Axel S Merseburger1, Thomas Björk2, James Whitehouse3, Davide Meani4. 1. Department of Urology & Urologic Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 2. Department of Surgery & Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. 3. Norgine, Norgine House, Widewater Place, Moorhall Road Harefield, Uxbridge, UB9 6NS, UK. 4. Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals, Sandoz International GmbH, Industriestraße 25, 83607 Holzkirchen, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: To compare treatment costs with alternative luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist preparations and determine whether a leuprorelin solid implant is associated with potential cost savings. PATIENTS & METHODS: A hypothetical population of 1000 prostate cancer patients was apportioned between the three most commonly-prescribed LHRH agonist preparations. Differentiated annual costs for 1- and 3-monthly formulations were calculated for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK (EU5) and Sweden, and compared with the leuprorelin solid implant. RESULTS: Compared with alternative formulations, leuprorelin solid implants had potential annual cost savings/1000 patients of €353,000 (EU5) and €699,000 (Sweden; 1-month formulations), and €259,000 (EU5) and €300,000 (Sweden; 3-month formulations). CONCLUSION: The leuprorelin solid implant was associated with potential cost savings compared with the most commonly used LHRH agonist preparations.
AIM: To compare treatment costs with alternative luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist preparations and determine whether a leuprorelin solid implant is associated with potential cost savings. PATIENTS & METHODS: A hypothetical population of 1000 prostate cancerpatients was apportioned between the three most commonly-prescribed LHRH agonist preparations. Differentiated annual costs for 1- and 3-monthly formulations were calculated for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK (EU5) and Sweden, and compared with the leuprorelin solid implant. RESULTS: Compared with alternative formulations, leuprorelin solid implants had potential annual cost savings/1000 patients of €353,000 (EU5) and €699,000 (Sweden; 1-month formulations), and €259,000 (EU5) and €300,000 (Sweden; 3-month formulations). CONCLUSION: The leuprorelin solid implant was associated with potential cost savings compared with the most commonly used LHRH agonist preparations.
Entities:
Keywords:
costs; economics; leuprorelin; luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists; prostate cancer