The budget impact of monoclonal antibodies used to treat metastatic colorectal cancer in Minas Gerais, Brazil

Introduction: Biological medicines have increased the cost of cancer treatments, which also raises concerns about sustainability. In Brazil, three monoclonal antibodies (mAbs)—bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab—are indicated for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but not currently funded by the Unified Health System (SUS). However, successful litigation has led to funding in some cases. Objective: Our objective was to evaluate the budgetary impact of including the mAbs bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab in standard chemotherapy for the treatment of mCRC within the SUS of Minas Gerais (MG), Brazil. Method: A budget impact analysis of incorporating mAbs as first-line treatment of mCRC in MG was explored. The perspective taken was that of the Brazilian SUS, and a 5-year time horizon was applied. Data were collected from lawsuits undertaken between January 2009 and December 2016, and the model was populated with data from national databases and published sources. Costs are expressed in $US. Results: In total, 351 lawsuits resulted in funding for first-line treatment with mAbs for mCRC. The three alternative scenarios analyzed resulted in cost increases of 348–395$US103,360,980 compared with the reference scenario over a 5-year time horizon, and bevacizumab and cetuximab had budgetary impacts of $US111,334,890 and 113,772,870, respectively. The use of the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mAbs (cetuximab and panitumumab) is restricted to the approximately 41$US106 million. Conclusion: These results highlight the appreciable costs for incorporating bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab into the SUS. Appreciable discounts are likely to be necessary before incorporation of these mAbs is approved

Systematic review of guidance for the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes in real-world evidence generation to support regulation, reimbursement and health policy

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence (RWE) plays an increasingly important role within global regulatory and reimbursement processes. RWE generation can be enhanced by the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which can provide valuable information on the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of health interventions from the patient perspective. This systematic review aims to examine and summarise the available PRO-specific recommendations and guidance for RWE generation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, and websites of selected organisations were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. 1,249 articles were screened of which 7 papers met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The included publications provided PRO-specific recommendations to facilitate the use of PROs for RWE generation and these were extracted and grouped into eight major categories. These included: (1) instrument selection, (2) participation and engagement, (3) burden to health care professionals and patients, (4) stakeholder collaboration, (5) education and training, (6) PRO implementation process, (7) data collection and management, and (8) data analysis and presentation of results. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant publications, due to poor indexing of the databases and websites searched. CONCLUSIONS: PROs may provide valuable and crucial patient input in RWE generation. Whilst valuable insights can be gained from guidance for use of PROs in clinical care, there is a lack of international guidance specific to RWE generation in the context of use for regulatory decision-making, reimbursement, and health policy. Clear and appropriate evidence-based guidance is required to maximise the potential benefits of implementing PROs for RWE generation. Unique aspects between PRO guidance for clinical care and other purposes should be differentiated. The needs of various stakeholder groups (including patients, health care professionals, regulators, payers, and industry) should be considered when developing future guidelines. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00466-7