RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The addition of pertuzumab to the scheme of docetaxel plus trastuzumab (TH) in patients with metastatic breast cancer with overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 increases survival. Nevertheless, this addition could represent a high cost for the health system of a middle-income country such as Colombia. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the efficiency of the pertuzumab plus TH (PTH) scheme in comparison with TH. METHODS: A partitioned survival model-based cost-utility analysis was performed. Progression-free survival and overall survival curves for each scheme were obtained from the CLEOPATRA study. The time horizon was 30 years with a discount rate of 5% for costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Total direct costs were calculated using national tariffs. Utilities were obtained from external sources. Model uncertainty was evaluated by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. A willingness to pay value of 5180 US dollars was used. RESULTS: The discounted total average costs of TH and PTH were $24 109 and $60 846, respectively. These regimens' average life-years were 5.78 and 8.38, and their quality-adjusted life-years were 3.28 and 4.51, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $29 867. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of pertuzumab was the variable that explained the uncertainty in the model. The probability that PTH is cost-effective in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis is 0.0724. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pertuzumab to the TH regimen in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer has a low probability of being cost-effective from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama , Humanos , Feminino , Trastuzumab/uso terapêutico , Docetaxel/uso terapêutico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Colômbia , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer's perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: LA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: LA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pharmacological treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia from the payer's perspective. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of 5 mg finasteride, 0.5 mg dutasteride, 10 mg alfuzosin, 10 mg terazosin, 0.4 mg tamsulosin, 4 mg doxazosin, and the combination therapy of 5 mg finasteride and 8 mg doxazosin was evaluated using a Markov model over a 30-year period. The costs were estimated using national tariffs and were reported in US dollars. Cost and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. Men (aged ≥40 years) with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms and uncomplicated benign prostatic hyperplasia were included in the analysis. Outcomes included costs and quality-adjusted life-years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed on important parameters with Monte-Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Finasteride alone or in combination with doxazosin dominated all α-blockers. After excluding dominated alternatives, the incremental cost-utility ratio for combination therapy was $377 per quality-adjusted life-year, being a cost-effective alternative using the threshold of $15 000. Model results were robust to changes in costs, utility weights, and probabilities. Acceptability curves consistently demonstrated that the combination therapy was most likely cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of finasteride and doxazosin is cost-effective compared with dutasteride, tamsulosin, terazosin, and alfuzosin in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with moderate or severe symptoms who are older than 40 years.