ALESSANDRO GONCALVES CAMPOLINA
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/24 - Laboratório de Oncologia Experimental, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Líder
LIM/24 - Laboratório de Oncologia Experimental, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Líder
5 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 5 de 5
- Health Economic Evaluations of Cancer in Brazil: A Systematic Review(2018) CAMPOLINA, Alessandro G.; YUBA, Tania Y.; DECIMONI, Tassia C.; LEANDRO, Roseli; DIZ, Maria del Pilar Estevez; NOVAES, Hillegonda M. D.; SOAREZ, Patricia C. deBackground: A large number of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies have been published in developed countries. However, Brazilian HEE literature in oncology has not been studied. Objective: To investigate whether the scientific literature has provided a set of HEE in oncology capable of supporting decision making in the Brazilian context. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify and characterize studies in this field. We searched multiple databases selecting partial and full HEE studies in oncology (1998-2013). Results: Fifty-five articles were reviewed, of these, 33 (60%) were full health economic evaluations. Type of cancers most frequently studied were: breast (38.2%), cervical (14.6%), lung (10.9%) and colorectal (9.1%). Procedures (47.3%) were the technologies most frequently evaluated. In terms of the intended purposes of the technologies, most (63.6%) were treatments. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported have been below the cost-effectiveness threshold suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO). Conclusions: There has been an increase in the number of HEEs related to cancer in Brazil. These studies may support decision-making processes regarding the coverage of and reimbursement of healthcare technologies for cancer treatment in Brazil.
conferenceObject Cost-effectiveness of novel systemic therapies for advanced breast cancer: Global representativeness and influence of funding(2023) LAZAR NETO, Felippe; MELO, Marina; HIDALGO FILHO, Cassio Murilo Trovo; MATHIAS, Maria Cecilia; TESTA, Laura; CAMPOLINA, Alessandro- Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating cancer treatments in hospitalbased health technology assessment: The Paraconsistent Value Framework(2022) CAMPOLINA, A. G.; ESTEVEZ-DIZ, M. Del Pilar; ABE, J. M.; SOáREZ, P. C. deBackground In recent years, the potential of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the health field has been discussed widely. However, most MCDA methodologies have given little attention to the aggregation of different stakeholder individual perspectives. Objective To illustrate how a paraconsistent theory-based MCDA reusable framework, designed to aid hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HTA), could be used to aggregate individual expert perspectives when valuing cancer treatments. Methods An MCDA methodological process was adopted based on paraconsistent theory and following ISPOR recommended steps in conducting an MCDA study. A proof-of-concept exercise focusing on identifying and assessing the global value of first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was conducted to foster the development of the MCDA framework. Results On consultation with hospital-based HTA committee members, 11 perspectives were considered in an expert panel: medical oncology, oncologic surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, pharmacist, health economist, epidemiologist, public health expert, health media expert, pharmaceutical industry, and patient advocate. The highest weights were assigned to the criteria ""overall survival""(mean 0.22), ""burden of disease""(mean 0.21) and ""adverse events""(mean 0.20), and the lowest weights were given to ""progression-free survival""and ""cost of treatment""(mean 0.18 for both). FOLFIRI and mFlox scored the highest global value score of 0.75, followed by mFOLFOX6 with a global value score of 0.71. mIFL was ranked last with a global value score of 0.62. The paraconsistent analysis (para-analysis) of 6 first-line treatments for mCRC indicated that FOLFIRI and mFlox were the appropriate options for reimbursement in the context of this study. Conclusion The Paraconsistent Value Framework is proposed as a step beyond the current MCDA practices, in order to improve means of dealing with individual expert perspectives in hospital- based HTA of cancer treatments. © 2022 Campolina et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
- Economic evaluation of plerixafor addition in the mobilization and leukapheresis of hematopoietic stem cells for autologous transplantation: a systematic review(2023) PASSOS, Roselene Mesquita Augusto; FELDENS, Tallys Kalynka; MARCOLINO, Miriam Allein Zago; GOUVEA, Aline Sampaio; OLIVEIRA, Lais Dos Santos; NASSER, Luisa Menardi; RODRIGUES, Roseli Fernandes; PEROBELLI, Leila de Lourdes Martins; CAMPOLINA, Alessandro Goncalves; NETO, Cesar de AlmeidaIntroduction: Although plerixafor in association with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) can improve mobilization and collection of hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) by leukapheresis, cost may limit its clinical application. The present study systematically reviews economic evaluations of plerixafor plus G-CSF usage compared to G-CSF alone and compares different strategies of plerixafor utilization in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients eligible for autologous HSC transplantation. Areas covered: Relevant economic evaluations, partial or complete, were searched on PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for a period ending 30 June 2021. This systematic review was reported following the PRISMA Statement. Six economic evaluations were included, considering the use of upfront or just-in-time plerixafor compared to G-CSF alone or other plerixafor strategies. Most comparisons showed both increased cost and health benefits with the addition of plerixafor. Most analyses favored just-in-time plerixafor compared to upfront plerixafor, with a probable preference for broader cutoffs for just-in-time plerixafor initiation. Expert opinion: Plerixafor is a potentially cost-effective technology in the mobilization of HSC in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphomas eligible for autologous HSC transplantation. There is a decreased number of leukapheresis sessions and remobilizations and a higher yield of CD34+ cells.
- Spiritual needs among hospitalized patients at a public hospital in Brazil: a cross-sectional study(2023) HIDALGO FILHO, Cassio Murilo Trovo; FREITAS, Ana Julia Aguiar de; ABREU, Lucas Salviano de; SANTIAGO, Hendrio Reginaldo; CAMPOLINA, Alessandro GoncalvesBACKGROUND: The relationship between spirituality and health has been the object of growing discus-sion. There is a lack of data on spiritual needs assessments in Brazil.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the spiritual needs of patients admitted to a public tertiary hospital and perform a comparative analysis between patients with and without indications for palliative care.DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional observational study included patients hospitalized between August and December 2020 in Hospital do Servidor Publico Municipal, Sao Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: The included patients answered a questionnaire consisting of sociodemographic data, the Duke religiosity scale, and the Spiritual Needs Assessment for Patients (SNAP) tool for a spiritual needs assessment. The World Health Organization Palliative Needs tool (NECPAL) was used to evaluate the indi-cations for palliative care. The level of significance adopted was 5%.RESULTS: A total of 66 patients were included in this study. Most participants (97%) declared themselves as belonging to a religion. The group without indication for palliative care by the NECPAL showed greater spiritual (P = 0.043) and psychosocial needs (P = 0.004). No statistically significant difference was observed in the religious needs domain (P = 0.176). There were no statistically significant differences in the Duke scale scores between the two groups.CONCLUSION: Spiritual, psychosocial, and religious needs are prevalent among hospitalized patients, and multidisciplinary teams must consider these needs in their management approach. In addition, this study suggests that psychosocial and spiritual needs can be even higher in patients who do not receive pallia-tive care.