8 research outputs found

    Treatment cost of metastatic colon cancer in Turkey

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVES: Colon cancer is the third most common in the top cancer incidence list in Europe. In Europe 212,000 patients die every year due to colon cancer. In Turkey 120,000-130,000 new cancer patients are diagnosed every year, 7.1% of whom are diagnosed to have developed colon cancer. Metastases will occur in up to 50% of the patients who are newly diagnosed. Survival appears to be further prolonged to more than 20 months with new pharmaceuticals; however, these new pharmaceuticals increase the total cost of care. The aim of this study is to estimate the cost implications of new colon cancer treatment options for Turkey.METHODS: Gazi University Hospital treatment protocols for colon cancer treatment were used. Cost of FUFA (5 FU/LV), FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, bevacizumab/FUFA, bevacizumab/FOLFIRI, bevacizumab/FOLFOX, irinotecan and irinotecan/cetixumab protocols were calculated. The cost of combination of protocols were calculated depending on a Markov analysis. The exchange rate was US1forTL1.5.RESULTS:DependingonthelifeexpectancythelowesttotalcostwasestablishedbyFUVA(US 1 for TL 1.5.RESULTS: Depending on the life expectancy the lowest total cost was established by FUVA (US 5,359). It was followed by FOLFIRI then FOLFOX and FOLFOX, US14,144andUS 14,144 and US 16,553, respectively. The lowest cost for each week of life expectancy was established by FUVA with US$ 98.CONCLUSIONS: Only FUFA, FOLFIRI followed by FOLFIX, FOLFIRI/bevacizumab then FOLFOX then cetuximab, FOLFOX/bevacizumab then irinotecan then cetuximab/irinotecan and FOLFIRI/bevacizumab then FOLFOX then cetuximab/irinotecan were under the cost effectiveness curve. In addition no treatments ICER was under the WHO`s threshold for Turkey, except FOLFIRI then FOLFOX compared with FUVA

    Results of reference pricing and reimbursement discount rate schemes of Turkey

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVES: General Directorate of Pharmaceuticals and Pharmacy (IEGM) is responsible for setting all prices for human medicinal products. The reference pricing system is used for setting these prices. Reference countries are reviewed annually and may be subject to certain alterations. There were 5 reference countries in 2009: Spain, Italy, Germany, France and Greece. The aim of this study is to show the distribution of reference countries which were used for reference pricing.METHODS: The price list of pharmaceuticals which was published by IEGM on 15.04.2011 was used for analysis. Distribution of reference countries and prices were evaluated.RESULTS: Prices of 6,251 generic and 3,703 original products were set according to the price list. 5,283 of generics and 3,306 of originals were in the positive list for reimbursement. Reference pricing was used for 2,352 generics and 2,281 originals. Prices of the remaining were set outside of reference pricing. 32 different countries were used for reference pricing. Italy was the most popular country for reference pricing. Even if it was not a reference country, Germany was used in some of the pharmaceuticals. The average reimbursement discount rate and price were 24.43% and 249 TL, respectively. There were no colerations between price and reimbursement discount rate, or reference country and reimbursement rate.CONCLUSION: It has been shown that Italy has the highest impact on the pricing of all pharmaceuticals in Turkey. Even if it was not a reference country, Germany showed to affect pharmaceuticals more than other countries which were also not used for reference pricing. Even if reimbursement discount rates are stated by the Social Security Institution (SGK), there are different discount rates for pharmaceuticals. The analysis stated that there were correlation between price, country and discount rates. This analysis is first for the literature. Further analysis is necessary in the light of price changes and newly launched pharmaceuticals

    ADHD Medication Trends in Turkey: 2009-2013

    Full text link
    Objective: To investigate the change of ADHD medication prescriptions in Turkey between 2009 and 2013. Method: Consumption data of ADHD medications, immediate release (IR) methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin), OROS MPH (Concerta), and atomoxetine (Strattera) were obtained from IMS Health database for the November 2008 to October 2013 period. Defined daily dose (DDD) of each drug was calculated according to WHO definitions and time-series analysis was conducted. Results: There was a significant seasonal effect for prescription of all drugs. Annual use of ADHD medications increased 2.18 times for all ADHD medications combined. DDDs per 1,000 population per day for all ADHD medications were 0.28 in 2009, 0.41 in 2010, 0.52 in 2011, and 0.59 in 2012. OROS MPH represented almost 75% of all ADHD medication utilization. Conclusion: As reported from several other countries, ADHD medication use increased in Turkey. Results suggested that over- and underdiagnosis might be seen at the same time

    Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Treatment Practice in Turkey

    Full text link
    Objective: To determine the factors associated with type of ADHD prescription and re-admission of the cases to the outpatient clinics between January-July 2013. Method: The Ministry of Health prescription database, which included prescriber, region, age and gender data and contained almost 20% of IMS data. Results: A total of 73,189 prescription were prescribed to a total of 41,341 (30,014 males; 72.7%) patients. 38645 (93.5%) of the patients were between 6 and 18 years of age. The most frequently prescribed drug was OROS methylphenidate (MPH, 59.7%) followed by IR MPH, atomoxetine and combination of drugs. There were several regional differences in prescription practice. Treatment choice changed significantly with age and gender. Rate of repeated prescription was highest among 6-18 year-old male subjects receiving combination treatment. Conclusions: ADHD treatment choice seemed to be heavily influenced by official regulations. Age, gender and drug of choice were important factors associated with treatment adherenc

    Efficacy of sorafenib in advanced differentiated and medullary thyroid cancer: experience in a Turkish population.

    Full text link
    Antivascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been used recently in the treatment of advanced differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) and medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Off-label sorafenib is used in Turkey with special permission by the Ministry of Health for this indication

    Efficacy of sorafenib in advanced differentiated and medullary thyroid cancer: experience in a Turkish population

    Full text link
    Background: Antivascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been used recently in the treatment of advanced differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) and medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Off-label sorafenib is used in Turkey with special permission by the Ministry of Health for this indication. Patients and methods: Patients with advanced DTC and MTC were retrospectively identified from the Turkish Ministry of Health database. Data on these patients were prospectively collected before permission is granted to use sorafenib. Results: Thirty patients with complete data were analyzed: 14 DTC (papillary number {[}n] = 10; follicular n=4) and 16 MTC. The median age of the patients was 57 years (range: 28-79 years), and there were 18 males and 12 females. All DTC patients were iodine refractory and had received a median three doses of radioactive iodine (range: 1-7 doses). Sorafenib was used for a median of 12 months (range: 1-49 months). The overall response rate was 20\%, all partial responses, with no complete response. The overall response rate was 14\% in DTC and 25\% in MTC patients. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17.1 months (95\% confidence interval {[}CI]: 7.3-26.8) and overall survival (OS) was not reached. The 2-year PFS and OS were 39\% and 68\%, respectively. DTC and MTC patients had similar survival outcomes: median PFS of 21.3 months (95\% CI: 5.8-36.7) versus 14.5 months (95\% CI: 3.7-25.2), respectively (P=0.36), with the median OS not reached in either group (P=0.17). Tumor marker levels did not have any prognostic or predictive role. The toxicity profile was similar to that of other sorafenib trials. Conclusion: Sorafenib is an effective and well-tolerated treatment in advanced thyroid cancers
    corecore