To develop a cost-effectiveness and a budget impact analysis of Rivaroxaban in the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients performing hip and knee arthroplasty in comparison with no treatment under the Brazilian private health care system perspective. A decision tree analysis was developed for the first 90 days, considering the occurrence of Deep Venous Thrombosis, Pulmonary Embolism and thromboembolic events, followed by a Markov model, for Post Thrombotic Syndrome and Thrombotic Pulmonary Hypertension. The time horizon of the analysis was 5 year. The cycle duration was 1 year and the corresponding epidemiological and efficacy data were obtained from a critical appraisal of the scientific literature. Unit costs for drugs, procedures, materials and daily hospital were obtained from Kairos Magazine (Maximum price consumers 18%ICMS), Hierarchical Brazilian Classification of Medical Procedures (CBHPM 5th edition), Simpro Magazine Maximum price consumers 18% ICMS) and search UNIDAS 2008, respectively. A budget impact analysis was developed considering an increase of 10% per year in market share of Rivaroxaban. Total costs associated with Rivaroxaban and no treatment, considering the indication for knee arthroplasty, were BRL363 (US$214) and BRL1,040 (US$612), respectively. And considering the indication for hip arthroplasty, were BRL332 (US$195) and BRL462 (US$272), respectively. Rivaroxaban reduces the number of all thromboembolic events in 0.0793 and 0.0246, for knee and hip arthroplasty, respectively. Rivaroxaban treatment is more effective and cheaper than no treatment in both indications (dominant). The high cost associated with no treatment patient is due to the high number of events in this group. The budget impact analysis estimated an economy of BRL206,165 (US$121,274) and BRL104,351 (US$61,383) for knee and hip indication, respectively, in 5 years. By this pharmacoeconomic analysis, the treatment with Rivaroxaban, shown to reduce treatment costs and events compared with no treatment.

To develop a cost-effectiveness and a budget impact analysis of Rivaroxaban in the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients performing hip and knee arthroplasty in comparison with Enoxaparin under the Brazilian private health care system perspective. A decision tree analysis was developed for the first 90 days, considering the occurrence of Deep Venous Thrombosis, Pulmonary Embolism and thromboembolic events, followed by a Markov model, for Post Thrombotic Syndrome and Thrombotic Pulmonary Hypertension. The time horizon of the analysis was 5 year. The cycle duration was 1 year and corresponding epidemiological and efficacy data were obtained from a critical appraisal of the scientific literature. The outcomes were expressed as the incremental number of all thromboembolic events. The analysis considered only direct medical costs. Unit costs for drugs, procedures, materials and daily hospital were obtained from Kairos Magazine (Maximum price consumers 18% ICMS), Hierarchical Brazilian Classification of Medical Procedures (CBHPM 5thedition), Simpro Magazine (Maximum price consumers 18%ICMS) and UNIDAS 2008, respectively. A budget impact analysis was developed considering an increase of 10% per year in market share of Rivaroxaban. Total costs associated with Rivaroxaban and Enoxaparin, considering the indication for knee arthroplasty, were BRL363 (US$214) and BRL632 (US$372), respectively. Rivaroxaban reduces the number of all thromboembolic events in 0.0167. Rivaroxaban treatment is more effective and cheaper than Enoxaparin treatment (dominant). Total costs associated with Rivaroxaban and Enoxaparin, considering the indication for hip arthroplasty, were BRL332 (US$195) and BRL468 (US$275), respectively. The number of all thromboembolic events was the same. Rivaroxaban treatment is cheaper with same efficacy. The budget impact analysis estimated an economy of BRL98,810 (US$58,124) and BRL184,630 (US$108,606) for knee and hip indication, respectively, in 5 years. By this pharmacoeconomic analysis, the treatment with Rivaroxaban, shown to reduce treatment costs and events compared with Enoxaparin.

To develop a cost-effectiveness and a budget impact analysis of Rivaroxaban in the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients performing hip and knee arthroplasty in comparison with Dabigatran under the Brazilian private health care system perspective. A decision tree analysis was developed for the first 90 days, considering the occurrence of Deep Venous Thrombosis, Pulmonary Embolism and thromboembolic events, followed by a Markov model, for Post Thrombotic Syndrome and Thrombotic Pulmonary Hypertension. The time horizon of the analysis was 5 year. The cycle duration was 1 year and corresponding epidemiological and efficacy data were obtained from a critical appraisal of the scientific literature. The outcomes were expressed as the incremental number of all thromboembolic events. The analysis considered only direct medical costs. Unit costs for drugs, procedures, materials and daily hospital were obtained from Kairos Magazine (Maximum price consumers 18%ICMS), Hierarchical Brazilian Classification of Medical Procedures (CBHPM 5thedition), Simpro Magazine (Maximum price consumers 18%ICMS) and UNIDAS 2008, respectively. A budget impact analysis was developed considering an increase of 10% per year in market share of Rivaroxaban. Total costs associated with Rivaroxaban and Dabigatran, considering the indication for knee arthroplasty, were BRL363 (US$214) and BRL371 (US$218), respectively. The number of all thromboembolic events was the same. Rivaroxaban treatment is cheaper with same efficacy. Total costs associated with Rivaroxaban and Dabigatran, considering the indication for hip arthroplasty, were BRL332 (US$195) and BRL485 (US$285), respectively. Rivaroxaban reduces the number of all thromboembolic events in 0.0140. Rivaroxaban treatment is more effective and cheaper than Dabigatran treatment (dominant). The budget impact analysis estimated an economy of BRL3,894 (US$2,291) and BRL150,642 (US$88,613) for knee and hip indication, respectively, in 5 years. By this pharmacoeconomic analysis, the treatment with Rivaroxaban, shown to reduce treatment costs and events compared with Dabigatran.

To describe the resource utilization and the costs related to heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) control with either an LNG-IUS or hysterectomy in the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) on patients treated at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Brazil. We performed an observational retrospective descriptive study with costs evaluation and budgetary impact calculation from data extracted from medical files of patients diagnosed with HMB treated either with the LNG-IUS or hysterectomy. The measured outcomes were HMB control, LNG-IUS induced complications (expulsion, uterine perforation, pelvic inflammatory disease), LNG-IUS continuation rate and hospital costs after one year, as well as, the budgetary impact of the use of LNG-IUS in the treatment of HMB vs. hysterectomy. Two hundred sixty-seven medical files were initially retrieved for analysis. A total of 246 patients were included in this study, 122 received the LNG-IUS and 124 were treated with hysterectomy. The mean age was 39.7 years in the LNG-IUS group and 47.9 in the surgery group. Mean duration of HMB in the hysterectomy group was 3.2 years, twice that of the LNG-IUS group (1.5 years) (p<0.01). Of the patients treated with LNG-IUS, 88.7% maintained the device for over one year and 83.1% had success in bleeding control with this method. Fourteen patients had to have the LNG-IUS removed prior to 12 months; however, only 1.6% because of failure in bleeding control. Costs for the LNG-IUS insertion in a one-year time horizon were R$ 762.64 versus R$ 870.03 for the hysterectomy procedure. When applied to the eligible population in SUS the budgetary impact of the LNG-IUS adoption was an economy of almost R$ 3.6 million.

s A37 years, was 95.1% in the case of GCSF+plerixafor therapy compared to 42.61% for GCSF. Additionally, the average reported cost for GCSF+plerixafor treatment in successful cases was $35,020, and in the case of a GCSF treatment the cost totaled US$93,325, which represents a 62% saving for an actual year of therapy. Therefore, the GCSF+Plerixafor treatment results in a more effective, less costly, and finally the most viable alternative. CONCLUSIONS: The GCSF+Plerixafor treatment is a cost effective alternative, from a Mexican institutional perspective for Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma patients in preparation for an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. PCN71 COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF BREAST CANCER RISK REDUCTION THERAPY: COMPARING TAMOXIFEN AND RALOXIFENE