Search

Basil G Bereza,1 Anders Troelsgaard Nielsen,2 Sverrir Valgardsson,3 Michiel EH Hemels,2 Thomas R Einarson11Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, ON, Canada; 2Janssen A/S, Birkerød, Denmark; 3Janssen-Cilag A/S, Oslo, NorwayBackground: Management of chronic incurable diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma is difficult. Incorporation of patient preferences is widely encouraged.Purpose: To summarize original research articles determining patient preference in moderate-to-severe disease. Methods: Acceptable articles consisted of original research determining preferences for any aspect of care in patients with COPD/asthma. The target population included those with severe disease; however, articles were accepted if they separated outcomes by severity or if the majority had at least moderate-to-severe disease. We also accepted simulation research based on scenarios describing situations involving moderate-to-severe disease that elicited preferences. Two reviewers searched Medline and Embase for articles published from the date of inception of the databases until the end of November 2014, with differences resolved through consensus discussion. Data were tabulated and analyzed descriptively.Results: About 478 articles identified, 448 were rejected and 30 analyzed. There were 25 on COPD and five on asthma. Themes identified as most important in COPD were symptom relief (dyspnea/breathlessness), a positive patient–physician relationship, quality-of-life impairments, and information availability. Patients strongly preferred sponsors’ inhalers. At end-of-life, 69% preferred receiving CPR, 70% wanted noninvasive, and 58% invasive mechanical intervention. While patients with asthma preferred treatments that increased symptom-free days, they were willing to trade days without symptoms for a reduction in adverse events and greater convenience. Asthma patients were willing to pay for waking up once and not needing their inhaler over waking up once overnight and needing their inhaler.Conclusion: Few studies have examined patient preference in these diseases. More research is needed to fill in knowledge gaps.Keywords: autonomy, end-of-life care, convenience, satisfaction, willingness-to-pay

Marcio Machado,1 Thomas R Einarson21GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltd, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 2Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, CanadaObjective: To evaluate, from the perspective of the Brazilian public health care system, the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus capecitabine (LAP/CAP) versus capecitabine alone (CAP) or trastuzumab plus capecitabine (TRAST/CAP) in the treatment of women with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab.Methods: An economic model was developed to compare costs and clinical outcomes over a 5-year time horizon. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at a 5% rate, in accordance with Brazilian pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Clinical inputs were determined using indirect treatment comparisons. Costs were derived from public reimbursement databases and reported in 2010 Brazilian real (R$1 = USD$0.52). Clinical outcomes included progression-free survival years (PFYs), life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The economic outcome was the incremental cost per LY, PFY, or QALY gained. The impact of variations in individual inputs (eg, drug cost, drug effectiveness) was examined using one-way sensitivity analyses. Overall model robustness was tested using probabilistic sensitivity analyses, varying the ranges of all input parameters within their standard distributions.Results: Expected cost per patient was R$41,195 for CAP, R$95,256 for LAP/CAP, and R$113,686 for TRAST/CAP. Respective LYs were 1.406, 1.695, and 1.465; PFYs were 0.473, 0.711, and 0.612; and QALYS were 0.769, 0.958, and 0.827. LAP/CAP dominated TRAST/CAP for all outcomes. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of LAP/CAP over CAP were R$186,563 for LYs, R$226,403 for PFYs, and R$284,864 for QALYs. Results remained unchanged in one-way sensitivity analyses. In probabilistic analyses, LAP/CAP was dominant over TRAST/CAP in 93.5% of simulations.Conclusion: LAP/CAP increases survival for women with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive metastatic breast cancer. LAP/CAP is cost-effective against TRAST/CAP (ie, produces more benefits at a lower cost) and can be considered cost-effective over CAP at a willingness-to-pay of about R$290,000 (US$151,000) per QALY gained.Keywords: cost-effectiveness, metastatic breast cancer, lapatinib, trastuzumab, capecitabine