ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Brazil. In the 2000s, better understanding 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 Mutation 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.

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar a relação custo-efetividade da adição de quimioterapia ou abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal. Métodos Um modelo analítico foi desenvolvido para determinar a relação custo-efetividade da adição de docetaxel ou abiraterona comparada à terapia de privação hormonal isolada. Custos diretos e indiretos foram incluídos no modelo. Os efeitos foram expressos em Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade corrigidos pelos efeitos colaterais de cada terapia. Resultados A adição de quimioterapia e de abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal aumentou os Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade em 0,492 e 0,999, respectivamente, em comparação à terapia de privação hormonal isolada. A abiraterona promoveu ganho de Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade de 0,506 em relação ao docetaxel. O custo incremental por Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade foi R$ 133.649,22 para o docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 para a abiraterona e R$ 571.379,42 para a abiraterona comparada ao docetaxel. Conclusão A adição de quimioterapia à terapia de privação hormonal é mais custo-efetiva que a adição de abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal. Contudo, descontos no custo da abiraterona poderiam tornar esse tratamento mais custo-efetivo.

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chemotherapy or abiraterone to androgen deprivation. Methods We developed an analytical model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. Direct and indirect costs were included in the model. The effects were expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years adjusted for side effects. Results Compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone, the addition of chemotherapy and of abiraterone generated 0.492 and 0.999, respectively, in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Abiraterone led to a Quality-Adjusted Life Years gain of 0.506 compared to docetaxel. The incremental costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years were R$ 133.649,22 for docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 for abiraterone and R$ 571.379,42 for abiraterone compared to docetaxel, respectively. Conclusion The addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-effective than the addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy. However, discounts on abiraterone cost might improve cost-effectiveness.