Economic Evaluation of a New Antiemetic Drug — Palonosetron versus Ondansetron
- 50 Downloads
Objectives: This study aimed to identify, measure and evaluate expected costs of innovative palonosetron-based antiemetic therapy versus ondansetron-based treatment, the ultimate aim being to measure the drug price ratio (DPR) of the two pharmacological treatments in five different European countries.
Methods: A decision model compared two antiemetic treatments — palonosetron and ondansetron — in terms of expected costs of emesis management from a hospital perspective. The model was compiled for 374 patients. The clinical superiority of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed emesis, measured in terms of: (i) complete response rates, (ii) number of emetic episodes, and (iii) administration of rescue medication, was derived from a previously published clinical trial. The cost data were gathered through economic questionnaires distributed in 11 European hospital centres. The expected costs of emesis management with palonosetron and ondansetron at ondansetron prices were used to calculate the DPR for palonosetron in each of the five European countries.
Results: In the baseline analysis, DPR varied from 1.55 (in Russia) to 2.60 (in the UK). The sensitivity analysis of the unit costs of emetic episodes and rescue medication identified a range from 1.39 (in Germany) to 4.09 (in Russia). Even in the least favourable clinical scenario, palonosetron was a preferred antiemetic strategy with a DPR >1 in all five countries.
Conclusions: This is the first economic evaluation analysis of palonosetron. The results demonstrate that palonosetron, because of its superior clinical efficacy in controlling emesis, could have a favourable DPR when compared with ondansetron in all five countries considered and still offer lower or equal net treatment costs for the hospital.
KeywordsOndansetron Rescue Medication Reference Price Palonosetron Emetogenic Chemotherapy
This study was funded by Helsinn Healthcare, Lugano, Switzerland.
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this article.
- 4.Gralla R. Management of nausea and vomiting. Cancer Management: A multidisciplinary approach. European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry — Directorate F — Consumer goods, 2001Google Scholar
- 11.Lachaine J, Laurier C. Cost-efficacy analysis of ondansetron regimens for control of emesis induced by noncisplatin, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Am J Hosp Pharm 2002; 59: 1837–46Google Scholar
- 19.Gralla R, Lichinitser M, Van der Vegt S, et al. Palonosetron improves prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a double blind randomized phase III trial comparing single doses of palonosetron with ondansetron. Ann Oncol 2003; 14: 1570–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Drammond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
- 21.Gralla RJ. Antiemetic therapy. In: Bast RC, Kufe DW, Pollock RE, et al., editors. Holland & Frei Cancer Medicine. 5th ed. American Cancer Society. London: B.C. Decker Inc., 2000Google Scholar
- 22.Buxton MJ, O’Brien BJ. Economic evaluation of ondansetron: preliminary analysis using clinical trial data prior to price setting. Br J Cancer 1992; 66: S64–7Google Scholar
- 24.McGuire A, Drammond A, Rutten F. Reimbursement of Pharmaceuticals in European Union. In: Mossialos E, Mrazek M, Walley T, editors. Regulating pharmaceuticals in Europe: striving for efficiency, equity and quality. European Observatory of Healthcare Systems. Oxford: Open University Press, 2004Google Scholar
- 26.Jommi C. L’Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco: peculiarità rispetto al conteste europeo ed ai processi di modernizzazione della pubblica amministrazione. Economia e politica del farmaco 2005; 3: 11–6Google Scholar