Hope S Rugo1, Joseph Kohles, Kathy L Schulman. 1. University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, 94115, USA. hrugo@medicine.ucsf.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Capecitabine may have a higher acquisition cost compared with other select chemotherapy agents; however, its use is not associated with many of the costs typically encountered with intravenous chemotherapy, such as costs incurred through administration procedures and the management of subsequent tolerability issues. This study compared the cost of capecitabine- and taxane-based regimens in the treatment of breast cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Thomson Reuters MarketScan, a US employer claims database, was used to identify patients with a breast cancer diagnosis between 2000 and 2005 and at least one chemotherapy claim or hormone treatment in 2004 or 2005. METHODS: Cost data for treatment administration and management of selected chemotherapy-related adverse events were collected. Multivariate analyses were performed to adjust for differences in patient demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: A total of 3630 patients were included in this analysis; 4216 treatment episodes were recorded. Mean unadjusted total monthly expenditures were lowest for capecitabine regimens compared with taxane plus anthracycline or other taxane regimens ($8445 vs. $13,295 and $12,323, respectively; P < 0.0001). The adjusted total monthly cost for capecitabine regimens was lower than the cost for taxane plus anthracycline regimen ($10,895 vs. $13,115) and other taxane regimens ($9253 vs. $12,116). Adjusted complication costs for taxane treatment episodes were almost double than those seen with capecitabine ($5509 for anthracycline plus taxane vs. $2940, and $3829 for other taxane regimens vs. $1750). CONCLUSIONS: Lower complication-related expenditures with capecitabine therapy accounted for majority of the cost differential seen in comparison with taxane-based therapy.
OBJECTIVE:Capecitabine may have a higher acquisition cost compared with other select chemotherapy agents; however, its use is not associated with many of the costs typically encountered with intravenous chemotherapy, such as costs incurred through administration procedures and the management of subsequent tolerability issues. This study compared the cost of capecitabine- and taxane-based regimens in the treatment of breast cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Thomson Reuters MarketScan, a US employer claims database, was used to identify patients with a breast cancer diagnosis between 2000 and 2005 and at least one chemotherapy claim or hormone treatment in 2004 or 2005. METHODS: Cost data for treatment administration and management of selected chemotherapy-related adverse events were collected. Multivariate analyses were performed to adjust for differences in patient demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: A total of 3630 patients were included in this analysis; 4216 treatment episodes were recorded. Mean unadjusted total monthly expenditures were lowest for capecitabine regimens compared with taxane plus anthracycline or other taxane regimens ($8445 vs. $13,295 and $12,323, respectively; P < 0.0001). The adjusted total monthly cost for capecitabine regimens was lower than the cost for taxane plus anthracycline regimen ($10,895 vs. $13,115) and other taxane regimens ($9253 vs. $12,116). Adjusted complication costs for taxane treatment episodes were almost double than those seen with capecitabine ($5509 for anthracycline plus taxane vs. $2940, and $3829 for other taxane regimens vs. $1750). CONCLUSIONS: Lower complication-related expenditures with capecitabine therapy accounted for majority of the cost differential seen in comparison with taxane-based therapy.