Author
Listed:
- Stephen Holliday
- Paul Benfield
- Greg Plosker
Abstract
Advantages and disadvantages of Fosphenytoin Advantages More rapid intravenous administration than phenytoin and no need for an in-line filter May be administered by intramuscular injection Lower potential for local tissue and cardiac toxicity than phenytoin Associated with less pain and phlebitis at the injection site, fewer reductions in infusion rate and fewer changes of administration site because of injection site complications than phenytoin Benefits in terms of ease of administration and improved tolerability vs phenytoin have pharmacoeconomic implications which may translate into an overall cost advantage Disadvantages Approximately 10-fold higher acquisition cost vs phenytoin ▲ Fosphenytoin is a parenterally administered prodrug of phenytoin, used in the treatment of patients with seizures. ▲ Advantages of fosphenytoin over phenytoin include more rapid intravenous administration, no need for an intravenous filter, and a lower potential for local tissue and cardiac toxicity. Unlike phenytoin, fosphenytoin may also be administered by intramuscular injection. ▲ Pharmacoeconomic data from a small study of patients with acute seizures in a US emergency department showed an overall cost advantage of fosphenytoin over phenytoin, despite a considerably greater acquisition cost of fosphenytoin. The main cost drivers for phenytoin therapy were treatment costs associated with adverse events. ▲ In view of the limited pharmacoeconomic data currently available, it is in the interests of individual institutions to conduct their own formal pharmacoeconomic studies applying local cost data and patterns of clinical practise to determine whether fosphenytoin should replace phenytoin on their formulary list. Copyright Adis International Limited 1998
Suggested Citation
Stephen Holliday & Paul Benfield & Greg Plosker, 1998.
"Fosphenytoin,"
PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 685-690, December.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:pharme:v:14:y:1998:i:6:p:685-690
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199814060-00008
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:pharme:v:14:y:1998:i:6:p:685-690. 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.