We've noticed that you're using an ad blocker

Our content is brought to you free of charge because of the support of our advertisers. To continue enjoying our content, please turn off your ad blocker.

It's off now Dismiss How do I disable my ad blocker?
❌

How to disable your ad blocker for our site:

Adblock / Adblock Plus
  • Click on the AdBlock / AdBlock Plus icon on the top right of your browser.
  • Click “Don’t run on pages on this domain.” OR “Enabled on this site.”
  • Close this help box and click "It's off now".
Firefox Tracking Prevention
  • If you are Private Browsing in Firefox, "Tracking Protection" may casue the adblock notice to show. It can be temporarily disabled by clicking the "shield" icon in the address bar.
  • Close this help box and click "It's off now".
Ghostery
  • Click the Ghostery icon on your browser.
  • In Ghostery versions < 6.0 click “Whitelist site.” in version 6.0 click “Trust site.”
  • Close this help box and click "It's off now".
uBlock / uBlock Origin
  • Click the uBlock / uBlock Origin icon on your browser.
  • Click the “power” button in the menu that appears to whitelist the current website
  • Close this help box and click "It's off now".
  • ONCOLOGY
  • News
  • Blogs
  • Topics
  • Hematology
  • Image IQ
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Slideshows
  • Conferences

Modern Medicine Network
  • Login
  • Register
Skip to main content
Modern Medicine Network
  • Login
  • Register
Menu
User
Home
  • ONCOLOGY
  • News
  • Blogs
  • Topics
  • Hematology
  • Image IQ
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Slideshows
  • Conferences

SUBSCRIBE: Print / eNewsletter

Costs of Rituximab Treatment Lower Than Fludarabine or CHOP

Feb 1, 1999
Volume: 
8
Issue: 
2

SOUTHAMPTON, UK—New immunotherapeutic agents often come with big
price tags, but the costs of treating relapsed non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma (NHL) with a new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody may be lower
than the costs of conventional therapy, according to an economic
analysis by UK researchers. This was because the antibody (rituximab,
Rituxan) caused fewer side effects and thus had lower costs related
to adverse events, John Sweetenham, MD, reported at an ASH poster session.

Dr. Sweetenham and his colleagues at the University of South-ampton
compared the cost of treating relapsed low-grade B cell NHL with CHOP
(cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone); fludarabine
(Fludara); or rituximab therapy.

They performed a retrospective cost-minimization analysis of the
three regimens using data from the British National Health Service
and from a phase II UK trial of rituximab. The study included data on
48 patients receiving CHOP, 50 receiving fludarabine, and 64 on rituximab.

Data collected included methods of administration (inpatient vs
outpatient), antiemetic and antimicrobial prophylaxis, diagnostic
tests, intensive care unit visits, and incidence and management of
adverse events.

Response Rates Similar

Dr. Sweetenham reported that patients given CHOP had a response rate
of 45% and a median time to progression of 6 months. [Fludarabine
produces similar results.] This was comparable to the 48% response
rate and 13 month time to relapse with rituximab.

However, the number of adverse events was much greater with a single
cycle of CHOP or fludarabine than with a full course of rituximab (Figure
1
). Rituximab toxicity is largely infusion related, mostly with
the first infusion. Only 17 rituximab patients had infusion-related
toxicity requiring hospital admission.

This reduced toxicity translated into a significant savings in both
the cost of treating adverse events and the total cost of treatment
(see Figure 2).

“The biggest contributor to the cost of CHOP chemotherapy is
toxicity,” he said. “The biggest contributor to the cost of
rituximab therapy is the cost of the drug. The total cost of
rituximab and CHOP therapy came out fairly close (£6,080
vs £7,209) because the higher cost
of rituximab was offset by the lower toxicity.”

Fludarabine therapy had the highest total cost because it is more
toxic than rituximab and is a more expensive drug than rituximab or
CHOP. “In this context,” Dr. Sweetenham said,
“rituximab is useful because it has efficacy equal to other
treatments and can easily be administered in an outpatient setting.”

Resource Topics rightRail

  • Resource Topics
  • Partner Content
Breast Cancer
Lung Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Colorectal Cancer
Melanoma
Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas: Mycosis Fungoides and Sézary Syndrome
3 Keys to Success in the Oncology Care Model

Current Issue

Oncology Vol 32 No 4
Apr 15, 2018 Vol 32 No 4
Digital Edition
Subscribe
Connect with Us
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
Modern Medicine Network
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • Advertiser Terms
  • Privacy statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Editorial & Advertising Policy
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
Modern Medicine Network
© UBM 2018, All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited.