Literature DB >> 10147019

Potential cost savings of oral versus intravenous etoposide in the treatment of small cell lung cancer.

S Pashko1, D H Johnson.   

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/m 2 intravenously (IV) on study day 1 and etoposide 120 mg/m 2 IV on study days 1, 2, and 3 (IV regimen); and 42 patients received cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 IV and etoposide 120 mg/m 2 IV on study day 1 and 240 mg/m 2 orally (equivalent to 120 mg/m 2 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 10147019     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199201040-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  7 in total

Review 1.  Pharmacoeconomics of intravenous drug administration.

Authors:  S E Parker; P G Davey
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Etoposide. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic potential in combination chemotherapy of cancer.

Authors:  J M Henwood; R N Brogden
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 3.  Etoposide (VP-16) in the treatment of lung cancer.

Authors:  A G Pedersen; H H Hansen
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  1983-12       Impact factor: 12.111

Review 4.  Etoposide (VP-16-213). Current status of an active anticancer drug.

Authors:  P J O'Dwyer; B Leyland-Jones; M T Alonso; S Marsoni; R E Wittes
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1985-03-14       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Combination cyclophosphamide and etoposide in treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  W T Leung; W C Shiu; J C Pang
Journal:  Med Oncol Tumor Pharmacother       Date:  1990

6.  A randomized trial to compare intravenous and oral etoposide in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  D H Johnson; J C Ruckdeschel; J H Keller; G H Lyman; G J Kallas; J Macdonald; R C DeConti; J Lee; Q S Ringenberg; W P Patterson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1991-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  VP-16-213 (etoposide): the mandrake root from Issyk-Kul.

Authors:  N J Vogelzang; D Raghavan; B J Kennedy
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 4.965

  7 in total
  5 in total

1.  High technology drugs for cancer: the decision process for adding to a formulary.

Authors:  J L Glennie; D M Woloschuk; K W Hall
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Treatment pathways, resource use and costs in the management of small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  E Oliver; J Killen; G Kiebert; J Hutton; R Hall; B Higgins; S Bourke; B Paschen
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 9.139

3.  G3.5 PAMAM dendrimers enhance transepithelial transport of SN38 while minimizing gastrointestinal toxicity.

Authors:  Deborah S Goldberg; Nirmalkumar Vijayalakshmi; Peter W Swaan; Hamidreza Ghandehari
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2010-11-27       Impact factor: 9.776

4.  Intravenous versus oral etoposide: efficacy and correlation to clinical outcome in patients with high-grade metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (WHO G3).

Authors:  Abir Salwa Ali; Malin Grönberg; Seppo W Langer; Morten Ladekarl; Geir Olav Hjortland; Lene Weber Vestermark; Pia Österlund; Staffan Welin; Henning Grønbæk; Ulrich Knigge; Halfdan Sorbye; Eva Tiensuu Janson
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.064

5.  Oral treatment with etoposide in small cell lung cancer - dilemmas and solutions.

Authors:  Renata Rezonja; Lea Knez; Tanja Cufer; Ales Mrhar
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 2.991

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.