RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing drug strategies involving octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide, and pegvisomant for the treatment of patients with acromegaly who have failed surgery, from a Brazilian public payer perspective. METHODS: A probabilistic cohort Markov model was developed. One-year cycles were employed. The patients started at 45 years of age and were followed lifelong. Costs, efficacy, and quality of life parameters were retrieved from the literature. A discount rate (5%) was applied to both costs and efficacy. The results were reported as costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated when applicable. Scenario analyses considered alternative dosages, discount rate, tax exemption, and continued use of treatment despite lack of response. Value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to explore uncertainty and to estimate the costs to be spent in future research. RESULTS: Only lanreotide showed an ICER reasonable for having its use considered in clinical practice (R$ 112,138/US$ 28,389 per QALY compared to no treatment). Scenario analyses corroborated the base-case result. VOI analysis showed that much uncertainty surrounds the parameters, and future clinical research should cost less than R$ 43,230,000/US$ 10,944,304 per year. VOI also showed that almost all uncertainty that precludes an optimal strategy choice involves quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: With current information, the only strategy that can be considered cost-effective in Brazil is lanreotide treatment. No second-line treatment is recommended. Significant uncertainty of parameters impairs optimal decision-making, and this conclusion can be generalized to other countries. Future research should focus on acquiring utility data.
Assuntos
Acromegalia/tratamento farmacológico , Acromegalia/economia , Antineoplásicos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Hormônios , Hormônio do Crescimento Humano/análogos & derivados , Octreotida , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Peptídeos Cíclicos , Somatostatina/análogos & derivados , Antineoplásicos/economia , Antineoplásicos/farmacologia , Brasil , Hormônios/economia , Hormônios/farmacologia , Hormônio do Crescimento Humano/economia , Hormônio do Crescimento Humano/farmacologia , Humanos , Programas Nacionais de Saúde , Octreotida/economia , Octreotida/farmacologia , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/economia , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Peptídeos Cíclicos/economia , Peptídeos Cíclicos/farmacologia , Somatostatina/economia , Somatostatina/farmacologiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: Acromegaly is a rare disease that results in the enlargement of body extremities and in organomegaly. Treatments include surgery, drugs, and radiotherapy, which are all onerous. Therefore, well-conducted cost-analyses are crucial in the decision-making process. METHODS: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies on acromegaly therapies was performed following PRISMA and Cochrane recommendations. The search for records was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (May 2018). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joana Briggs Institute Tool. RESULTS: From initial 547 records, 16 studies were included in the review. The studies could present more than one economic evaluation, and encompassed cost-effectiveness (n = 13), cost-utility (n = 5), and cost-consequence (n = 1) analyses. All studies were model-based and evaluated only direct medical costs. Eleven records did not mention discounting and only 10 performed sensitivity analyses. The characteristic of the studies, the cost-effectiveness results and the studies' conclusions are described and commented upon. The main limitation of the studies was discussed and aspects to improve in future studies were pointed out. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness studies on acromegaly have been performed in several scenarios, evaluating different phases of treatment. However, the studies present limitations and, overall, were considered of moderate quality. Further economic models should be developed following health economics guidelines recommendations, and must improve transparency.
Assuntos
Acromegalia/tratamento farmacológico , Acromegalia/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Hormônio do Crescimento Humano/análogos & derivados , Hormônio do Crescimento Humano/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Octreotida/uso terapêutico , Peptídeos Cíclicos/uso terapêutico , Somatostatina/análogos & derivados , Somatostatina/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
This study aims to compare economic and patient impacts of the treatment of acromegaly with two different somatostatin analogues (octreotide LAR and lanreotide SR) in Brazil. A cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out under the Brazilian Public Health Care System (SUS) perspective. A decision analytical model was developed based on the Brazilian Public Health Care System Clinical Guideline for Acromegaly. A hypothetical cohort of 276 patients was followed for two years. Data were extracted from literature and administrative databases. Based on the analytical model, treatment with octreotide LAR would avoid 12 and 17 cases of GH and IGF-I elevated serum levels, respectively. Octreotide LAR was a cost-saving strategy, with net savings of R$10,448,324 (US$4,465,096) to SUS. Annual net savings per patient were R$ 18,928 (US$8,089). Treatment of acromegaly with octreotide LAR is a dominant strategy when compared to the treatment with lanreotide SR in Brazil. Sensitivity analysis did not alter the cost-saving status.
O objetivo deste estudo é comparar o impacto econômico e o impacto nos pacientes com acromegalia do tratamento com dois diferentes análogos de somatostatina (octreotida LAR e lanreotide SR) no Brasil. Um estudo de custoefetividade foi realizado a partir da perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Foi desenvolvido um modelo analítico de decisão baseado no Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas de Acromegalia do SUS. Uma coorte hipotética de 276 pacientes foi seguida por dois anos. Dados foram obtidos da literatura e bases de dados oficiais do SUS. Baseado no modelo analítico, o tratamento com octreotida LAR evitaria 12 e 17 casos com níveis elevados de GH e IGF-I, respectivamente. Octreotida LAR foi uma estratégia econômica, gerando economia de R$10.448.324 (US$4.465.096) para o SUS. A economia anual por paciente foi de R$18.928 (US$8.089). O tratamento de acromegalia com octreotida LAR é estratégia dominante quando comparado com o tratamento com lanreotida SR no Brasil. A análise de sensibilidade não alterou seu status de econômica.
Assuntos
Humanos , Acromegalia/tratamento farmacológico , Antineoplásicos Hormonais/economia , Atenção à Saúde/economia , Octreotida/economia , Peptídeos Cíclicos/economia , Somatostatina/análogos & derivados , Acromegalia/economia , Antineoplásicos Hormonais/uso terapêutico , Brasil , Análise Custo-Benefício , Octreotida/uso terapêutico , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Peptídeos Cíclicos/uso terapêutico , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Somatostatina/economia , Somatostatina/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
This study aims to compare economic and patient impacts of the treatment of acromegaly with two different somatostatin analogues (octreotide LAR and lanreotide SR) in Brazil. A cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out under the Brazilian Public Health Care System (SUS) perspective. A decision analytical model was developed based on the Brazilian Public Health Care System Clinical Guideline for Acromegaly. A hypothetical cohort of 276 patients was followed for two years. Data were extracted from literature and administrative databases. Based on the analytical model, treatment with octreotide LAR would avoid 12 and 17 cases of GH and IGF-I elevated serum levels, respectively. Octreotide LAR was a cost-saving strategy, with net savings of R$10,448,324 (US$4,465,096) to SUS. Annual net savings per patient were R$ 18,928 (US$8,089). Treatment of acromegaly with octreotide LAR is a dominant strategy when compared to the treatment with lanreotide SR in Brazil. Sensitivity analysis did not alter the cost-saving status.