RESUMO

Background: In 2019, the São Paulo State Cancer Institute (ICESP) implemented a novel model integrating Oncology with Palliative Care specialists. We evaluated the impact of this model on healthcare resource utilization and costs. Methods: We analyzed data from all patients who passed away in February (1 month prior to implementation) and November (8 months after model implementation group) at ICESP, Brazil. Healthcare utilization data, including emergency department visits, hospital and intensive care unit admissions, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy use, were retrieved from Electronic Medical Records. Unit cost values were obtained from the administrative database. Results: A total of 198 patients who died in February and 196 in November were included in the analysis. Groups exhibited similarities in sex, age, ECOG, cancer type, previous outpatient palliative care consultations, and place of death (ward: 56.6% pre-intervention, 50% post-intervention). The mean cost per patient was US$13,226.29 pre-intervention and US$11,445.82 post-intervention (P = .007). Statistically significant differences were noted in days hospitalized in the surgical ward (227 vs 115), emergency department visits (233 vs 45), chemotherapy sessions (140 vs 26), and radiotherapy sessions (146 vs 10). Excluding outpatient treatments, the total costs for chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the last 30 days of life were US$16,924.45 pre-intervention and US$7851.65 post-intervention. Reductions were more pronounced in patients with ECOG 3-4 (P = .039). Conclusion: Our data suggests that the integration model was associated with a reduction in potentially inappropriate treatments during the last month of life, leading to decreased healthcare utilization and costs.

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of this systematic review was to identify and synthesise the best available evidence on effectiveness, resource use and costs involved in wheelchair interventions of adults with mobility limitations. METHODOLOGY: This systematic review was undertaken in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Guidelines. The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic reviews. The following PICOS eligibility criteria were considered: (P) Population was individuals with mobility limitations that live in their community (e.g., non-institutionalized), with aged 18 or older; (I) Intervention was mobility assistive technologies (MAT), such as manual and powered wheelchairs; (C) Comparators (Not Applied); (O) Outcome, the primary outcome of interest, was established as the cost-effectiveness of wheelchair interventions. Direct and indirect costs per unit of effect were expressed in terms of clinical outcome units, quality-adjusted life years gained, utility scores, quality of life measures and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to inform the economic outcomes. (S) Study design was considered as a health economic evaluation (i.e., including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost benefit analysis as well as partial economic evaluations). The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - CHEERS, checklist was used for summarising and interpreting the results of economic evaluations. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, two were identified as full health economic evaluations and 14 were considered partial health economic evaluations. CONCLUSION: Only two full health economic analyses of wheelchair interventions have been conducted and both focussed on powered wheelchair provision. There are important gaps in current knowledge regarding wheelchair health economic methods and available outcome measures, which there is a great need for further research.Implication for RehabilitationSystematic reviews of health economic evaluation studies are useful for synthesising economic evidence about health interventions and provide insight in new research development.Organisations involved in the provision of wheelchairs should apply cost-effectiveness outcome measures to help raise the standard of provision, to support evidence-based practice, and to improve resource utilisation.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Biologic drugs such as adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab represent major first-line and second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, their high cost poses a massive burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The expiration of patents for these biologics has driven the production of biosimilar drugs, which are potentially less costly and remarkably similar, albeit not identical to the reference molecules. This paper aims to outline the protocol of a systematic review that will investigate the efficacy and safety profile of biosimilars compared to biologics (objective 1) and the impact of switching between biosimilar drugs and reference biologics on the management of RA patients (objective 2). METHODS: We will investigate the effects of any biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on RA patients. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs to assess efficacy and safety outcomes and RCTs with two- or multiple-part designs to evaluate the consequences of switching from reference biologics to biosimilar drugs (and vice-versa). Electronic searches will be performed through MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL (from inception to April 2021). Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and evaluate the risk of bias. The latter will be carried out considering specific domains from equivalence trials and switching studies. Random-effects models will be fitted to obtain summary estimates using either relative risk or standardized mean difference as a metric. The primary outcome will be the rate of treatment success according to the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), and the co-primary outcome will be the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Conclusions will be based on equivalence hypothesis testing using predefined margins of equivalence elicited from a group of experienced rheumatologists and prior studies. The overall certainty of the evidence will be assessed based on the GRADE system. DISCUSSION: The present investigation proposes a comprehensive, clinician-oriented approach to assess the equivalence and the impact of switching between biosimilars and biologics on the management of patients with RA. Our results will elucidate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity of biosimilars, and the clinical consequences of substituting biologics with biosimilars in the management of RA. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019137152 and CRD42019137155.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Background: A large number of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies have been published in developed countries. However, Brazilian HEE literature in oncology has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the scientific literature has provided a set of HEE in oncology capable of supporting decision making in the Brazilian context. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify and characterize studies in this field. We searched multiple databases selecting partial and full HEE studies in oncology (1998-2013). Results: Fifty-five articles were reviewed, of these, 33 (60%) were full health economic evaluations. Type of cancers most frequently studied were: breast (38.2%), cervical (14.6%), lung (10.9%) and colorectal (9.1%). Procedures (47.3%) were the technologies most frequently evaluated. In terms of the intended purposes of the technologies, most (63.6%) were treatments. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported have been below the cost-effectiveness threshold suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO). Conclusions: There has been an increase in the number of HEEs related to cancer in Brazil. These studies may support decision-making processes regarding the coverage of and reimbursement of healthcare technologies for cancer treatment in Brazil.

RESUMO

AIM: Managed Flow C20 (MFC20) is an integrated care pathway (ICP) for rectal cancer implemented at a public teaching hospital. This study aims to quantify resource utilization and estimate direct costs and outcomes associated with the use of this ICP. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery, comparing the period before the ICP implementation (Pre-MFC20 group) and after (MFC20 group). We assessed times between treatment steps and quantified the resources utilized, as well as their costs. RESULTS: There were 112 patients in the Pre-MFC20 group and 218 in the MFC20 group. The mean treatment intervals were significantly shorter in the MFC20 group - from the first medical consultation to nCRT (48.3 vs. 87.5 days; P < 0.001); and from nCRT to surgery (14.8 vs. 23.0 weeks; P < 0.001) - as was the mean total treatment time (192.0 vs. 290.2 days; P < 0.001). Oncology consultations, computed tomography, MRI, and radiotherapy sessions were utilized more frequently in the Pre-MFC20 group (P < 0.001). The median per-patient cost was US$11 180.92 in the Pre-MFC20 group, compared with US$10 412.88 in the MFC20 group (P = 0.125). Daily hospital charges and consultations were the major determinants of the total cost of the treatment. There was no statistical difference in overall survival in the time periods examined. CONCLUSION:: Implementation of a rectal cancer ICP reduced all treatment intervals and promoted rational utilization of oncology consultations and imaging, without increment in per-patient costs or detrimental effects in overall survival.

Assuntos