Potential life years not saved due to lack of access to anti-EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for lung cancer treatment in the Brazilian public healthcare system
Budget impact and strategies to improve access. A pharmacoeconomic study
Keywords:
Health policy, Molecular targeted therapy, Economics, pharmaceutical, Gefitinib, AfatinibAbstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Brazil. In the 2000s, better under-standing of molecular pathways led to development of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted treatments that have improved outcomes. However, these treatments are unavailable in most Brazilian public healthcare services (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS). OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential number of years of life not saved, the budget impact of the treatment and strategies to improve access. DESIGN AND SETTING: Pharmacoeconomic study assessing the potential societal and economic impact of adopting EGFR-targeted therapy within SUS. METHODS: We estimated the number of cases eligible for treatment, using epidemiological data from the National Cancer Institute. We used data from a single meta-analysis and from the Lung Cancer Muta-tion Consortium (LCMC) study as the basis for assessing differences in patients’ survival between use of targeted therapy and use of chemotherapy. The costs of targeted treatment were based on the national reference and were compared with the amount reimbursed for chemotherapy through SUS. RESULTS: There was no life-year gain with EGFR-targeted therapy in the single meta-analysis (hazard ratio, HR, 1.01). The LCMC showed that 1,556 potential life-years were not saved annually. We estimated that the annual budget impact was 125 million Brazilian reais (BRL) with erlotinib, 48 million BRL with gefitinib and 52 million BRL with afatinib. Their incremental costs over chemotherapy per life-year saved were 80,329 BRL, 31,011 BRL and 33,225 BRL, respectively. A drug acquisition discount may decrease the budget impact by 30% (with a 20% discount). A fixed cost of 1,000 BRL may decrease the budget impact by 95%. CONCLUSION: Reducing drug acquisition costs may improve access to EGFR-targeted therapy for lung cancer.
Downloads
References
Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, Jané-Llopis E, et al. The global economic burden of non-communicable diseases. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2011. Available from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Harvard_HE_GlobalEconomicBurdenNonCommunicableDiseases_2011.pdf. Accessed in 2019 (Nov 21).
Instituto Nacional de Cancer José Alencar Gomes da Silva. INCA - Instituto Nacional de Câncer. Coordenação de Prevenção e Vigilância. Estimativa 2016: incidência de câncer no Brasil. Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva. Rio de Janeiro: INCA, 2015. Available from: http://santacasadermatoazulay.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/estimativa-2016-v11.pdf. Accessed in 2019 (Nov 21).
Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, et al. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(3):239-46. PMID: 22285168; doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70393-X.
Sequist LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N, et al. Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(27):3327-34. PMID: 23816960; doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.2806.
Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(10):947-57. PMID: 19692680; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810699.
DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg’s. Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014. ISBN-10: 1451192940; ISBN-13: 978-1451192940.
Greenhalgh J, Dwan K, Boland A, et al. First-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(5):CD010383. PMID: 27223332; doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010383. pub2.
Sandler AB, Nemunaitis J, Denham C, et al. Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(1):122-30. PMID: 10623702; doi: 10.1200/ JCO.2000.18.1.122.
Wozniak AJ, Crowley JJ, Balcerzak SP, et al. Randomized trial comparing cisplatin with cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(7):2459-65. PMID: 9667264; doi: 10.1200/ JCO.1998.16.7.2459.
Kairos. Preços dos medicamentos constantemente atualizados. Kairos Web Brasil. 2016. Available from: http://brasil.kairosweb.com. Accessed in 2019 (Nov 21).
Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da União. Relatório de Auditoria Operacional— Política Nacional de Atenção Oncológica; Brasília: TCU, Secretaria de Fiscalização e Avaliação de Programas de Governo; 2011. Available from: https://portal.tcu.gov.br/lumis/portal/file/fileDownload.jsp?inline=1&fileId=8A8182A14D6E85DD014D7327C1CB5497. Accessed in 2020 (Feb 03).
Ward E, Halpern M, Schrag N, et al. Association of insurance with cancer care utilization and outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(1):9-31. PMID: 18096863; doi: 10.3322/CA.2007.0011.
American Cancer Society. The global economic cost of cancer [Internet]. American Cancer Society; 2010. Available from: http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/08-17-2010_economic_impact_study.pdf. Accessed in 2019 (Nov 21).
Earle CC, Coyle D, Evans WK. Cost-effectiveness analysis in oncology. Ann Oncol. 1998;9(5):475-82. PMID: 9653486; doi: 10.1023/a:1008292128615.
Health and Social Care Information Centre. National Lung Cancer Audit Report 2014. Report for the audit period 2013. London: Health and Social Care Information Centre, National Lung Cancer Audit; 2014. Available from: https://www.hqip.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/national-lung-cancer-audit-report-2014.pdf. Accessed in 2019 (Nov 21).
Moro-Sibilot D, Smit E, de Castro Carpeño J, et al. Outcomes and resource use of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy across Europe: FRAME prospective observational study. Lung Cancer. 2015;88(2):215-22. PMID: 25748103; doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.02.011.
Pontes LB, Bacchi CE, Queiroga EM, et al. EGFR mutation screening in non-small cell lung cancer: Results from an access program in Brazil. In: ASCO Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL: Journal of Clinical Oncology; 2014 [cited 2017 Oct 1]. doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.1526. Available from: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/95889/abstract. Accessed in 2019 (Nov 21).
Lee CK, Davies L, Wu YL, et al. Gefitinib or Erlotinib vs Chemotherapy for EGFR Mutation-Positive Lung Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Overall Survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(6). PMID: 28376144; doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw279.
Kris MG, Johnson BE, Berry LD, et al. Using multiplexed assays of oncogenic drivers in lung cancers to select targeted drugs. JAMA. 2014;311(19):1998-2006. PMID: 24846037; doi: 10.1001/ jama.2014.3741.
Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, et al. Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(2):92-8. PMID: 11784875; doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa011954.
Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos. Departamento de Gestão e Incorporação de Tecnologias em Saúde. Gefitinibe para câncer de pulmão de células não pequenas em primeira linha. Novembro de 2013. Brasília: CONITEC; 2013. Available from: http://conitec.gov.br/images/Incorporados/Gefitinibe-final.pdf. Accessed in 2019 (Nov 21).
Piha T, Marques M, Paladini L, Teich V. Análise de custo-efetividade do uso de gefitinibe versus protocolos de quimioterapia no tratamento de primeira linha do câncer de pulmão não-pequenas células metastático, EGFR positivo [Cost-effectiveness analysis of gefitinib versus chemotherapy protocols in the first line treatment of non-small-cell EGFR positive lung cancer]. J Bras Econ Saúde. 2011;3(11):269-77. Available from: http://www.evidencias.com.br/pdf/publicacoes/eaaa4867796669d4312eac9bad164467.pdf. Accessed in 2019 (Nov 21).
Geib G. Avaliação da custo-efetividade do tratamento do adenocarcinoma de pulmão avançado direcionado pela avaliação molecular do EGFR [dissertation]. Porto Alegre: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; 2012. Available from: http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/66664. Accessed in 2019 (Nov 21).
Howlader N, Noone A, Krapcho M, et al. Previous version: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2013. National Cancer Institute; 2016. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2013/. Accessed in 2019 (Nov 21).
Savage P, Mahmoud S. Development and economic trends in cancer therapeutic drugs: a 5-year update 2010-2014. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(6):1037-41. PMID: 25668005; doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.56.
Aguiar Jr P, Roitberg F, Tadokoro H, et al. P2.03-006 How Many Years of Life Have We Lost in Brazil Due to the Lack of Access to Anti-EGFR TKIs in the National Public Health System? Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2017;12(11 Suppl 2):S2129. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2017.09.1257.
Asensi FD, Pinheiro R. Judicialização da saúde no Brasil: dados e experiências. Brasília: Conselho Nacional de Justiça; 2015. Available from: https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/6781486daef02bc6ec8c1e491a565006.pdf. Accessed in 2019 (Nov 21).
Garattini L, Curto A, van de Vooren K. Italian risk-sharing agreements on drugs: are they worthwhile? Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(1):1-3. PMID: 24728513; doi: 10.1007/s10198-014-0585-5.
