursement of healthcare technologies for cancer treatment in Brazil.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Brazil has sought to use economic evaluation to support healthcare decision-making processes. While a number of health economic evaluations (HEEs) have been conducted, no study has systematically reviewed the quality of Brazilian HEE. The objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview regarding the state of HEE research and to evaluate the number, characteristics, and quality of reporting of published HEE studies conducted in a Brazilian setting. METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Latin American, and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences Database, Scientific Electronic Library Online, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, health technology assessment Database, Bireme, and Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde Economia da Saúde); citation indexes (SCOPUS, Web of Science), and Sistema de Informação da Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologia em Saúde. Partial and full HEEs published between 1980 and 2013 that referred to a Brazilian setting were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: In total, 535 studies were included in the review, 36.8% of these were considered to be full HEE. The category of healthcare technologies more frequently assessed were procedures (34.8%) and drugs (28.8%) which main objective was treatment (72.1%). Forty-four percent of the studies reported their funding source and 36% reported a conflict of interest. Overall, the full HEE quality of reporting was satisfactory. But some items were generally poorly reported and significant improvement is required: (1) methods used to estimate healthcare resource use quantities and unit costs, (2) methods used to estimate utility values, (3) sources of funding, and (4) conflicts of interest. CONCLUSION: A steady number of HEE have been published in Brazil since 1980. To improve their contribution to inform national healthcare policy efforts need to be made to enhance the quality of reporting of HEEs and promote improvements in the way HEEs are designed, implemented (i.e., using sound methods for HEEs) and reported.

RESUMEN

The aim of this study is to identify and characterize the health economic evaluations (HEEs) of diagnostic tests conducted in Brazil, in terms of their adherence to international guidelines for reporting economic studies and specific questions in test accuracy reports. We systematically searched multiple databases, selecting partial and full HEEs of diagnostic tests, published between 1980 and 2013. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and extracted the data. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. Forty-three articles were reviewed. The most frequently studied diagnostic tests were laboratory tests (37.2%) and imaging tests (32.6%). Most were non-invasive tests (51.2%) and were performed in the adult population (48.8%). The intended purposes of the technologies evaluated were mostly diagnostic (69.8%), but diagnosis and treatment and screening, diagnosis, and treatment accounted for 25.6% and 4.7%, respectively. Of the reviewed studies, 12.5% described the methods used to estimate the quantities of resources, 33.3% reported the discount rate applied, and 29.2% listed the type of sensitivity analysis performed. Among the 12 cost-effectiveness analyses, only two studies (17%) referred to the application of formal methods to check the quality of the accuracy studies that provided support for the economic model. The existing Brazilian literature on the HEEs of diagnostic tests exhibited reasonably good performance. However, the following points still require improvement: 1) the methods used to estimate resource quantities and unit costs, 2) the discount rate, 3) descriptions of sensitivity analysis methods, 4) reporting of conflicts of interest, 5) evaluations of the quality of the accuracy studies considered in the cost-effectiveness models, and 6) the incorporation of accuracy measures into sensitivity analyses.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The aim of this study is to identify and characterize the health economic evaluations (HEEs) of diagnostic tests conducted in Brazil, in terms of their adherence to international guidelines for reporting economic studies and specific questions in test accuracy reports. We systematically searched multiple databases, selecting partial and full HEEs of diagnostic tests, published between 1980 and 2013. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and extracted the data. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. Forty-three articles were reviewed. The most frequently studied diagnostic tests were laboratory tests (37.2%) and imaging tests (32.6%). Most were non-invasive tests (51.2%) and were performed in the adult population (48.8%). The intended purposes of the technologies evaluated were mostly diagnostic (69.8%), but diagnosis and treatment and screening, diagnosis, and treatment accounted for 25.6% and 4.7%, respectively. Of the reviewed studies, 12.5% described the methods used to estimate the quantities of resources, 33.3% reported the discount rate applied, and 29.2% listed the type of sensitivity analysis performed. Among the 12 cost-effectiveness analyses, only two studies (17%) referred to the application of formal methods to check the quality of the accuracy studies that provided support for the economic model. The existing Brazilian literature on the HEEs of diagnostic tests exhibited reasonably good performance. However, the following points still require improvement: 1) the methods used to estimate resource quantities and unit costs, 2) the discount rate, 3) descriptions of sensitivity analysis methods, 4) reporting of conflicts of interest, 5) evaluations of the quality of the accuracy studies considered in the cost-effectiveness models, and 6) the incorporation of accuracy measures into sensitivity analyses.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND:: The pre-transplant period is complex and includes lots of procedures. The severity of liver disease predisposes to a high number of hospitalizations and high costs procedures. Economic evaluation studies are important tools to handle costs on the waiting list for liver transplantation. OBJECTIVE:: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the total cost of the patient on the waiting list for liver transplantation and the main resources related to higher costs. METHODS:: A cost study in a cohort of 482 patients registered on waiting list for liver transplantation was carried out. In 24 months follow-up, we evaluated all costs of materials, medicines, consultations, procedures, hospital admissions, laboratorial tests and image exams, hemocomponents replacements, and nutrition. The total amount of each resource or component used was aggregated and multiplied by the unitary cost, and thus individual cost for each patient was obtained. RESULTS:: The total expenditure of the 482 patients was US$ 6,064,986.51. Outpatient and impatient costs correspond to 32.4% of total cost (US$ 1,965,045.52) and 67.6% (US$ 4,099,940.99) respectively. Main cost drivers in outpatient were: medicines (44.31%), laboratorial tests and image exams (31.68%). Main cost drivers regarding hospitalizations were: medicines (35.20%), bed use in ward and ICU (26.38%) and laboratorial tests (13.72%). Patients with MELD score between 25-30 were the most expensive on the waiting list (US$ 16,686.74 ± 16,105.02) and the less expensive were those with MELD below 17 (US$ 5,703.22 ± 9,318.68). CONCLUSION:: Total costs on the waiting list for liver transplantation increased according to the patient's severity. Individually, hospitalizations, hemocomponents reposition and hepatocellular carcinoma treatment were the main cost drivers to the patient on the waiting list. The longer the waiting time, the higher the total cost on list, causing greater impact on health systems.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The pre-transplant period is complex and includes lots of procedures. The severity of liver disease predisposes to a high number of hospitalizations and high costs procedures. Economic evaluation studies are important tools to handle costs on the waiting list for liver transplantation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the total cost of the patient on the waiting list for liver transplantation and the main resources related to higher costs. METHODS: A cost study in a cohort of 482 patients registered on waiting list for liver transplantation was carried out. In 24 months follow-up, we evaluated all costs of materials, medicines, consultations, procedures, hospital admissions, laboratorial tests and image exams, hemocomponents replacements, and nutrition. The total amount of each resource or component used was aggregated and multiplied by the unitary cost, and thus individual cost for each patient was obtained. RESULTS: The total expenditure of the 482 patients was US$ 6,064,986.51. Outpatient and impatient costs correspond to 32.4% of total cost (US$ 1,965,045.52) and 67.6% (US$ 4,099,940.99) respectively. Main cost drivers in outpatient were: medicines (44.31%), laboratorial tests and image exams (31.68%). Main cost drivers regarding hospitalizations were: medicines (35.20%), bed use in ward and ICU (26.38%) and laboratorial tests (13.72%). Patients with MELD score between 25-30 were the most expensive on the waiting list (US$ 16,686.74 ± 16,105.02) and the less expensive were those with MELD below 17 (US$ 5,703.22 ± 9,318.68). CONCLUSION: Total costs on the waiting list for liver transplantation increased according to the patient's severity. Individually, hospitalizations, hemocomponents reposition and hepatocellular carcinoma treatment were the main cost drivers to the patient on the waiting list. The longer the waiting time, the higher the total cost on list, causing greater impact on health systems.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: O período pré-transplante é complexo e inclui grande quantidade de procedimentos. A gravidade da doença hepática predispõe a um alto número de internações e procedimentos de alto custo. Estudos em avaliação econômica são uma importante ferramenta para o manejo dos custos em lista de espera para o transplante hepático. OBJETIVO: O objetivo do presente estudo foi avaliar o custo total do paciente em lista de espera para o transplante hepático e os principais recursos relacionados ao alto custo. MÉTODOS: Foi realizado um estudo de coorte em 482 pacientes registrados em lista de espera para o transplante hepático. Os pacientes foram acompanhados por um período de 24 meses, no qual foram avaliados todos os custos de materiais, medicamentos, consultas, procedimentos internações, exames laboratoriais e de imagem, reposição de hemocomponentes e nutrição recebida. A quantidade total de cada recurso e componente utilizado foi obtida e multiplicada pelo seu valor unitário e, desta maneira, o custo individual de cada paciente foi obtido. RESULTADOS: O total gasto pelos 482 pacientes foi de US$ 6.064.986,51. Os custos ambulatoriais corresponderam a 32,4% do total (US$ 1.965.045,52) e os custos em internação corresponderam a 67,6% do total (US$ 4.099.940,99). Os principais determinantes do custo em ambulatório foram: medicamentos (44,31%) e exames laboratoriais e de imagem (31,68%). Os principais determinantes de custo em internações foram: medicamentos (35,20%), utilização do leito em enfermaria e em UTI (26,38%) e exames laboratoriais (13,72%) Pacientes com valores de MELD entre 25-30 foram os de maiores custos em lista de espera (US$ 16.686,74 ± 16,105.02) e os de menor custo foram os pacientes com MELD abaixo de 17 (US$ 5.703,22 ± 9.318,68). CONCLUSÃO: O custo total em lista de espera para o transplante hepático aumenta de acordo com a gravidade do paciente. Individualmente, internações, reposição de hemocomponentes e o tratamento do paciente com carcinoma hepatocelular são os principais determinantes de custo para os pacientes em lista de espera para o transplante hepático. Quanto maior o tempo de espera, maiores serão os custos em lista, causando maior impacto nos sistemas de saúde.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In Brazil, since 2005, the Ministry of Health requires Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) of vaccines for introduction into the National Immunization Program. OBJECTIVES: To describe and analyze the full HEE on vaccines conducted in Brazil from 1980 to 2013. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature. We searched multiple databases. Two researchers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. The methodological quality of individual studies was evaluated using CHEERS items. RESULTS: Twenty studies were reviewed. The most evaluated vaccines were pneumococcal (25%) and HPV (15%). The most used types of HEE were cost-effectiveness analysis (45%) and cost-utility analysis (20%). The research question and compared strategies were stated in all 20 studies and the target population was clear in 95%. Nevertheless, many studies did not inform the perspective of analysis or data sources. CONCLUSIONS: HEE of vaccines in Brazil has increased since 2008. However, the studies still have methodological deficiencies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the quality and quantity of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in Brazil. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review of published CUAs of healthcare technologies in Brazil. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment) Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme (Biblioteca Regional de Medicina), BVS ECOS (Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health), and SISREBRATS (Sistema de Informação da Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde [Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies]) from 1980 to 2013. Articles were included if they were CUAs according to the classification devised by Drummond et al. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and carried out data extraction. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or through consultation with a third reviewer. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 535 health economic evaluations (HEEs) relating to Brazil, only 40 were CUAs and therefore included in the analysis. Most studies adhered to methodological guidelines for quality of reporting and 77.5% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the health outcome. Of these studies, 51.6% did not report the population used to elicit preferences for outcomes and 45.2% used a specific population such as expert opinion. The preference elicitation method was not reported in 58.1% of these studies. The majority (80.6%) of studies did not report the instrument used to derive health state valuations and no publication reported whether tariffs (or preference weights) were national or international. No study mentioned the methodology used to estimate QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Many published Brazilian cost-utility studies adhere to key recommended general methods for HEE; however, the use of QALY calculations is far from being the current international standard. Development of health preferences research can contribute to quality improvement of health technology assessment reports in Brazil.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: To systematically review economic evaluations in gastroenterology, relating to Brazil, published between 1980 and 2013. METHODS: We selected full and partial economic evaluations from among those retrieved by searching the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed); Excerpta Medica; the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database; the Scientific Electronic Library Online; the database of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; the National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database; the NHS Health Technology Assessment database; the Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health; Scopus; Web of Science; and the Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies. Two researchers, working independently, selected the studies and extracted the data. RESULTS: We identified 535 health economic evaluations relating to Brazil and published in the 1980-2013 period. Of those 535 articles, only 40 dealt with gastroenterology. Full and partial economic evaluations respectively accounted for 23 (57.5%) and 17 (42.5%) of the 40 studies included. Among the 23 full economic evaluations, there were 11 cost-utility analyses, seven cost-effectiveness analyses, four cost-consequence analyses, and one cost-minimization analysis. Of the 40 studies, 25 (62.5%) evaluated medications; 7 (17.5%) evaluated procedures; and 3 (7.5%) evaluated equipment. Most (55%) of the studies were related to viral hepatitis, and most (63.4%) were published after 2010. Other topics included gastrointestinal cancer, liver transplantation, digestive diseases and hernias. Over the 33-year period examined, the number of such economic evaluations relating to Brazil, especially of those evaluating medications for the treatment of hepatitis, increased considerably. CONCLUSION: Further studies are needed in order to ensure that expenditures on health care in Brazil are made as fairly and efficiently as possible.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJETIVO: Avaliar o benefício clínico e econômico de TachoSil® comparado a técnicas convencionais para hemostasia em cirurgias hepáticas, pulmonares e renais. MÉTODOS: Realizou-se revisãoda literatura em busca de revisões sistemáticas e ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) que comparassem TachoSil® a técnicas convencionais de hemostasia nas cirurgias hepáticas, pulmonares erenais. Foi realizada análise de custos, sob a perspectiva do Sistema Suplementar de Saúde, contemplando custos de materiais, tempo de internação e transfusão de hemoderivados. No cenário base o uso de recursos foi baseado em estudo econômico e no cenário alternativo, nos ECRs originais. RESULTADOS: Foram encontrados 142 estudos, sendo selecionados 6 ECRs avaliando TachoSil® em cirurgia pulmonar, 4 em cirurgia hepática e 2 em cirurgia renal, além de 4 revisões sistemáticas e 2estudos não randomizados considerados relevantes. Os resultados de todos estes estudos consideraram TachoSil® uma boa alternativa às técnicas convencionais. Com base nos ECRs, TachoSil® é capaz de reduzir o tempo de internação após cirurgia pulmonar em 1,49 dia (IC 95%: 0,52 - 2,45,p<0,003) e, após cirurgia hepática, em 3 dias. A análise de custos demonstrou que TachoSil® reduz o custo em R$10.349,77, R$10.686,11 e R$4.677,46, respectivamente, nas cirurgias pulmonar, hepática e renal, quando comparado às técnicas convencionais, no cenário base. No cenário alternativo as reduções foram de R$2.020,09, R$4.872,22 e R$3.997,17 nas indicações pulmonar, hepática e renal, respectivamente. CONCLUSÕES: O maior benefício clínico de TachoSil®, quando comparado a técnicas convencionais, foi demonstrado em diversos estudos clínicos. O uso de TachoSil® levou a reduções de custo, mostrando-se uma alternativa cost-saving em relação às técnicas de hemostasia convencionais, com maior eficácia e menores custos

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and economic benefit of TachoSil® for hemostasis in liver, lung and kidney surgery compared to conventional techniques. METHODS: A literature review was conducted looking for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TachoSil ® to conventional techniques for hemostasis in liver, lung and kidney surgeries. A cost analysis was performed under the perspective of the Brazilian Private Healthcare System, considering costs of materials, hospitalization and blood transfusions. At the base case scenario, the resources were based on an international economic evaluation and in the alternative scenario, on the original RCTs. RESULTS: The review shows up 142 studies. Six RCTs evaluating TachoSil® in pulmonary surgery, 4 inhepatic surgery and 2 in renal surgery were selected, besides 4 systematic reviews and 2 non-randomized studies that had been considered relevant. The results of all those studies confirmed TachoSil® as a good alternative to conventional techniques. Based on the RCTs, TachoSil® might reduce the period of hospitalization after pulmonary surgery in 1.49 day (95% CI: 0.52 - 2.45), p<0.003) and in 3.00 days after hepatic surgery. The cost analysis demonstrated that, when compared to conventional techniques in base case, TachoSil® reduces the costs of lung, liver and kidney surgeries in $10,349.77, $10,686.11 and $4,677.46. In the alternative scenario the reductions might be of $2,020.09 $4,872.22 and $3,997.17 in lung, liver and renal surgeries, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The superior clinical benefit of TachoSil® when compared to conventional techniques was demonstrated in several clinical trials. The use of TachoSil® leads to cost reductions, being a cost-saving alternative (with superior efficacy and lower costs)

Asunto(s)