BUDGET IMPACT ANALYSIS OF RITUXIMAB IV VERSUS SC FROM PUBLIC BRAZILIAN HOSPITAL

OBJECTIVES: The analysis aimed to compare the total cost of rituximabe IV versus SC in both indications approved by ANVISA[i] for rituximab SC: follicular lymphoma (FL) first line and maintenance and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) first line. METHODS: Budget impact analysis was conducted base...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Value in health 2017-05, Vol.20 (5), p.A98
Main Authors: Gomes, G, Ho, R, Rufino, C, Alves, M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
B-cell lymphoma
Catheterization
Drug therapy
Drugs
Health care
Immunotherapy
Impact analysis
Intravenous administration
Leaflets
Lymphocytes B
Lymphoma
Manipulation
Medical personnel
Monoclonal antibodies
Motion
Nurses
Patients
Pharmacists
Rituximab
Savings
Targeted cancer therapy
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:OBJECTIVES: The analysis aimed to compare the total cost of rituximabe IV versus SC in both indications approved by ANVISA[i] for rituximab SC: follicular lymphoma (FL) first line and maintenance and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) first line. METHODS: Budget impact analysis was conducted based on the direct cost of Hospital Geral de Curitiba (HGEC), active healthcare professional (HCP) time from a time and motion study,[ii]wage paid from Parana, and the treatment cost of rituximab. In order to quantify the cost per professional involved in the administration and manipulation of the drugs, the wage paid and active HCP time were used to monetize labor. As HGEC has only pharmacists and nurses involved in the procedure, the time and motion study was adapted to HGEC scenario. The total cost of rituximab was calculated according to drug information leaflets, assuming 20 and 8 cycles for FL and DLBCL, respectively. The results were expressed as cost difference per patient between rituximab IV and SC and were calculated according to the puncture: peripheral or catheter. RESULTS: The saving generated by switching IV to SC was R$ 12.091,66 and R$ 12.960,91 per patient (peripheral and catheter, respectively) for FL; whereas for DLBCL the saving generated was R$ 4.454,82 and R$ 4.775,07 per patient (peripheral and catheter, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Use of rituximab SC is less costly compared to rituximab IV, and switching IV to SC can bring resource savings to HGEC. Other institutions can also use this analysis as a model and quantify their savings from switching IV to SC. [i] Produtos Roche Quimicos e Farmaceuticos S.A. MabThera IV e MabThera SC (rituximabe) [Bula]. 2016. p. 1-65. [ii] Cock, E., D., et. al., Time Savings with Rituximab Subcutaneous Injection verus Rituximab Intravenous Infusion: A Time and Motion Study in Eight Coutries.PLOS ONE. 2016; ll(6):e0157957. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157957.
ISSN:1098-3015
1524-4733
DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.005