SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.14 número6Corpos estranhos na via aérea: Experiência de um quarto de séculoAnálise comparativa entre tuberculose multirresistente e tuberculose extensivamente resistente - Epidemiologia e factores preditivos índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO

Compartilhar


Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia

versão impressa ISSN 0873-2159

Resumo

ARAUJO, A et al. An economic analysis of erlotinib, docetaxel, pemetrexed and best supportive care as second or third line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Rev Port Pneumol [online]. 2008, vol.14, n.6, pp.803-827. ISSN 0873-2159.

Aim: Evaluate costs and benefits of erlotinib as 2nd or 3rd line treatment of advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus docetaxel, pemetrexed and best supportive care. Materials and methods: Cost-minimisation and cost-utility analysis were performed. Time horizon of two years. Portuguese National Health System (NHS) perspective was applied. Survival and time to progression were obtained from three clinical trials. Base-case analysis: 2nd or 3rd line patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were obtained from a UK study. Resource consumption was estimated by a Portuguese panel of experts. Costs were calculated according to official Portuguese databases (updated to 2008). Only direct health costs were applied. Annual discount rate: 5%. Sensitivity analysis included different subpopulations, a three year time horizon and a probabilistic analysis. Results: The cost per patient was lower with erlotinib (€26 478) than docetaxel (€29 262) or pemetrexed (€32 762) and higher than best supportive care (€16 112). QALYs per patient were higher with erlotinib (0.250) than docetaxel (0.225), pemetrexed (0.241) or best supportive care (0.186). Erlotinib was dominant in the cost-utility analysis, with a lower cost and a higher efficacy than docetaxel and pemetrexed. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the base-case analysis results. Conclusions: The use of erlotinib instead of docetaxel or pemetrexed could contribute to annual savings for the NHS (substitution rates: 5%-65%) ranging from €135 046-€1 755 602 (docetaxel replacement) and €291 801-€3 793 409 (pemetrexed replacement), with a gain in terms of QALYs.

Palavras-chave : Non-small cell lung cancer; economics; Portugal; utility; cost-effectiveness.

        · resumo em Português     · texto em Português     · Português ( pdf )