Second-line treatments recommended by the National Cancer Center Network to manage advanced-stage gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) were evaluated to determine the cost and cost-effectiveness of each intervention in the Mexican insurance system, the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS). Treatments examined over a 5-year temporal horizon to estimate long-term costs included 800 mg day À1 of imatinib mesylate, 50 mg day À1 of sunitinib malate (administered in a 4 week on/2 week rest schedule), and palliative care. The mean cost (MC), cost-effectiveness, and benefit of each intervention were compared to determine the best GIST treatment from the institutional perspective of the IMSS. As sunitinib was not reimbursed at the time of the study, a Markov model and sensitivity analysis were conducted to predict the MC and likelihood of reimbursement. Patients taking 800 mg day À1 of imatinib had the highest MC ( ± s.d.) of treatment at $35 225.61 USD ( ± 1253.65 USD); while sunitinib incurred a median MC of $17 805.87 USD (±694.83 USD); and palliative care had the least MC over treatment duration as the cost was $2071.86 USD (±472.88 USD). In comparison to palliative care, sunitinib is cost-effective for 38.9% of patients; however, sunitinib delivered the greatest survival benefit as 5.64 progression-free months (PFM) and 1.4 life-years gained (LYG) were obtained in the economic model. Conversely, patients on imatinib and palliative care saw a lower PFM of 5.28 months and 2.58 months and also fewer LYG (only 1.31 and 1.08 years, respectively). Therefore, economic modeling predicts that reimbursing sunitinib over high dose imatinib in the second-line GIST indication would deliver cost savings to the IMSS and greater survival benefits to patients.

AEP's high-reliability and moderate-validity results with regard to clinical judgement positions it as a useful instrument for appropriate hospitalization screening in elderly patients.

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the main causes of disability worldwide, especially in persons >55 years of age. Currently, controversy remains about the best therapeutic alternative for this disease when evaluated from a cost-effectiveness viewpoint. For Social Security Institutions in developing countries, it is very important to assess what drugs may decrease the subsequent use of medical care resources, considering their adverse events that are known to have a significant increase in medical care costs of patients with OA. Three treatment alternatives were compared: celecoxib (200 mg twice daily), non-selective NSAIDs (naproxen, 500 mg twice daily; diclofenac, 100 mg twice daily; and piroxicam, 20 mg/day) and acetaminophen, 1000 mg twice daily. The aim of this study was to identify the most cost-effective first-choice pharmacological treatment for the control of joint pain secondary to OA in patients treated at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS).

Clinical stage in breast cancer is associated with differences in the scores from fatigue, nausea and vomiting and financial difficulties according to the evolution of the disease and the physical detriment associated. Socio-demographic features were related role functioning, fatigue and pain in single women with higher scores.