ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC), the most aggressive form of lung carcinoma, represents approximately 15% of all lung cancers; however, the economic and healthcare burden of SCLC is not well-defined. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the impact of SCLC on healthcare costs through a systematic literature review (SLR). METHODS: Using the OVID search engine, the SLR was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, EconLIT and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Searches were limited to studies published between January 2005 and 24 February 2016, and excluded preclinical studies. Additional internet-based searches were conducted. In total, 229 abstracts were retrieved and systematically screened for eligibility, with 17 publications retained. RESULTS: The majority of publications provided data on limited and extensive disease of SCLC. The reported burden was categorised as direct costs and indirect costs, with the majority of the publications (n = 16) reporting on direct costs and one reporting on both direct and indirect costs. The only indirect costs reported for SCLC were lost productivity (premature mortality costs) and caregiver burden. Chemotherapy, diagnostic costs and treatment costs were identified as significant costs when managing SCLC patients, including the associated treatment costs such as hospitalisation, nurse visits, emergency room visits, follow-up appointments and outpatient care. CONCLUSIONS: SCLC and its treatment have a substantial impact on costs. The scarcity and heterogeneity of economic cost data negated meaningful cost comparison, highlighting the need for further research. Capturing the economic burden of SCLC may help patients and clinicians make informed treatment choices and improve SCLC management.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The economic burden of asthma on the UK National Health Service (NHS) is the largest among allergic diseases. Current asthma guidelines recommend adding a long acting ß2-agonist (LABA) to a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in patients who are on ICS monotherapy and have uncontrolled asthma. The fixed-dose combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL), available in a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) device, is the most commonly prescribed ICS/LABA combination. An additional fixed-dose combination of fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) in pMDI is now available. In a 12-week non-inferiority study, FP/FORM demonstrated comparable efficacy to FP/SAL. The present analysis estimates the annual budget impact for the UK NHS using FP/FORM as an alternative to FP/SAL. METHODS: Current pMDI prescribing data were from a real-world UK patient database (Cegedim Strategic Data). Annual costs to the NHS for drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring were estimated for FP/FORM and FP/SAL and used to assess the potential budget impact for the NHS for the use of FP/FORM instead of FP/SAL. Varying rates of uptake, adherence, adverse event-related costs, and resource use associated with switching treatment were assessed in scenario analyses. RESULTS: Assuming similar levels of ICS use with both regimens, annual drug acquisition costs per person were lower with FP/FORM (£412) than with FP/SAL (£509). The difference in acquisition costs and otherwise comparable input costs between the treatments, results in potential annual savings of £15,110,279 to the NHS, assuming uptake of FP/FORM over FP/SAL in 50% of existing patients. The introduction of FP/FORM results in cost savings for the NHS in all of the assessed scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The comparable efficacy and lower acquisition costs of FP/FORM compared with FP/SAL make it a cost-saving option for the UK NHS for the treatment of asthma patients requiring combination maintenance therapy using a pMDI.
