RESUMO
OBJETIVE: To evaluate the effect of ribociclib versus endocrine therapy on productivity losses due to advanced breast cancer. METHODS: Productivity data from the MONALEESA-7 trial, obtained from the results of the application of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire on progression-free survival state (43-month follow-up), were extrapolated to the 10,936 Brazilian prevalent cases of premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer. Productivity loss was determined by quantifying the economic costs of workforce dropout over time in both treatment arms and by discounting the economic costs of absenteeism and presenteeism from workforce retention. A human capital approach was used. RESULTS: Net productivity gains in the ribociclib arm were estimated at USD 4,285,525.00, representing 316,609 added work hours over 43 months and a mean of 2,009 added work weeks per year. CONCLUSIONS: The phase III MONALEESA-7 trial productivity results applied to the Brazilian premenopausal prevalent cases of hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer showed that treatment with ribociclib + endocrine therapy improves workforce participation compared with endocrine therapy alone in premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer, with potential economic gains for the Brazilian society.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Receptores de Estrogênio/metabolismo , Receptores de Estrogênio/uso terapêutico , Brasil , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada AntineoplásicaRESUMO
ABSTRACT OBJETIVE To evaluate the effect of ribociclib versus endocrine therapy on productivity losses due to advanced breast cancer. METHODS Productivity data from the MONALEESA-7 trial, obtained from the results of the application of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire on progression-free survival state (43-month follow-up), were extrapolated to the 10,936 Brazilian prevalent cases of premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer. Productivity loss was determined by quantifying the economic costs of workforce dropout over time in both treatment arms and by discounting the economic costs of absenteeism and presenteeism from workforce retention. A human capital approach was used. RESULTS Net productivity gains in the ribociclib arm were estimated at USD 4,285,525.00, representing 316,609 added work hours over 43 months and a mean of 2,009 added work weeks per year. CONCLUSIONS The phase III MONALEESA-7 trial productivity results applied to the Brazilian premenopausal prevalent cases of hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer showed that treatment with ribociclib + endocrine therapy improves workforce participation compared with endocrine therapy alone in premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer, with potential economic gains for the Brazilian society.
Assuntos
Humanos , Feminino , Mulheres , Neoplasias da Mama/terapia , Pré-Menopausa , Absenteísmo , Recursos Humanos/economiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Omalizumab add-on to standard-of-care therapy has proven to be efficacious in severe asthma patients for whom exacerbations cannot be controlled otherwise. Moreover, evidence from different healthcare settings suggests reduced healthcare resource utilization with omalizumab. Based on these findings, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in a Brazilian healthcare setting. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted using Brazil-specific unit costs to compare the costs and outcomes of the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy vs standard-of-care therapy alone. Model inputs were largely based on the eXpeRience study. Costs and health outcomes were calculated for lifetime-years and were annually discounted at 5%. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: An additional cost of R$280,400 for 5.20 additional quality-adjusted life-years was estimated with the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$53,890. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that discount rates, standard-of-care therapy exacerbation rates, and exacerbation-related mortality rates had the largest impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. LIMITATIONS: Assumptions of lifetime treatment adherence and rate of future exacerbations, independent of previous events, might affect the findings. The lack of Brazilian patients in the eXpeRience study may affect the findings, although sample size and baseline characteristics suggest that the modeled population closely resembles Brazilian severe allergic asthma patients. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that omalizumab as an add-on therapy is more cost-effective than standard-of-care therapy alone for Brazilian patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma, based on the World Health Organization's cost-effectiveness threshold of up to 3-times the gross domestic product.