Aim: To compare treatment costs with alternative luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist preparations and determine whether a leuprorelin solid implant is associated with potential cost savings.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
Patients & Methods: A hypothetical population of 1000 prostate cancer patients was apportioned between the three most commonly prescribed luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist preparations. Differentiated annual costs for 1- and 3-monthly formulations were calculated for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK (EU5) and Sweden, and compared with the leuprorelin solid implant.
Results: Compared with alternative formulations, leuprorelin solid implants had potential annual cost savings/1000 patients of €562,000 (EU5) and €813,000 (Sweden) (1-month formulations) and €510,000 (EU5) and €365,000 (Sweden) (3-month formulations).
Conclusion: The leuprorelin solid implant was associated with potential cost savings compared with the most commonly used luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist preparations.
Merseburger AS, Björk T, Whitehouse J, Meani D. Are you the author?
Department of Urology & Urologic Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Reference: J Comp Eff Res. 2014 Dec 18:1-7.