Vildagliptin is an inhibitor of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase 4, indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, combined or not with metformin. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin in the Brazilian context. Areas covered: Using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Lilacs and CRD, six studies were selected for the economic models. This study utilised cost data in the Brazilian health system to provide the context. Expert commentary: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an epidemic disease and represents a challenge for all health care systems. Although guidelines clearly define first-line treatment, there are several other promising treatments. Vildagliptin is one of them, resulting in a mean lifetime increase of 0.31 years compared to metformin alone and 1.19 more life years compared to other metformin combinations. Considering observational data, life years with dual vildagliptin-containing treatments were 0.37 more compared to other dual treatments. However, its high cost versus generic metformin and its unclear safety profile weakens its subsequent cost-effectiveness. Consequently, the incorporation of vildagliptin or its combination with metformin is currently not recommended for the Brazilian Health Care System. This may change as more data becomes available.

O objetivo do estudo foi realizar análise custoefetividade de imunossupressores utilizados na terapia de manutenção pós-transplante renal. Coorte hipotética de adultos transplantados foi acompanhada por 20 anos, empregando-se modelo de Markov. Os 10 esquemas terapêuticos avaliados continham prednisona (P). O custo médio dos medicamentos foi obtido na Câmara de Regulação do Mercado de Medicamentos. Outros custos assistenciais compuseram cada estágio da doença. O custo foi expresso em reais, a efetividade em anos de vida ganhos e adotou-se a perspectiva do sistema público de saúde. Ao fim do acompanhamento, a análise com desconto mostrou que todos os esquemas foram dominados por ciclosporina(CSA)+azatioprina(AZA) +P. Nas demais análises, tacrolimo+AZA+P não foi dominado, mas a relação custo-efetividade incremental entre estes dois esquemas foi de R$ 156.732,07/ anos de vida ganhos, na análise sem desconto, valor que ultrapassa o limiar de três vezes o PIB per capita brasileiro. Nenhuma alteração qualitativa foi demonstrada pela análise de sensibilidade e a probabilidade do esquema CSA+AZA+P ser o mais custo-efetivo é superior a 85%.

OBJECTIVE:To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of drug alternatives with rescue therapy in case of relapse due to viral resistance for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). METHODS:Hypothetical cohort of patients with CHB, HBeAg-negative, without clinical or histological evidence of cirrhosis, detectable HBV DNA, histological diagnosis of the disease, positive serum HBsAg for longer than six months, high levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (twice as high as the upper limit of normality) and mean age of 40 years. A Markov model was developed for chronic hepatitis B (HBeAg-negative) with a 40-year time horizon. Costs and benefi ts were discounted at 5%. Annual rates of disease progression, costs due to complications and the effi cacy of medicines were obtained from the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated uncertainties. RESULTS:Initiation of treatments with entecavir resulted in an increase of 0.35 discounted life-years gained compared to lamivudine. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was R$ 16,416.08 per life-years gained. In the sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was more sensitive to variation in the probability of transition from chronic hepatitis B to compensated cirrhosis, discount rate and medicine prices (± 10%). In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the acceptability curve showed that beginning treatment with entecavir was the most cost-effective alternative in comparison with the use of lamivudine. CONCLUSIONS:The availability of entecavir is economically attractive as part of early treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis B without HIV co-infection. Cost-effectiveness: chronic hepatitis B Almeida AM et al Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is a serious public health problem which affects between 350 and 400 million people worldwide. 2 A population based prevalence study of hepatitis B infection in Brazil revealed endemic levels > 1% across all the capital cities of each region and of the Federal District. The overall prevalence of HbsAg in the Brazilian state capitals was 0.37% (95%CI 0.25;0.50). The prevalence of this marker was 0.055% (95%CI 0.012;0.10) in the ten to 19 year old age group and of 0.6% (95%CI 0.41;0.78) for the 20 to 69 year old age group. The North showed the highest results for both age groups. a Treatment, when prescribed, is critical in avoiding progression and complications of the disease such as compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. a Treatment costs become signifi cantly higher with the high morbidity and mortality of patients in advanced stages of the disease, as serious hepatic complications increase the complexity of treatment and the risk of death. 23 In Brazil, until 2009, the guidelines from advocated interferon and lamivudine for the treatment of CHB. Currently, drugs such as adefovir, entecavir and tenofovir are also included. b A systematic review 1 showed adefovir, entecavir and telbivudina effectiveness to be similar to or grea...

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different drug therapies for chronic hepatitis B in adult patients. METHODS:Using a Markov model, a hypothetical cohort of 40 years for HBeAg-positive or HBeAg-negative patients was constructed. Adefovir, entecavir, tenofovir and lamivudine (with rescue therapy in cases of viral resistance) were compared for treating adult patients with chronic hepatitis B undergoing treatment for the first time, with high levels of alanine aminotransferase, no evidence of cirrhosis and without HIV co-infection. Values for cost and effect were obtained from the literature, and expressed in effect on life years (LY). A discount rate of 5% was applied. Univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess model uncertainties. RESULTS:Initial treatment with entecavir or tenofovir showed better clinical outcomes. The lowest cost-effectiveness ratio was for entecavir in HBeAgpositive patients (R$ 4,010.84/LY) and lamivudine for HBeAg-negative patients (R$ 6,205.08/LY). For HBeAg-negative patients, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of entecavir (R$ 14,101.05/LY) is below the threshold recommended by the World Health Organization. Sensitivity analysis showed that variation in the cost of drugs may make tenofovir a cost-effective alternative for both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS:Entecavir is the recommended alternative to start treating patients with chronic hepatitis B in Brazil. However, if there is a reduction in the cost of tenofovir, it can become a cost-effective alternative.