Costo Efectividad del Tratamiento de Tumores Neuroendócrinos Pancreáticos Avanzados no Operables con Sunitinib en México

Ortega, Emilio Muciño; Chi-Chan, A.; Peniche-Otero, G.; Gutiérrez-Colín, C.I.; Herrera-Rojas, J.; Galindo-Suárez, R.M.

doi:10.1016/j.vhri.2012.10.005

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The search terms may not capture all available literature however to attempt to remedy this citation searching and 'grey' literature searches using google scholar were performed. We did not look for articles outside of the English language which meant at least one relevant economic evaluation in NEN was not included which has appeared in a previous review [40]. Although EMBASE and other related databases were included in the search, we did not have access to the DIMDI Superbase, which was used in the Chau et al [9] review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating cost-effectiveness in the management of neuroendocrine neoplasms

White

Mújica-Mota

Snowsill

et al. 2020

Rev Endocr Metab Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid evolution of novel, costly therapies for neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) warrants formal high-quality cost-effectiveness evaluation. Costs of individual investigations and therapies are high; and examples are presented. We aimed to review the last ten years of standalone health economic evaluations in NEN. Comparing to published standards, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database were searched for health economic evaluations (HEEs) in NEN published between 2010 and October 2019. Of 12 economic evaluations, 11 considered exclusively pharmacological treatment (3 studies of SSAs, 7 studies of sunitinib, everolimus and/or 177Lu-DOTATATE and 1 study of telotristat ethyl) and 1 compared surgery with intraarterial therapy. 7 studies of pharmacological treatment had placebo or best supportive care as the only comparator. There remains a paucity of economic evaluations in NEN with the majority industry funded. Most HEEs reviewed did not meet published health economic criteria used to assess quality. Lack of cost data collected from patient populations remains a significant factor in HEEs where clinical expert opinion is still often substituted. Further research utilizing high-quality effectiveness data and rigorous applied health economic analysis is needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating cost-effectiveness in the management of neuroendocrine neoplasms

White

Mújica-Mota

Snowsill

et al. 2020

Rev Endocr Metab Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Future Prospects for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research in the Emerging Regions

Drummond

2013

Value in Health Regional Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economics of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review

Grande

Díaz

López

et al. 2019

Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Despite current interest, enthusiasm and progress in the development of therapies for gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), there are substantial gaps in the published literature regarding cost-of-illness analyses, economic evaluation and budget impact analyses. Compounding the issue is that data on resource utilization and cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for GEP-NETs are scarce. Methods: A systematic review on the economic impact of GEP-NETs was carried out using four databases: EMBASE, PubMed , the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Cochrane review . Fully published articles from January 2000 to May 2017, in English and Spanish, were included. All articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the systematic review; summary descriptive statistics were used to describe the methodological characteristics. Results: The 14 studies selected included cost-of-illness analyses ( n = 4), economic evaluations ( n = 7) and budget impact analyses ( n = 3). Almost all studies were performed in the United States. Healthcare costs for patients with NETs included medication, outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and check-ups/tests. Reducing adverse events is an area where cost savings could be achieved; however, there was not enough evidence on the cost impact of adverse events. Conclusion: There is a lack of data related to resource utilization in the field of GEP-NETs. Therefore, cost-effectiveness and budget impact studies of existing and emerging treatments are urgently needed to help the decision-making process for patients with NETs.

show abstract

Costo Efectividad del Tratamiento de Tumores Neuroendócrinos Pancreáticos Avanzados no Operables con Sunitinib en México

Abstract: At IMSS, sunitinib+BSC would provide substantial clinical benefits to patients suffering unresectable pancreatic NET, although the latter would increase medical costs of treatment and clinical follow up.

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

Evaluating cost-effectiveness in the management of neuroendocrine neoplasms

Evaluating cost-effectiveness in the management of neuroendocrine neoplasms

Future Prospects for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research in the Emerging Regions

Economics of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About