BACKGROUND: Anemia, one of the most common complications of cancer chemotherapy, has been managed with red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. As an alternative, the agent epoetin alfa has the potential to reduce the transfusion requirements of patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. To estimate the value that cancer patients place on the drug, an economic analysis using the concept of willingness to pay (WTP) was conducted. METHODS: The method of WTP was used within the framework of a classical cost-benefit analysis to estimate the net cost or benefit of administering prophylactic epoetin alfa to cancer patients. This estimate included the direct cost of epoetin alfa administration and savings secondary to reduced RBC transfusions. A cohort of 100 cancer patients who received or were scheduled to receivecisplatin or noncisplatin chemotherapy (50 per group) were then interviewed to measure the maximum WTP (net benefit) that they experienced with epoetin alfa. RESULTS: Regarding the benefits they would experience after 3 months of epoetin alfa administration, patients receiving cisplatin and noncisplatin therapy stated that they would be willing to pay an average of 587 U.S. dollars (U.S.$587) (95%CI: $300-$875) and U.S.$613 (95%CI: $324-$902), respectively. These benefits were then subtracted from the total cost of the drug when administered to patients receiving cisplatin (U.S.$3530) and noncisplatin (U.S.$3653) therapy. This produced a net incremental treatment cost of U.S.$2943 (95%CI: $2655-$3230) and U.S.$3039 (95%CI: $2750-$3328) for the respective treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study suggest that the routine administration of epoetin alfa to cancer patients receivingmyelosuppressive chemotherapy is a highly resource-intensive treatment policy with modest benefit to patients. Additional research is required to identify high risk patient subgroups who would benefit most from the drug. [See editorial on pages 2427-9, this issue.]
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Anemia, one of the most common complications of cancer chemotherapy, has been managed with red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. As an alternative, the agent epoetin alfa has the potential to reduce the transfusion requirements of patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. To estimate the value that cancerpatients place on the drug, an economic analysis using the concept of willingness to pay (WTP) was conducted. METHODS: The method of WTP was used within the framework of a classical cost-benefit analysis to estimate the net cost or benefit of administering prophylactic epoetinalfa to cancerpatients. This estimate included the direct cost of epoetin alfa administration and savings secondary to reduced RBC transfusions. A cohort of 100 cancerpatients who received or were scheduled to receive cisplatin or noncisplatin chemotherapy (50 per group) were then interviewed to measure the maximum WTP (net benefit) that they experienced with epoetin alfa. RESULTS: Regarding the benefits they would experience after 3 months of epoetin alfa administration, patients receiving cisplatin and noncisplatin therapy stated that they would be willing to pay an average of 587 U.S. dollars (U.S.$587) (95%CI: $300-$875) and U.S.$613 (95%CI: $324-$902), respectively. These benefits were then subtracted from the total cost of the drug when administered to patients receiving cisplatin (U.S.$3530) and noncisplatin (U.S.$3653) therapy. This produced a net incremental treatment cost of U.S.$2943 (95%CI: $2655-$3230) and U.S.$3039 (95%CI: $2750-$3328) for the respective treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study suggest that the routine administration of epoetinalfa to cancerpatients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy is a highly resource-intensive treatment policy with modest benefit to patients. Additional research is required to identify high risk patient subgroups who would benefit most from the drug. [See editorial on pages 2427-9, this issue.]
Authors: Diego F Ossa; Andrew Briggs; Emma McIntosh; Warren Cowell; Tim Littlewood; Mark Sculpher Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2007 Impact factor: 4.981