RESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Based on personal experiences, recommendations for physicians treating patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Implement strategies to keep the patient in the best possible condition for the longest time, in addition to focusing on ways to avoid financial toxicity; (2) if lenalidomide is unavailable, start treatment with thalidomide and dexamethasone, include, if possible, bortezomib; (3) conduct an outpatient-based autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in all eligible patients; (4) use thalidomide as post-ASCT maintenance treatment if lenalidomide is unavailable for the standard risk patients; (5) monitor monoclonal proteins with serum protein electrophoresis and free light chain measurements; (6) employ novel drugs in cases of relapsed or refractory disease; and (7) do not forget supportive therapy. The therapeutic recommendations to treat patients with MM are somewhat different for physicians working in LMICs, compared with those treating patients in high-income countries. These are relevant since more than 50% of the inhabitants of the world live in LMICs, thus indicating that the vast majority of patients with MM are being treated in resource-constrained settings. As time goes by, physicians may acquire the ability to analyze and express their feelings and experiences about topics in the practice of medicine in which they could have learned lessons (1). Since 1980, we have been treating patients with multiple myeloma (MM); to date, we have been personally involved in the study and treatment of more than 300 patients with this disease (2). Having gained experience dealing with MM patients in underprivileged circumstances, such as those prevailing in our country: México, having explored different ideas, treatments, and methods, and being aware of the financial implications which may impact our selection of therapeutic strategies and recommendations, we felt that it was appropriate to share in this article some of these ideas with practitioners around the world who are involved in the treatment of patients with MM in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Assuntos
Mieloma Múltiplo/terapia , Antineoplásicos/economia , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Bortezomib/economia , Bortezomib/uso terapêutico , Países em Desenvolvimento , Dexametasona/economia , Dexametasona/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Imunossupressores/economia , Imunossupressores/uso terapêutico , Mieloma Múltiplo/diagnóstico , Mieloma Múltiplo/economia , Pobreza , Transplante de Células-Tronco/economia , Talidomida/economia , Talidomida/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Although a short course (ie, 3 to 5 days) of orally administered prednisolone is a common and widely accepted practice among clinicians for administering systemic corticosteroids in pediatric acute asthma, oral dexamethasone for 1 to 2 days is an attractive alternative to prednisolone due to its better palatability and compliance. However, a cost-effectiveness analysis regarding the use of dexamethasone compared to prednisolone is not sufficient, especially in lower- and middle-income countries. The objective of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of prednisolone vs oral dexamethasone for treating pediatric asthma exacerbations. METHODS: Using a decision-analysis model, we analyzed the cost-effectiveness of prednisolone vs oral dexamethasone for treating acute pediatric asthma. Effectiveness parameters were derived from a systematic review of the published literature. Data for costs were acquired from hospital accounts and from an official national database, the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from a Colombian third-party payer perspective. The principal outcome of the model was the avoidance of hospitalization. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that compared to dexamethasone, administering prednisolone was associated with lower overall treatment costs (US$93.97 vs US$104.91 mean cost per patient) without a significant difference in the probability of hospitalization avoided (.9108 vs .9108). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that in Colombia, a middle-income country, compared with oral dexamethasone, the use of prednisolone for treating acute pediatric asthma is cost-effective, yielding a similar probability of hospitalization at lesser overall costs.