Hieke Klaus, Kleeberg Ulrich R, Stauch Martina, Grothey Axel
NEOS Health, Parkstrasse 28, 4102, Binningen, Switzerland.
Eur J Health Econ. 2004 Oct;5(3):270-3. doi: 10.1007/s10198-003-0220-3.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost implications of different settings (inpatient, outpatient/day clinic, or office-based oncologists) for the administration of standard fluoropyrimidine therapies, i.e., Mayo Clinic and Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO)/Ardalan regimen, and to compare the results with the cost of oral capecitabine in Germany. In total, 89 quarterly fee-listings from 26 patients provided by 5 office-based oncologists were analyzed. Physician's services, drug costs, pharmacy costs, and costs for implantable venous port systems and single-use pumps were considered. Findings were transferred to the hospital setting. A third-party payer perspective was applied. Quarterly treatment costs for the Mayo Clinic regimen varied between
本研究的目的是评估不同治疗环境(住院、门诊/日间诊所或门诊肿瘤医生处)下标准氟嘧啶疗法(即梅奥诊所方案和德国内科肿瘤协会(AIO)/阿尔达兰方案)给药的成本影响,并将结果与德国口服卡培他滨的成本进行比较。总共分析了5位门诊肿瘤医生提供的26例患者的89份季度费用清单。考虑了医生服务、药品成本、药房成本以及植入式静脉端口系统和一次性泵的成本。研究结果被转换到医院环境中。采用第三方支付方的视角。梅奥诊所方案的季度治疗成本在2036欧元至10569欧元之间,AIO/阿尔达兰方案的季度治疗成本在1294欧元至10179欧元之间,具体取决于治疗环境。卡培他滨的预计成本为2338欧元。由于卡培他滨的口服给药途径,无需住院治疗。最昂贵的治疗方案是门诊环境下的AIO/阿尔达兰方案和医院环境下的梅奥诊所方案。卡培他滨在门诊环境中是最便宜的选择。总体而言,最便宜的方案是市立医院的AIO/阿尔达兰方案。然而,在这种情况下,市立医院不太可能覆盖其成本。如果患者从医院环境转移到门诊环境并接受卡培他滨治疗,在不使提供者遭受损失的情况下可实现大幅成本节约。