Cost-reduction analysis for oral versus intravenous fludarabine (Beneflur®) in Spain

Abstract

Introduction

Various international studies have shown that fludarabine is effective, safe, and efficient for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (B-CLL). The purpose of the present study was to carry out a cost-minimization analysis for 2 alternative forms of fludarabine (oral and intravenous) used to treat B-CLL in Spain.

Methods

The presence of clinical evidence about the treatment equivalence of the 2 options being compared (oral fludarabine vs intravenous fludarabine) led us to carry out a costminimization analysis. A pharmacoeconomic model was constructed to compile data from the literature and experts’ opinions in order to determine the use of health resources associated with the treatment; unit costs were obtained from Spanish databases. The analysis contemplated 2 perspectives: that of the national health service, which includes only direct health costs, and the social perspective, which also includes the indirect costs that result from loss of productivity.

Results

Although fludarabine in its oral form has a higher purchase price than generic intravenous fludarabine does, increased administration costs for the latter, which is used in hospitals, mean that oral fludarabine use produces total savings of #euro1908 and #euro1292 for single-drug therapy and combined therapy with cyclophosphamide, respectively. Including indirect costs increased the savings associated with the oral form of the drug.

Conclusions

In B-CLL patients, treatment with oral fludarabine has a lower cost than treatment with intravenous fludarabine, in both single-drug therapy and combined therapy. Various sensitivity analyses confirmed these results and showed that oral fludarabine should be the treatment of choice for B-CLL in Spain, unless contraindicated.