Advertisement

Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 90–98 | Cite as

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Tegafur-Uracil (UFT) vs Fluorouracil for the Management of Colorectal Cancer in Brazil and Argentina

  • Andre M. Murad
  • Carlos Augusto de Andrade
  • Carlos Delfino
  • Steven Arikian
  • John J. Doyle
  • Christopher M. Dezii
  • Amit Sadana
  • Neeta Sinha
Clinical Pharmacoeconomics

Summary

The treatment of colorectal cancer continues to pose major challenges for oncologists throughout the world. Uracil and tegafur (UFT), as an oral agent, represents a new patient-focused approach to managing a malignancy with few treatment alternatives other than an intravenous fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimen. The ability of UFT to achieve equivalent clinical outcomes compared with continuous 5-FU infusion, along with its oral formulation and mild toxicity profile, provide a compelling backdrop for fiscal analysis. An economic assessment of therapy attributes and effects would, therefore, be prudent and necessary when deliberating the adoption of this chemotherapy regimen.

We developed a pharmacoeconomic model in Brazil and Argentina identifying clinical practices associated with chemotherapy administration and adverse event management practices from a panel of physicians assembled in each country. Practice patterns and clinical events were then evaluated for resource utilisation trends. The perspective of this pharmacoeconomic analysis was that of the healthcare payor. Country-specific charge data were applied to the identified resources to arrive at an average cost per patient receiving a 6-cycle course of 5-FU with either levamisole and/or leucovorin as a modulator vs a modelled oral UFT/leucovorin regimen. As a comparator, the oral UFT/leucovorin regimen was modelled based on the expert panel’s input. Adverse events and incidence data were derived from clinical trial data for both agents. Both agents were analysed in the treatment of metastatic disease and as adjuvant therapy. The principal findings of a cost-minimisation analysis in Brazil revealed approximately equivalent treatment costs for both regimens in the adjuvant setting. When analysing the metastatic treatment arm, costs diverged by $R335/per patient ($R = Reals - the currency of Brazil) in favour of a UFT regimen. The profile in Argentina yielded more dramatic differences, with a UFT regimen costing $P782/per patient ($P = Pesos — the currency of Argentina) less than a 5-FU regimen in the adjuvant setting. In the treatment of metastatic disease, a UFT regimen provided $P1188/per patient in savings over a 5-FU regimen. These differences are predominantly driven by the mild toxicity profile of UFT and its corresponding less severe adverse event management practice patterns. In addition, the oral formulation of UFT versus intravenous 5-FU provides for ease of administration, lowering the total cost of care as well as likely impacting on the patient’s quality of life.

The pharmacoeconomic results suggest that a UFT regimen is a useful and economical alternative to the standard 5-FU regimen in the treatment of colorectal cancer in Brazil and Argentina.

Keywords

Clin Oncol Uracil Leucovorin Levamisole Drug Invest 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Murakami M, Ota K. Clinical results of UFT therapy for malignant tumors under cooperative study. Jpn J Cancer Chemother 1980; 7: 1579–86Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Watanabe H, Yamamoto S, Nalto T. Clinical results of oral UFT therapy under cooperative study. Jpn J Cancer Chemother 1980; 7: 1588–96Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ota K, Taguchi T, Kimura K. Report on nationwide pooled data and cohort investigation in UFT phase II study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1988; 22: 333–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hiller SA, Zhuk RA, Lidak MY. Analogs of pyrimidine nucleosides. Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR 1967; 176: 332–5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fujii S, Kitano S, Ikenaka K, et al. Effect of coadministration of uracil or cytosine on the antitumor activity of clinical doses of 1-(2-tetrahydro-furyl)-5-fluorouracil and level of 5-fluorouracil in rodents. Gann 1979; 70: 209–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fujii S, Kitano S, Ikenaka K, et al. Studies on coadministration of uracil or cytosine on antitumor activity of FT-207 or 5-FU derivatives. Jpn J Cancer Chemother 1979; 6: 377–84Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pazdur R, Lassere Y, Rhodes V, et al. Phase II trial of uracil and tegafur plus oral leucovorin: an effective oral regimen in the treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12(11): 2296–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    VandeVen A, Delbecq A, Gustafson D. Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, 1975Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sanchiz F, Milla A. Tegafur-uracil (UFT) plus folinic acid in advanced rectal cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1994; 24(6): 322–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. 1st ed. Ottawa, Canada: November 1994Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laufman LR, Bukowski RM, Collier MA, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial of fluorouracil plus placebo versus fluorouracil plus oral leucovorin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 1888–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pensel R, Giangiacomo G, Breier S. 5-Fluorouracil (5FU) Associated to Folinic Acid (FA) for the Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancer (ACC) [Meeting Abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol; 10: A446, 1991Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pensel R. Advanced Colon Cancer: A randomized trial of fluorouracil (5-FU) + folinic acid (FA) and 5FU+FA+Interferon alpha 2b (IFN) [Meeting Abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol; 12: A602, 1993Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Valone FH, Gandara DR, Luce JA, et al. Phase I trial of a 5-day infusion of L-leucovorin plus daily bolus 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1993; 32: 215–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bobbio-Pallavicini E, Porta C, Moroni M, et al. Folinic acid does improve 5-fluorouracil activity in vivo. Results of a phase III study comparing 5-fluorouracil to 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid in advanced colon cancer patients. J Chemother 1993; 5(1): 52–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nole F, Colleoni M, Buzzoni R, et al. Fluorouracil plus folinic acid in metastatic adenocarcinoma of unknown primary site suggestive of a gastrointestinal primary. Tumori 1993; 79(2): 116–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leichman CG, Leichman L, Spears CP, et al. Prolonged continuous infusion of fluorouracil with weekly bolus leucovorin: a Phase II study in patients with disseminated colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85(1): 41–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Becouarn Y, Cany L, Rouhier ML, et al. High dose folinic acid (HDFA) and 5-fluorouracil (5FU) bolus and continuous infusion in advanced colorectal cancer [Meeting Abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1994; 13: A604Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aranda E, Cervantes A, Dorta J, et al. A Phase II study of weekly high dose of continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancer [Meeting Abstract]. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1994; 13: A594Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andre M. Murad
    • 1
  • Carlos Augusto de Andrade
    • 2
  • Carlos Delfino
    • 3
  • Steven Arikian
    • 4
  • John J. Doyle
    • 4
  • Christopher M. Dezii
    • 4
  • Amit Sadana
    • 4
  • Neeta Sinha
    • 4
  1. 1.Hospital das ClinicasUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  2. 2.INCA (Instituto Nacional do Cancer)Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Hospital de ComunidadProvincia de Buenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.Center for Health Outcomes and EconomicsEast BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations