PURPOSE: To evaluate frequency and severity of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and its economic consequences after standard dose (immuno-)chemotherapy (CT) of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subanalysis of a prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, observational cohort study; data were collected from patient interviews and pre-planned chart reviews. Costs were aggregated per CT line and presented from provider perspective. RESULTS: A total of 120 consecutive NSCLC patients (mean age, 63.0 ± 8.4 (SD) years; men, 64.2%; ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status <2, 84.3%; tumour stage III/IV, 85%; history of comorbidity, 93.3%) receiving 130 CT lines were evaluated. 80% of CT lines were associated with grade 3 or 4 ADRs, 22.3% developed potential life-threatening complications, 77.7% were associated with at least one hospital stay (inpatient, 63.9%; outpatient/day clinic 39.2%, ICU 6.9%), with a mean cumulative number of 12.8 (±14.0 SD) hospital days. Mean (median) toxicity management costs per CT line (TMC-TL) amounted to €3,366 (€1,406) and were found to be higher for first-line compared to second-line treatment: €3,677 (€1,599) vs. €2,475 (€518). TMC-TL were particularly high in CT lines with ICU care €12,207 (€9,960). Eight out of 11 ICU stays were associated with grade 3 or 4 infections. Nine CT lines with ICU care accounted for 25% of total expenses (€109,861 out of €437,580). CONCLUSIONS: In first-line NSCLC treatment, in particular, CT toxicity management is expensive. Asymmetric cost distribution seems to be triggered by infection associated ICU care. Its avoidance should reduce patients' clinical burden and have considerable economic implications. Nevertheless, comparative observational studies have to confirm estimated savings.
PURPOSE: To evaluate frequency and severity of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and its economic consequences after standard dose (immuno-)chemotherapy (CT) of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subanalysis of a prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, observational cohort study; data were collected from patient interviews and pre-planned chart reviews. Costs were aggregated per CT line and presented from provider perspective. RESULTS: A total of 120 consecutive NSCLCpatients (mean age, 63.0 ± 8.4 (SD) years; men, 64.2%; ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status <2, 84.3%; tumour stage III/IV, 85%; history of comorbidity, 93.3%) receiving 130 CT lines were evaluated. 80% of CT lines were associated with grade 3 or 4 ADRs, 22.3% developed potential life-threatening complications, 77.7% were associated with at least one hospital stay (inpatient, 63.9%; outpatient/day clinic 39.2%, ICU 6.9%), with a mean cumulative number of 12.8 (±14.0 SD) hospital days. Mean (median) toxicity management costs per CT line (TMC-TL) amounted to €3,366 (€1,406) and were found to be higher for first-line compared to second-line treatment: €3,677 (€1,599) vs. €2,475 (€518). TMC-TL were particularly high in CT lines with ICU care €12,207 (€9,960). Eight out of 11 ICU stays were associated with grade 3 or 4 infections. Nine CT lines with ICU care accounted for 25% of total expenses (€109,861 out of €437,580). CONCLUSIONS: In first-line NSCLC treatment, in particular, CTtoxicity management is expensive. Asymmetric cost distribution seems to be triggered by infection associated ICU care. Its avoidance should reduce patients' clinical burden and have considerable economic implications. Nevertheless, comparative observational studies have to confirm estimated savings.
Authors: A M Horgan; P A Bradbury; E Amir; R Ng; J Y Douillard; E S Kim; F A Shepherd; N B Leighl Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: B J Paessens; C von Schilling; K Berger; M Shlaen; C Müller-Thomas; R Bernard; C Peschel; A Ihbe-Heffinger Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Konstantin J Dedes; Thomas D Szucs; Stephan Bodis; Markus Joerger; Adam Lowy; Erich W Russi; Hans C Steinert; Walter Weder; Rolf A Stahel Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2004 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Michael E Stokes; Catherine E Muehlenbein; Martin D Marciniak; Douglas E Faries; Saeed Motabar; Theresa W Gillespie; Joseph Lipscomb; Kevin B Knopf; Don P Buesching Journal: J Manag Care Pharm Date: 2009-10
Authors: Joan Schiller; Dominic Tilden; Michael Aristides; Michael Lees; Adrian Kielhorn; Nikos Maniadakis; Shkun Bhalla Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: José Ignacio Mayordomo; Andrés López; Núria Viñolas; Javier Castellanos; Sonia Pernas; Juan Domingo Alonso; Adolfo Frau; Miquel Layola; José Antonio Gasquet; Jordi Sánchez Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Nikki M Carroll; Thomas Delate; Alex Menter; Mark C Hornbrook; Lawrence Kushi; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Elizabeth T Loggers; Debra P Ritzwoller Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Alan Carlotto; Virginia L Hogsett; Elyse M Maiorini; Janet G Razulis; Stephen T Sonis Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Wolfgang Hohenforst-Schmidt; Paul Zarogoulidis; Kaid Darwiche; Thomas Vogl; Eugene P Goldberg; Haidong Huang; Michael Simoff; Qiang Li; Robert Browning; Francis J Turner; Patrick Le Pivert; Dionysios Spyratos; Konstantinos Zarogoulidis; Seyhan I Celikoglu; Firuz Celikoglu; Johannes Brachmann Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 4.162