RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Considering clinical benefits of new combination therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), this study aims to calculate the number needed to treat (NTT) and the cost of preventing an event (COPE) for pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P + A), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N + I) as first-line treatments, from the Brazilian private perspective. METHODS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data for intermediate- and poor-risk groups were obtained from KEYNOTE-426 and CHECKMATE-214 trials for P + A and N + I, respectively, versus sunitinib as mRCC first-line treatment. RESULTS: Considering a 12-month time horizon, 6 patients should be treated with P + A to prevent one death with sunitinib use, resulting in a COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Using N + I, NNT for 12-month OS rate was 13 compared to sunitinib, with a COPE of 6,357,965 BRL. Regarding PFS data, NNT was also 6 when comparing P + A versus sunitinib, with an estimated COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Estimated NNT was 20 comparing N + I and sunitinib, resulting in a COPE of 10,172,744 BRL. Cost differences between two treatment options, reached more than 6 million BRL for PFS, and 2 million BRL for OS. CONCLUSION: At the 12-month landmark, P + A suggests better economic scenario versus N + I as first-line mRCC treatment option for intermediate- and poor-risk groups, through an indirect comparison using sunitinib as a common comparator.
Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos Inmunológicos/economía , Antineoplásicos Inmunológicos/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Carcinoma de Células Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/economía , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Antineoplásicos Inmunológicos/efectos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Axitinib/economía , Axitinib/uso terapéutico , Brasil , Carcinoma de Células Renales/patología , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Femenino , Gastos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Recursos en Salud/economía , Recursos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Ipilimumab/economía , Ipilimumab/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Renales/patología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos Económicos , Nivolumab/economía , Nivolumab/uso terapéutico , Supervivencia sin Progresión , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Sunitinib/economía , Sunitinib/uso terapéutico , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia is a frequent adverse event experienced by people with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy, and is a potentially life-threatening situation. The current treatment is supportive care plus antibiotics. Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs), such as granulocyte-CSF (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF), are cytokines that stimulate and accelerate the production of one or more cell lines in the bone marrow. Clinical trials have addressed the question of whether the addition of a CSF to antibiotics could improve outcomes in individuals diagnosed with febrile neutropenia. However, the results of these trials are conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding G-CSF or GM-CSF to standard treatment (antibiotics) when treating chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in individuals diagnosed with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the search in March 2014 and covered the major electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and SCI. We contacted experts in hematology and oncology and also scanned the citations from the relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adults and children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed meta-analysis of the selected studies using Review Manager 5 software. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (15 comparisons) including a total of 1553 participants addressing the role of CSF plus antibiotics in febrile neutropenia were included. Overall mortality was not improved by the use of CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.16) P = 0.19; 13 RCTs; 1335 participants; low quality evidence). A similar finding was seen for infection-related mortality (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.20) P = 0.23; 10 RCTs; 897 participants; low quality evidence). Individuals who received CSF plus antibiotics were less likely to be hospitalized for more than 10 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.65 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.95) P = 0.03; 8 RCTs; 1221 participants; low quality evidence) and had more number of participants with a more faster neutrophil recovery (RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.81) P = 0.004; 5 RCTs; 794 participants; moderate quality evidence) than those treated with antibiotics alone. Similarly, participants receiving CSF plus antibiotics had shorter duration of neutropenia (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.70 (95% CI -2.65 to -0.76) P = 0.0004; 9 RCTs; 1135 participants; moderate quality evidence), faster recovery from fever (SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.90 to -0.09) P value = 0.02; 9 RCTs; 966 participants; moderate quality evidence) and shorter duration of antibiotics use (SMD -1.50 (95% CI -2.83 to -0.18) P = 0.03; 3 RCTs; 457 participants; low quality evidence) compared with participants receiving antibiotics alone. We found no significant difference in the incidence of deep venous thromboembolism (RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.72 to 3.93) P = 0.23; 4 RCTs; 389 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. We found higher incidence of bone or joint pain or flu-like symptoms (RR 1.59 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.42) P = 0.03; 6 RCTs; 622 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. Overall, the methodological quality of studies was moderate to low across different outcomes. The main reasons to downgrade the quality of evidence were inconsistency across the included studies and imprecision of results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of a CSF plus antibiotics in individuals with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia had no effect on overall mortality, but reduced the amount of time participants spent in hospital and improved their ability to achieve neutrophil recovery. It was not clear whether CSF plus antibiotics had an effect on infection-related mortality. Participants receiving CSFs had shorter duration of neutropenia, faster recovery from fever and shorter duration of antibiotics use.