Potential Cost Savings of Oral Versus Intravenous Etoposide in the Treatment of Small Cell Lung Cancer
- 1 April 1992
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in PharmacoEconomics
- Vol. 1 (4) , 293-297
- https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199201040-00006
Abstract
An economic analysis was conducted on a randomised multicentre study comparing the use of intravenous (IV) etoposide versus oral etoposide treatment regimens in patients with small cell lung cancer. 41 patients received cisplatin 100 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on study day 1 and etoposide 120 mg/m2 IV on study days 1, 2, and 3 (IV regimen); and 42 patients received cisplatin 100 mg/m2 IV and etoposide 120 mg/m2 IV on study day 1 and 240 mg/m2 orally (equivalent to 120 mg/m2 IV) on study days 2 and 3 (oral regimen). The results of the study from which these data were extracted showed equal efficacy between groups. Based on a retrospective review of resource use in the clinical trial, patient healthcare costs were examined in the following areas: antineoplastic drugs, IV fluids, supplies used for chemotherapy administration, and chemotherapy administration procedure fees. The total cost per course of therapy was $US2002 for the IV regimen and $US1653 for the oral regimen. This represented a 17% savings for patients receiving the oral regimen.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Pharmacoeconomics of Intravenous Drug AdministrationPharmacoEconomics, 1992
- A randomized trial to compare intravenous and oral etoposide in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of small cell lung cancerCancer, 1991
- Combination cyclophosphamide and etoposide in treatment of small Cell Lung CancerMedical Oncology and Tumor Pharmacotherapy, 1990
- EtoposideDrugs, 1990
- Etoposide (VP-16–213)New England Journal of Medicine, 1985
- Etoposide (VP-16) in the treatment of lung cancerCancer Treatment Reviews, 1983
- VP-16-213 (etoposide): The mandrake root from Issyk-KulThe American Journal of Medicine, 1982