RESUMO

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The relationship between spirituality and health has been the object of growing discussion. There is a lack of data on spiritual needs assessments in Brazil. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the spiritual needs of patients admitted to a public tertiary hospital and perform a comparative analysis between patients with and without indications for palliative care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional observational study included patients hospitalized between August and December 2020 in Hospital do Servidor Publico Municipal, Sao Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: The included patients answered a questionnaire consisting of sociodemographic data, the Duke religiosity scale, and the Spiritual Needs Assessment for Patients (SNAP) tool for a spiritual needs assessment. The World Health Organization Palliative Needs tool (NECPAL) was used to evaluate the indications for palliative care. The level of significance adopted was 5%. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients were included in this study. Most participants (97%) declared themselves as belonging to a religion. The group without indication for palliative care by the NECPAL showed greater spiritual (P = 0.043) and psychosocial needs (P = 0.004). No statistically significant difference was observed in the religious needs domain (P = 0.176). There were no statistically significant differences in the Duke scale scores between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Spiritual, psychosocial, and religious needs are prevalent among hospitalized patients, and multidisciplinary teams must consider these needs in their management approach. In addition, this study suggests that psychosocial and spiritual needs can be even higher in patients who do not receive palliative care.

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Although plerixafor in association with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) can improve mobilization and collection of hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) by leukapheresis, cost may limit its clinical application. The present study systematically reviews economic evaluations of plerixafor plus G-CSF usage compared to G-CSF alone and compares different strategies of plerixafor utilization in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients eligible for autologous HSC transplantation. AREAS COVERED: Relevant economic evaluations, partial or complete, were searched on PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for a period ending 30 June 2021. This systematic review was reported following the PRISMA Statement. Six economic evaluations were included, considering the use of upfront or just-in-time plerixafor compared to G-CSF alone or other plerixafor strategies. Most comparisons showed both increased cost and health benefits with the addition of plerixafor. Most analyses favored just-in-time plerixafor compared to upfront plerixafor, with a probable preference for broader cutoffs for just-in-time plerixafor initiation. EXPERT OPINION: Plerixafor is a potentially cost-effective technology in the mobilization of HSC in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphomas eligible for autologous HSC transplantation. There is a decreased number of leukapheresis sessions and remobilizations and a higher yield of CD34+ cells.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The relationship between spirituality and health has been the object of growing discussion. There is a lack of data on spiritual needs assessments in Brazil. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the spiritual needs of patients admitted to a public tertiary hospital and perform a comparative analysis between patients with and without indications for palliative care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional observational study included patients hospitalized between August and December 2020 in Hospital do Servidor Publico Municipal, Sao Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: The included patients answered a questionnaire consisting of sociodemographic data, the Duke religiosity scale, and the Spiritual Needs Assessment for Patients (SNAP) tool for a spiritual needs assessment. The World Health Organization Palliative Needs tool (NECPAL) was used to evaluate the indications for palliative care. The level of significance adopted was 5%. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients were included in this study. Most participants (97%) declared themselves as belonging to a religion. The group without indication for palliative care by the NECPAL showed greater spiritual (P = 0.043) and psychosocial needs (P = 0.004). No statistically significant difference was observed in the religious needs domain (P = 0.176). There were no statistically significant differences in the Duke scale scores between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Spiritual, psychosocial, and religious needs are prevalent among hospitalized patients, and multidisciplinary teams must consider these needs in their management approach. In addition, this study suggests that psychosocial and spiritual needs can be even higher in patients who do not receive palliative care.

Assuntos

RESUMO

In health technology assessment (HTA), decision criteria are considered relevant to support the complex deliberative process that requires simultaneous consideration of multiple factors. The aim was to identify and analyze the decision criteria that have been used by the National Health Technology Assessment Commission (CONITEC) when recommending the incorporation of technologies for the treatment of cancer. Descriptive study, based on reports from CONITEC, between 2012 and 2018, on oncology technologies. The data were collected in a specific extraction form and analyzed using descriptive statistics. 39 reports were analyzed, 15 of them did not present any explicit decision criteria. Medicines were the most frequently evaluated type of technology. The most frequent types of cancers were: breast cancer, head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer. The most frequently considered criteria were: financial impact and effectiveness. The study identified the decision criteria that have been most used in the area of ​​oncology, however, the lack of transparency in relation to the weight of these criteria makes it difficult to understand their influence on the result of the decisions taken.

Nos processos de avaliação de tecnologias em saúde (ATS), critérios de decisão são considerados relevantes para apoiar o complexo processo deliberativo que requer consideração simultânea de múltiplos fatores. Objetivou-se identificar e analisar os critérios de decisão que têm sido utilizados pela Comissão Nacional de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (CONITEC) na recomendação de incorporação de tecnologias para o tratamento do câncer. Trata-se de um estudo descritivo, baseado em relatórios da CONITEC, entre 2012 e 2018, sobre tecnologias em oncologia. Os dados foram coletados em formulário de extração específico e analisados por meio de estatísticas descritivas. Foram analisados 39 relatórios, 15 deles não apresentavam nenhum critério de decisão explícito. Os medicamentos constituíram o tipo de tecnologia mais frequentemente avaliado. Os tipos de cânceres mais frequentes foram: de mama, de cabeça e pescoço, colorretal, linfoma não Hodgkin e de pulmão. Os critérios considerados com mais frequência foram: impacto financeiro e efetividade. O estudo identificou os critérios de decisão que têm sido mais utilizados na área de oncologia, entretanto, a falta de transparência em relação ao peso desses critérios torna difícil compreender a influência deles no resultado das decisões tomadas.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the potential of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the health field has been discussed widely. However, most MCDA methodologies have given little attention to the aggregation of different stakeholder individual perspectives. OBJECTIVE: To illustrate how a paraconsistent theory-based MCDA reusable framework, designed to aid hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HTA), could be used to aggregate individual expert perspectives when valuing cancer treatments. METHODS: An MCDA methodological process was adopted based on paraconsistent theory and following ISPOR recommended steps in conducting an MCDA study. A proof-of-concept exercise focusing on identifying and assessing the global value of first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was conducted to foster the development of the MCDA framework. RESULTS: On consultation with hospital-based HTA committee members, 11 perspectives were considered in an expert panel: medical oncology, oncologic surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, pharmacist, health economist, epidemiologist, public health expert, health media expert, pharmaceutical industry, and patient advocate. The highest weights were assigned to the criteria "overall survival" (mean 0.22), "burden of disease" (mean 0.21) and "adverse events" (mean 0.20), and the lowest weights were given to "progression-free survival" and "cost of treatment" (mean 0.18 for both). FOLFIRI and mFlox scored the highest global value score of 0.75, followed by mFOLFOX6 with a global value score of 0.71. mIFL was ranked last with a global value score of 0.62. The paraconsistent analysis (para-analysis) of 6 first-line treatments for mCRC indicated that FOLFIRI and mFlox were the appropriate options for reimbursement in the context of this study. CONCLUSION: The Paraconsistent Value Framework is proposed as a step beyond the current MCDA practices, in order to improve means of dealing with individual expert perspectives in hospital-based HTA of cancer treatments.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Palliative care (PC) improves the quality of life of patients with diseases such as cancer, and several studies have shown a reduction in costs among patients who use PC services when compared with those receiving standard oncological treatments. Most studies on PC costs are carried out in high-income countries. There is a lack of these types of studies in middle-income and low-income countries and of better evidence about this intervention. OBJECTIVE: To describe resource utilisation and costs among patients with cancer in a Brazilian quaternary hospital by cancer localisation and per month of treatment before death. METHODS: This study is a description of retrospective costs to estimate the costs of formal healthcare sector associated with PCs, from the perspective of a public quaternary cancer hospital. Unit costs were estimated using microcosting and macrocosting approaches. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients older than 18 years old who died from 2010 to 2013 and who had at least two visits in PC and/or made use of hospice care. RESULTS: Among the 2985 patients included in the study, the average cost per patient was US$12 335, ranging from US$8269 for patients with pancreatic cancer to US$19 395 for patients with brain cancer. The main costing item was hospital admission (47.6% of the total cost), followed by hospice care (29.5%) and medical and other supplies (11.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The study clarified the direct medical costs and the profile and use of resources of patients with cancer who need PC, and can help in the planning and allocation of resources in cancer care.

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to inform health decisions in health technology assessments (HTA) processes. This is particularly important to complex treatment decisions in oncology. AREAS COVERED: Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched for studies comparing health technologies in oncology, involving the concept MCDA. The ISPOR MCDA Good Practices Guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Fifteen studies were included. The main decision problem was related to health technology assessment of cancer treatments. Clinicians and public health experts were the most frequent stakeholders. The most frequently included criteria comprised therapeutic benefit, and socio-economic impact. Value measurement approach, direct rating techniques, and additive model for aggregation were used in most studies. Uncertainty analysis revealed the impact of posology and costs on the studies' results. All studies showed some level of overlapping decision criteria. EXPERT OPINION: There is considerable diversity of methods in MCDA for healthcare decision-making in oncology. The evidence presented can serve as a resource when considering which stakeholders, criteria, and techniques to include in future MCDA studies in oncology.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab for HER2 positive breast cancers has brought considerable benefits to disease-free survival and overall survival. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of patients with early and locally advanced HER2 positive breast cancer, within the scope of the Brazilian public health system, comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with and without trastuzumab, for 1 year of treatment. METHODS: A 4-state Markov model was developed to estimate strategy costs and outcomes. RESULTS: Based on the proposed model, we verified an incremental benefit of trastuzumab therapy compared to treatment without trastuzumab with 0.84 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and 1.16 life years gained (LYG). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab has an ICER of US$19,599.26 for each quality-adjusted life year and US$14,180.68 for each life year gained in relation to chemotherapy without trastuzumab. CONCLUSION: In Brazil, adjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab may be considered cost-effective only if a cost-effectiveness threshold is stipulated with the value starting at three times the Brazilian GDP per capita for QALY or two times the Brazilian GDP per capita for LYG, from health system perspective.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Resumo Nos processos de avaliação de tecnologias em saúde (ATS), critérios de decisão são considerados relevantes para apoiar o complexo processo deliberativo que requer consideração simultânea de múltiplos fatores. Objetivou-se identificar e analisar os critérios de decisão que têm sido utilizados pela Comissão Nacional de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (CONITEC) na recomendação de incorporação de tecnologias para o tratamento do câncer. Trata-se de um estudo descritivo, baseado em relatórios da CONITEC, entre 2012 e 2018, sobre tecnologias em oncologia. Os dados foram coletados em formulário de extração específico e analisados por meio de estatísticas descritivas. Foram analisados 39 relatórios, 15 deles não apresentavam nenhum critério de decisão explícito. Os medicamentos constituíram o tipo de tecnologia mais frequentemente avaliado. Os tipos de cânceres mais frequentes foram: de mama, de cabeça e pescoço, colorretal, linfoma não Hodgkin e de pulmão. Os critérios considerados com mais frequência foram: impacto financeiro e efetividade. O estudo identificou os critérios de decisão que têm sido mais utilizados na área de oncologia, entretanto, a falta de transparência em relação ao peso desses critérios torna difícil compreender a influência deles no resultado das decisões tomadas.

Abstract In health technology assessment (HTA), decision criteria are considered relevant to support the complex deliberative process that requires simultaneous consideration of multiple factors. The aim was to identify and analyze the decision criteria that have been used by the National Health Technology Assessment Commission (CONITEC) when recommending the incorporation of technologies for the treatment of cancer. Descriptive study, based on reports from CONITEC, between 2012 and 2018, on oncology technologies. The data were collected in a specific extraction form and analyzed using descriptive statistics. 39 reports were analyzed, 15 of them did not present any explicit decision criteria. Medicines were the most frequently evaluated type of technology. The most frequent types of cancers were: breast cancer, head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer. The most frequently considered criteria were: financial impact and effectiveness. The study identified the decision criteria that have been most used in the area of ​​oncology, however, the lack of transparency in relation to the weight of these criteria makes it difficult to understand their influence on the result of the decisions taken.

RESUMO

Background: There have been few studies evaluating the costs of palliative care (PC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially for patients with cancer. Objectives: The objective of this study was to identify the sociodemographic and clinical variables that could explain the cost per day of PC for cancer in Brazil. Methods: This was a retrospective cost analysis of PC at a quaternary cancer center in São Paulo, Brazil, between January 2010 and December 2013. Factors influencing the cost per day were assessed with generalized linear models and generalized linear-mixed models in which the random effect was the site of the cancer. Results: The study included 2985 patients. The mean total cost per patient was $12,335 (standard deviation [SD] = 14,602; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11,803 to 12,851). The mean cost per day per patient was $325.50 (SD = 246.30, 95% CI = 316.60 to 334.30). There were statistically significant differences among cancer sites in terms of the mean cost per day. Multivariate analysis revealed that the drivers of cost per day were Karnofsky performance status, the number of hospital admissions, referral to PC, and place of death. Place of death had the greatest impact on the cost per day; death in a hospital and in hospice care increased the mean cost per day by $1.56 and $1.83, respectively. Conclusion: To allocate resources effectively, PC centers in LMICs should emphasize early enrollment of patients at PC outpatient clinics, to avoid hospital readmission, as well as advance planning of the place of death.