Economic value of gemcitabine compared to cisplatin and etoposide in non-small cell lung cancer.

ABSTRACT

Although chemotherapy costs have not been highlighted traditionally, there is increasing pressure to demonstrate the value of new treatments within the health care budget. Pharmaceutical companies are assessing the economic value of their products before launch. Gemcitabine is a nucleoside analogue developed for use in solid tumours. The purpose of this model was to investigate the clinical outcomes and potential cost savings for gemcitabine used as monotherapy compared to cisplatin and etoposide combination therapy in late stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in a palliative (as opposed to aggressive) chemotherapy setting. Gemcitabine treatment data were taken from a large NSCLC study and data from retrospective chart reviews identified through the National Oncology Data Base. The model population and effectiveness of the two regimens were judged to be similar, except for baseline performance status. If drug costs were not included, the probability distribution resulting from the simulation showed median cost savings per cycle ranging from $US 1504 to $US 7425, with a medium value of $US 2154. The model suggested that gemcitabine would result in cost savings per cycle more than 90% of the time. Outpatient versus inpatient drug administrations accounted for the majority of potential cost savings. Most of the remaining cost savings were attributable to the difference in febrile neutropenia and antiemetic use. This economic model showed susbstantial savings if gemcitabine was used instead of cisplatin and etoposide combination therapy in the United States' community care setting. Some savings would be realized even if the location of treatment for both regimens was mostly outpatient. Assessment of the product's economic value before launch has assisted in our understanding of the potential areas of cost savings for gemcitabine and has guided us in the design of prospective randomized studies which included pharmacoeconomic endpoints.