Costs of Drug Delivery for CHOP, COP/CVP, and Fludarabine: An International Assessment

Herold, Michael; Hieke, K

doi:10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00227.x

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Herold et al [12, 13] reported costs for Canada, Germany and Italy, and it is difficult to compare these findings with our own. Sweetenham et al [15] reported the findings of a UK cost-minimization analysis comparing CHOP, fludarabine and rituximab with costs (in 1998) calculated from the perspective of the hospital.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…Previous studies have considered the cost of therapies for indolent follicular NHL [12,13,14,15]. Based on a retrospective chart review of relapsed follicular NHL patients in Canada, Germany and Italy, Herold et al [12, 13] reported the average cost of treatment per patient for fludarabine, CVP and CHOP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on a retrospective chart review of relapsed follicular NHL patients in Canada, Germany and Italy, Herold et al [12, 13] reported the average cost of treatment per patient for fludarabine, CVP and CHOP. Sweetenham et al [15] reported the findings of a UK cost-minimization analysis of CHOP, fludarabine and rituximab in the management of patients with relapsed follicular NHL.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Costs of Chemotherapy for Indolent Follicular Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in the UK: An Observational Study

Hutchinson¹,

Lloyd²,

Gray

et al. 2006

Acta Haematol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) is the sixth most common cancer in the United Kingdom (UK). This analysis assessed the health service costs of patients receiving chemotherapy for indolent follicular NHL based on a retrospective analysis of patient records in the UK. Each patient was followed up for a period of 3 years or until death. The analysis included 181 patients, who received a total of 187 treatment periods. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. The study found the cost of providing treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone) or fludarabine to patients with indolent follicular NHL to be lower than previously reported.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Costs of Chemotherapy for Indolent Follicular Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in the UK: An Observational Study

Hutchinson¹,

Lloyd²,

Gray

et al. 2006

Acta Haematol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…drug administration is a major cost driver for overall treatment costs [5,6]. The combination of a simplified administration and favorable clinical results may lead to an economic benefit with capecitabine vs. conventional 5-FUbased treatments [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs of treatment of colorectal cancer in different settings in Germany

Hieke

Kleeberg

Stauch³

et al. 2004

Eur J Health Econom

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost implications of different settings (inpatient, outpatient/day clinic, or office-based oncologists) for the administration of standard fluoropyrimidine therapies, i.e., Mayo Clinic and Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO)/Ardalan regimen, and to compare the results with the cost of oral capecitabine in Germany. In total, 89 quarterly fee-listings from 26 patients provided by 5 office-based oncologists were analyzed. Physician's services, drug costs, pharmacy costs, and costs for implantable venous port systems and single-use pumps were considered. Findings were transferred to the hospital setting. A third-party payer perspective was applied. Quarterly treatment costs for the Mayo Clinic regimen varied between 2,036 and 10,569, and between 1,294 and 10,179 for the AIO/Ardalan regimen depending on the treatment setting. Projected costs for capecitabine were 2,338. No hospitalization was considered to be necessary for capecitabine due to its oral administration route. The most expensive treatment options were the AIO/Ardalan protocol in the office-based setting and the Mayo Clinic protocol in the hospital setting. Capecitabine emerged as the cheapest option in the office-based setting. Overall, the cheapest option was the AIO/Ardalan protocol in municipal hospitals. However, municipal hospitals are unlikely to cover their costs in this situation. Substantial cost savings without incurring losses to providers may be realized if patients are transferred from the hospital setting to the office-based setting and treated with capecitabine.

show abstract

“…Studien in anderen onkologischen Indikationen haben gezeigt, dass die i. v.-Applikation von Chemotherapeutika einen wichtigen Faktor für die gesamten Behandlungskosten darstellt [7], [8]. Die Kombination einer einfachen und patientenfreundlichen Applikationsform mit den positiven klinischen Resultaten könn-te auch in einen ökonomischen Vorteil für Capecitabin gegenüber der konventionellen Fluoropyrimidin-Therpie münden [9].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Behandlungskosten Fluoropyrimidin-basierter Therapien des kolorektalen Karzinoms in verschiedenen Behandlungssituationen

Grothey¹,

Kleeberg²,

Stauch³

et al. 2004

Gesundh ökon Qual manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Zielsetzung: 1. Bestimmung der Behandlungskosten verschiedener routinemäßig eingesetzter Fluoropyrimidin-basierter Therapien, das Mayo-Clinic-Regime und das AIO/Ardalan-Protokoll, für unterschiedliche Behandlungssituationen (stationär, teilstationär, onkologische Praxis) in Deutschland. 2. Identifikation der finanziellen Konsequenzen des Einsatzes einer oralen Form der Verabreichung, Capecitabin, aus der Sicht der gesetzlichen Krankenkassen. Methoden: Analyse realer Abrechnungen niedergelassener Onkologen und Projektion der Ergebnisse auf verschiedene Behandlungssituationen in der Klinik und auf eine orale Behandlung mit Capecitabin aus Sicht der gesetzlichen Krankenkassen. Ergebnisse: Onkologische Praxis: Mit 9874 E wurden die höchsten Kosten pro Quartal bei Behandlung nach dem AIO/Ardalan-Protokoll beobachtet. Das Mayo-ClinicRegime verursachte Kosten in Höhe von 2497 E. Die kostengüns-tigste Option war die Behandlung mit Capecitabin mit 1610 E pro Quartal. Teilstationär: Die Kosten pro Quartal des Mayo-ClinicRegimes bei teilstationärer Behandlung beliefen sich auf 2036 E in einer städtischen Klinik und 8455 E in einer Universitätsklinik. Die entsprechenden Kosten für das AIO/Ardalan-Protokoll betrugen 1294 E und 5374 E. Stationär: Pro Quartal entstanden Kosten in Höhe von 3143 E für das Mayo-Clinic-Regime in einer städti-schen Klinik und von 10 569 E in einer Universitätsklinik. Die entsprechenden Kosten für das AIO/Ardalan-Protokoll betrugen 1998 E und 6717 E. Schlussfolgerung: Aus gesundheitsöko-nomischer Sicht könnten substanzielle Kostenreduktionen, ohne Verursachung von Verlusten bei den Leistungserbringern, AbstractAims: 1. To identify the treatment costs of different standard fluoropyrimidine-based therapies, i. e. the Mayo Clinic and AIO/ Ardalan regimens, under real-life conditions in settings routinely used for chemotherapy administration in Germany (inpatient, day-clinic or office-based oncologists). 2. To investigate the cost implications of routine use of capecitabine, an oral alternative for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Method: Analysis of actual fee-listings of office based oncologists and projection of results to several hospital-based treatment settings and to oral treatment with capecitabine. Results: Office-based setting: The highest quarterly treatment costs of 9,874 E were found for the AIO/Ardalan-regimen, followed by the Mayo Clinic-regimen, which incurred costs of 2,497 E. The cheapest treatment option was capecitabine with quarterly costs of 1,610 E. Day-clinic setting: The costs of the Mayo-Clinic protocol amounted to 2,036 E in a municipal hospital and 8,455 E in an university hospital. The respective costs for the AIO/Ardalan regime were 1,294 E and 5,374 E. In-patient setting: Mayo-Clinic protocol costs were 3,143 E in a municipal hospital and 10,569 E in a university hospital. Respective costs found for the AIO/Ardalan-regimen were 1,998 E and 6,717 E. Conclusion: From a pharmacoeconomic perspective, substantial cost savings for health insurances, ...

show abstract

Costs of Drug Delivery for CHOP, COP/CVP, and Fludarabine: An International Assessment

Cited by 13 publications

References 20 publications

Costs of Chemotherapy for Indolent Follicular Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in the UK: An Observational Study

Costs of Chemotherapy for Indolent Follicular Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in the UK: An Observational Study

Costs of treatment of colorectal cancer in different settings in Germany

Behandlungskosten Fluoropyrimidin-basierter Therapien des kolorektalen Karzinoms in verschiedenen Behandlungssituationen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About