This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1078155208098584v1 15/2/67    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dranitsaris, G. Articles by Hopkins, S. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dranitsaris, G. Articles by Hopkins, S. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Medline Plus Health Information Breast Cancer Hazardous Substances DB DOCETAXEL TAXOL Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Economic analysis of albumin-bound paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

Princess Margaret Hospital, Humber River Regional Cancer Centre, Toronto and, Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, gdranit{at}ca.inter.net

Wayne Cottrell

Princess Margaret Hospital, Humber River Regional Cancer Centre, Toronto and, Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Biljana Spirovski

Princess Margaret Hospital, Humber River Regional Cancer Centre, Toronto and, Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Sean Hopkins

Princess Margaret Hospital, Humber River Regional Cancer Centre, Toronto and, Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Background. An albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) was developed to provide additional efficacy and to overcome the safety drawbacks of paclitaxel and docetaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. To provide health economic data for the Canadian setting, an economic analysis comparing each of nab-paclitaxel and docetaxel, both as alternatives to paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer was conducted.

Methods. The clinical and safety data were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing either nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m² q3wk) or docetaxel (100 mg/m ² q3wk), to standard paclitaxel (175 mg/m² q3wk). Health care resource use for the delivery of chemotherapy and the management of grade III/IV toxicity was collected from the oncology literature. Treatment preferences and health state utilities were obtained from 24 female oncology nurses and pharmacists using the time trade-off technique.

Results. Nab-paclitaxel had the lowest incidence of grade III/IV toxicity. This translated to lower overall costs for managing the grade III/IV events relative to both docetaxel and paclitaxel ($597 vs. $2626 vs. $1227). Using the median number of cycles administered and the cost impact of grade III/ IV toxicity, the overall cost for nab-paclitaxel would be $15,105 compared to $15,268 for docetaxel and $3557 for paclitaxel. When treatment preferences were assessed, 20 of 24 (83.3%) respondents selected nab-paclitaxel as their preferred choice compared to only 4 who selected docetaxel. These corresponded to a gain of 0.203 and 0.016 QALYs for nab-paclitaxel and docetaxel, respectively. With these utility benefits, the incremental cost per QALY gained was more favorable for nab-paclitaxel than docetaxel ($56,800 vs. $739,600).

Conclusions. Nab-paclitaxel would be an economically reasonable alternative to docetaxel in MBC patients. As an alternative to paclitaxel, formulary committees must decide if the $56,800 cost per QALY represents good value in their health care setting. J Oncol Pharm Practice (2009) 15: 67—78.

Key Words: breast cancer • paclitaxel • docetaxel • cost analysis • taxanes

This version was published on June 1, 2009

Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, Vol. 15, No. 2, 67-78 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1078155208098584


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?