Author
Abstract
The costs of chemotherapy toxicity were analyzed in patients with relapsed low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). A total of 91 specialists regularly treating NHL were interviewed by telephone to identify the most commonly used treatment regimens. Retrospective case record forms providing data on 424 patients with relapsed low-grade NHL were used to assess adverse event (AE) frequency and management. Data on one cycle of treatment was collected for each patient, and unit costs were assessed and extrapolated for six cycles to estimate AE costs for an average course of treatment. Average AE management costs were evaluated by country and treatment regimen. Toxicity costs were substantial for the most commonly used chemotherapy regimens, namely CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), COP/CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone), and fludarabine therapies. In Canada CHOP-associated AEs costs (EUR 5.036 per patient) were more than twofold greater than drug acquisition costs, and cost more than AEs associated with COP/CVP (EUR 3.252) or fludarabine (EUR 1.273). In Germany CHOP-associated AE costs (EUR 2.515) were comparable to to those associated with COP/CVP (EUR 2.658). In Italy CHOP-associated AE costs (EUR 2.179) were considerably less than those associated with fludarabine treatment (EUR 4.908). Neutropenia and fever/infection AEs were the most common and more expensive to treat than nausea and vomiting, anaemia, thrombocytopenia, or other AEs in all three countries. This study shows that management of neutropenia and fever/infection are the most expensive AE costs associated with conventional chemotherapeutic treatment of relapsed low-grade NHL. AE management costs are substantial and are likely to be an important cost driver in all countries. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002
Suggested Citation
M. Herold & K. Hieke, 2002.
"Costs of toxicity during chemotherapy with CHOP, COP/CVP, and fludarabine,"
The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 3(3), pages 166-172, September.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:3:y:2002:i:3:p:166-172
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-002-0112-y
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:3:y:2002:i:3:p:166-172. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.