Gefitinib for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Gefitinib is approved as monotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients who have failed prior platinum-based treatment and docetaxel chemotherapy. Its efficacy when compared to standard treatment and best supportive care is unproven. Common drug-related adverse effects include gastrointestinal and skin disorders. Rare but serious drug-related adverse events, such as shock, thrombophlebitis, thrombocytopenia and interstitial lung disease, have been reported.

Erlotinib: CP 358774, NSC 718781, OSI 774, R 1415

Erlotinib [Tarceva, R 1415, CP 358774, OSI 774, NSC 718781] is a small molecular, once-a-day, orally active inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase. This profile has been selected from R&D Insight, a pharmaceutical intelligence database produced by Adis International Ltd. It is one of a class of anticancer drugs that target the underlying molecular mechanism involving oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes, which play critical roles in the conversion of normal cells into a cancerous state. Erlotinib is undergoing clinical development as an oral tablet by an alliance between OSI Pharmaceuticals, Genentech and Roche. OSI Pharmaceuticals, Genentech and Roche have entered an agreement for the global development and commercialisation of erlotinib. Under the terms of the agreement, Genentech and OSI will share costs and profit-taking for commercialising the product in the US. The overall costs of the development programme will be shared equally between the three companies. OSI will keep certain co-promotion rights in the US and Genentech will be responsible for commercialising the drug in the US should the FDA approve it. Roche will take the responsibility for obtaining regulatory approval and commercialisation in territories outside the US and pay royalties to OSI on net sales of the product in these markets. Initially, the alliance partners intend to pursue development of erlotinib in all the major tumour markets, particularly for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in which the group will focus on front-line combination approaches. Pfizer and OSI Pharmaceuticals in the US were developing erlotinib as a treatment for solid tumours. However, in June 2000, Pfizer merged with Warner-Lambert. The resulting company retained the Pfizer name, but in order to meet Federal Trade Commission requirements for the merger Pfizer granted all developmental and marketing rights for erlotinib to OSI Pharmaceuticals. This divestiture of the erlotinib portfolio, in effect, gave OSI a royalty-free, cashless license to the drug. In November 2001, OSI announced a partnership deal with HopeLink Corporation, a healthcare information technology company with an Internet-based Clinical Trial Service. The partnership will enable OSI to heighten awareness of its clinical trials and shorten patient accrual times. It will initially involve the presentation of the OSI phase III pancreatic and refractory NSCLC trials via Hopelink's Syndicated Network. In addition to this the two companies have also agreed to develop additional products and service together that will increase the efficiency of the clinical trial process, increase awareness of clinical trials, and enhance patient accrual techniques. OSI has also entered into an agreement with Therradex, a contract research organisation (CRO) to monitor phase II trials for erlotinib in NSCLC, ovarian and head and neck cancer. In addition, OSI entered into an agreement in 2001 with the US NCI. The NCI is conducting trials in a variety of different cancers. A phase III front-line NSCLC trial (TRIBUTE) of erlotinib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel was initiated in July 2001. The multicentre study is being conducted by Genentech in 1000 patients in the US, and will determine whether the addition of erlotinib to carboplatin chemotherapy is able to improve the duration of patient survival. Enrolment for this trial was completed in July 2002. An independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) has since reviewed the data from the trial and concluded that there are no safety or efficacy concerns that would warrant stopping the trial. However, the DMC did recommend stopping erlotinib at the time of disease progression or at the start of second-line therapy. A front-line phase III study of erlotinib in NSCLC (TALENT) in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy was initiated by Roche in Europe in November 2001. Enrolment into this study was completed in September 2002, with approximately 1200 patients. Roche has confirmed that the study woulde has confirmed that the study would be included in the alliance's potential regulatory submission for front-line therapy in chemotherapy-naive patients in the US. Data from the trial is expected in the second half of 2003. OSI has opened two additional phase Ib studies to examine the potential of erlotinib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in one study and gemcitabine and cisplatin in the other. A phase I study of erlotinib is also being conducted in patients with lung cancer in Japan. OSI received fast-track status from the US FDA in September 2002 for erlotinib as a second- or third-line treatment for patients with incurable stage IIIB/IV NSCLC who have failed to respond to standard therapy for advanced metastatic disease. Fast-track status was also granted to erlotinib in May 2002 for the treatment of chemotherapy-naive stage III/IV NSCLC. There are important differences between phase III studies of erlotinib and AstraZeneca's direct competitor drug gefitinib, which recently returned disappointing results in a frontline NSCLC trial with combination chemotherapy. In assessing the survival benefit of erlotinib with chemotherapy, the dose employed of 150 mg/day is the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), whereas the gefitinib trials were conducted at relatively lower doses than the MTD determined in earlier phase I studies. OSI is also investigating the survival benefit of erlotinib in a phase III study in refractory NSCLC patients, a key registration study. Patient size of the NSCLC trial was increased from 330 to 700 as OSI shifted emphasis from its pancreatic cancer trials. Phase II development for this indication was initiated based on data from a phase I trial, which had completed patient enrolment by April 2003. OSI and the US NCI signed a collaborative research agreement in 2001. The NCI is developing erlotinib through its CTEP programme for multiple tumour types including epithelial malignancies, gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts, gynaecological malignancies and brain tumours. OSI supplies erlotinib for the trial, but the NCI provides the funding and manages the trials. A series of approximately ten phase Ib trials are already underway or were set to start in the US in 2001 to determine safety, tolerance and pharmacokinetic parameters of erlotinib in combination with a number of commonly used chemotherapeutic agents. The Wall Street Journal reported on 25 February 2002, that analysts at Robert Stephens, New York, USA, have forecast Tarceva to reach annual sales of >$US1 billion. Other analysts, at Merrill Lynch & Co., have predicted that products belonging to the same class as Tarceva could reach combined worldwide sales of $US6 billion to $US10 billion annually. In an earlier report by the Financial Times on 10 May 2001, it was stated that approximately 12 new anticancer agents are expected to be approved by the FDA through to the end of 2002. These agents, of which Tarceva is one, were said to have the potential to generate total sales of $US2.6 billion. Goldman Sachs have forecast Tarceva to reach peak sales of $US250 million for the indication of head and neck cancer alone. Previously in January 2001, the Financial Times claimed that OSI Pharmaceuticals, one of the development partners for Tarceva, stood to gain $US187 million pending regulatory approval. Genentech and Roche were each said to be buying $US35 million worth of OSI's stock and paying upfront fees. Tarceva is facing competition by two similar compounds, developed by AstraZeneca and ImClone, respectively.

Pharmacy practice issues with targeted therapy for lung cancer

Drug costs and reimbursement issues for targeted therapies for lung cancer and how they affect pharmacy practice are discussed. Lung cancer is the most frequent cause of cancer death in the western world. Despite improvements in treatment results, less than 15% of patients survive five years after their primary diagnosis. Major advances in the understanding of cancer biology have led to the identification of several potential targets for cancer treatment. In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) one of the most promising new targets has been the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which is overexpressed in most squamous cell subtypes and > or = 65% of adenocarcinomas and large cell subtypes. Gefitinib is an orally available small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets the intracellular domain of the EGFR. It has demonstrated activity and tolerable toxicity in patients with NSCLC. Because of its daily oral route of administration, patient compliance and education are of paramount importance, and the pharmacist plays an increasingly important role in patient management.

Pharmacotherapy of essential thrombocythaemia: economic considerations

The clinical course of essential thrombocythaemia (ET) is mainly outlined by a predisposition to both thromboembolic, and more rarely, haemorrhagic complications. The individual clinical course is, however, variable, ranging from an event-free course to life-threatening thromboembolic episodes. In order to treat ET patients economically, it is necessary, above all, to consider if cytoreductive therapy is really indicated. Risk stratification according to clinical criteria such as age, previous ET-related events and platelet count may help to define patients at risk. In low-risk ET patients, a watch-and-wait strategy seems to be feasible. There is a clear indication for cytoreductive therapy in high risk ET patients as demonstrated in a Phase III clinical trial. Because of the lack of Phase III trials, it is not clear which of the cytoreductive drugs - hydroxyurea, pipobroman, IFN-alpha, pegylated-IFNs or anagrelide - is the best therapeutic option. Factors that influence the choice out of the available drugs are efficacy, safety and cost. The efficacy and safety data of the available drugs for ET are derived from Phase II studies or observational studies. IFN-alpha is the most expensive drug. Newer drugs like anagrelide or pegylated-IFNs are still expensive, but may have a better cost-benefit effect in patients < 60 years of age. Two cost-effectiveness analyses revealed a result in favour of anagrelide, however, in these cost-effectiveness models, assumptions were based on non-randomised trials. For patients > 60 years of age, hydroxyurea may be the best therapeutic option with regard to both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

[Economic assessment of adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer: a review]

The aim of this study is to perform a review of the literature on economic (or medico-economic) studies in the area of chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. French and international literature has been reviewed on this topic. Colorectal cancer represents a major public health problem due to high mortality, prevalence and costs. Up to now chemotherapy can be used at the adjuvant stage or at the palliative one. This work provides a synthesis of the main results of economic publications devoted to adjuvant and palliative chemotherapies, as well as a reflection on the limits frequently associated with such studies.

Ralitrexed (Tomudex) or Nordic-FLv regimen in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II study focusing on quality of life, patients' preferences and health economics

Raltitrexed (Tomudex) is proven effective in metastatic colorectal cancer. Between 1998-2000, 25 patients were included in a randomized phase II study comparing raltitrexed (13 patients) and the Nordic FLv regimen (12 patients). 23 patients were evaluable for response. The overall response rate was 2/12 (1 CR, 1 PR) in the raltitrexed arm and 1/11 (1 CR) in the Nordic FLv arm, respectively. There was no difference in overall survival (raltitrexed--14.7 months, Nordic FLv--15.4 months). 23 patients were evaluable for Quality of Life (QoL) analysis. 23/25 and 17/21 questionnaires (EORTC QLQ C-30) were returned at baseline and first evaluation. Raltitrexed tended to be the most toxic regimen, when looking at nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, diarrhea and global QoL. However, most patients (65%) recommended the raltitrexed treatment schedule. The total treatment cost was equal in both arms (about 6,800 EURO/patient) and the hospital/hospital hotel stay costs accounted for more than half of it.

Cost-effectiveness considerations in the treatment of essential thrombocythemia

Factors that influence the choice of anagrelide, hydroxyurea, or interferon-alfa (IFN-alpha) for treatment of essential thrombocythemia include efficacy, toxicity, and cost. Anagrelide has the US Food and Drug Administration's approval to be used for treating patients with thrombocythemia secondary to chronic myeloproliferative disorders. In contrast, the use of IFN-alpha and hydroxyurea are considered "off-label." We performed an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis to compare anagrelide, hydroxyurea, and IFN-alpha for treating essential thrombocythemia, in terms of estimated impact on life expectancy. The case used for this analysis was of a 40-year-old man with essential thrombocythemia. Clinical assumptions were based on information obtained from nonrandomized clinical trials, and the economic assumptions were derived from information abstracted from observational studies. Lifelong treatment use of anagrelide versus hydroxyurea would cost approximately $72,000 per additional year of life gained, while the use of IFN-alpha was found to be both more costly and less effective than anagrelide. The results were very sensitive to the risk of leukemia caused by hydroxyurea, with an incremental cost-effectiveness of anagrelide compared with hydroxyurea of $156,969 per additional year of life gained if the lifetime leukemia risk drops from a baseline of .08 to.05. Given that many commonly used medical interventions cost in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 per year of life gained, and the generally poor outcome associated with treatment-related leukemia that can result from hydroxyurea, anagrelide could be considered a therapeutic alternative that is clinically effective at an acceptable cost.

Conjoint analysis of a new Chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced Colorectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the willingness to pay for a new chemotherapy, raltitrexed (Tomudex trade mark ) over conventional therapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin (FU-LV) from the perspective of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. The study was part of the product's reimbursement application in Australia.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The key differences relevant to patients between the two therapies, frequency of administration and severity of mouth ulceration, were used to develop a self-administered questionnaire. A relatively new technique to healthcare, that of conjoint analysis (CA), was used to estimate willingness to pay and strength of preference. A discrete choice CA was used. Analysis was via a logit model with adjustment for the cluster effect (or intra-patient correlation).

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Oncology nurses served as proxies for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 87% (62/71) with questionnaires from 56 respondents eligible for analysis. The CA method generated a mean incremental willingness to pay of 745 Australian dollars (dollar A; dollars US 507) per cycle of chemotherapy, comprising dollars A 550 (dollars US 374) and dollars A 195 (dollars US 133) for the toxicity and administration improvements, respectively (1998 values). Both features were related to preference with independent odds of 6.87 and 1.98, respectively, however only the toxicity attribute was a significantly related to preference. Subscription to private health insurance was the only significant demographic predictor identified, however, the homogeneous income structure of the respondents seems likely to have masked any significant income effect.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the advantages of using CA in healthcare, where new therapies or treatments are often composed of a number of attributes. The CA allows both strength of preference and willingness to pay for individual treatment attributes to be estimated and can be used to assign statistical significance to these parameters.

Costs incurred by patients undergoing advanced colorectal cancer therapy. A comparison of raltitrexed and fluorouracil plus folinic acid

BACKGROUND

To assess the cost effectiveness of healthcare interventions from a societal perspective, it is necessary to include costs such as patients' travel costs and the opportunity cost of patients' time spent consuming healthcare.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse patients' travel and time costs associated with 2 alternative drug therapies for advanced colorectal cancer: raltitrexed and fluorouracil plus folinic acid (leucovorin) [5FU + FA].

DESIGN AND SETTING

The analysis is based on a prospective substudy within a multinational randomised controlled trial of raltitrexed versus 5FU + FA.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

495 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were enrolled in the trial, 270 of whom completed the questionnaire on costs.

METHODS

Data were collected within the trial to estimate the numbers of journeys made to and from hospital by patients and the time lost from usual activities over the period of therapy. A subset of patients were asked to complete a questionnaire to provide the information necessary to value time and travel costs in monetary terms. These data, together with UK transport costs and forgone time values, were used to value the transport and opportunity costs of time of all patients in the trial.

RESULTS

The total travel cost per patient was statistically significantly higher in the 5FU + FA group (p < 0.001; median of 31.50 Pounds with raltitrexed, 96.00 Pounds with 5FU + FA; 1997 prices). Overall time cost per patient was also higher in the 5FU + FA group (p = 0.005; median of 168.80 Pounds with raltitrexed, 224.04 Pounds with 5FU + FA). Adding the two gives a median total cost per patient of 206.08 Pounds [interquartile range (IQR) 108 Pounds to 482 Pounds] among patients randomised to raltitrexed and 342.25 Pounds (IQR 214 Pounds to 555 Pounds) for those in the 5FU + FA group (p < 0.001). The sensitivity analysis showed that, even under extreme assumptions, raltitrexed imposed fewer time and travel costs on patients. These cost differences are likely, in part, to reflect the longer treatment times for 5FU + FA patients (median 16.9 vs 12.7 weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

Different chemotherapy regimens for advanced colorectal cancer can impose different travel and time costs on patients. Over the period of treatment in a randomised controlled trial of 495 patients, those randomised to 5FU + FA were found to have a median travel plus time cost 136 Pounds per patient higher than those randomised to raltitrexed.

Anagrelide: a novel agent for the treatment of myeloproliferative disorders

Anagrelide hydrochloride (Agrylin, Roberts Pharmaceutical Corp.) is an oral imidazoquinazoline agent that has been shown to reduce elevated platelet counts and the risk of thrombosis in patients with thrombocythaemia in various myeloproliferative disorders (MPD). It is currently approved by the FDA as oral treatment for essential thrombocythaemia (ET) and thrombocythaemia associated with polycythaemia vera (PV). Anagrelide selectively suppresses bone marrow megakaryocytes by interfering with the maturation process and decreasing platelet production without affecting the erythroid and myeloid progenitor cells. Other medications indicated for the treatment of thrombocythaemia, including interferon alpha (IFN-alpha), alkylating agents and hydroxyurea, suppress all cell lines. Anagrelide is known to inhibit platelet cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) phosphodiesterase at concentrations that exceed those achieved at doses used to treat ET. Anagrelide is extensively metabolised in the liver and its metabolites are primarily excreted in the urine. Adverse effects associated with the use of anagrelide are primarily caused by the drugs' direct vasodilating and positive inotropic effects. These include headache, hypotension and diarrhoea. It has also been known to cause fluid retention, tachycardia, nausea, abdominal pain and arrhythmias. The starting dose of anagrelide ranges from 0.5 mg q.i.d. to 1 mg b.i.d. with a maximum dose of 2.5 mg q.i.d. Adequate responses have been maintained with a median dose of 2-2.5 mg/day. Platelet counts begin to decrease in 7-10 days, however, they return to pre-treatment levels within 4-8 days if therapy is stopped. Anagrelide 2 mg/day for one year costs approximately US$6439, and treatment must continue indefinitely [1].

An economic evaluation of Tomudex (raltitrexed) and 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancer

Our objective was to establish the balance between costs and effects of treatment with Tomudex (raltitrexed) as an alternative to treatment with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus leucovorin (LV) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Data were used from an international, open label randomized clinical trial. Costs were calculated by multiplying resource utilization data with Dutch estimates of unit costs. Effects have been expressed in terms of 6 months and 1 year survival, and in terms of the number of patients without severe adverse events including WHO grade 3 and 4 leucopenia, mucositis, anemia and severe asthenia. Cost effectiveness is expressed in terms of costs per additional day of survival and costs per additional patient without any severe adverse event. The clinical results did not show significant survival differences implying great uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of raltitrexed in terms of additional costs per additional life-year gained. However, 80% of the initially higher cost of raltitrexed ($3132 per patient) is compensated by savings due to a more convenient administration scheme leading to a net cost of $626 per patient treated. Weighed against the decrease in adverse events, a cost-effectiveness ratio results of $3936 per additional patient free of any severe adverse event. More favorable estimates result when the convenience of the administration scheme is valued in positive monetary terms.

Cost-effectiveness model of a phase II clinical trial of a new pharmaceutical for essential thrombocythemia: is it helpful to policy makers?

Essential thrombocythemia (ET) is a rare, chronic myeloproliferative disorder of unknown origin characterized by thrombocytosis, excessive megakaryocytes, hemorrhages, and thrombotic complications. Because of the high costs of care for persons with rare diseases, policymakers are concerned with both clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new treatments. Although the clinical efficacy of all new pharmaceutical agents for rare diseases is evaluated extensively in clinical trial settings before approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), comparative phase III trials of a new agent with its major competitor are sometimes not possible to carry out, and estimates of cost-effectiveness are therefore difficult to obtain. We describe methodologic issues associated with the development of economic models of new pharmaceutical agents for rare diseases and illustrate these issues with an analysis of a new therapy for ET. Anagrelide is a newly approved platelet aggregation inhibitor that can be used as primary therapy for ET. The agent reduces platelet counts by 50% in more than 70% of ET patients. Economic models suggest that, over the first year of anagrelide therapy, monthly costs for therapy and complications decreased from $775 to $490, the effectiveness improved to 98%, and the cost-effectiveness improved to $1,505 per major complication (gastrointestinal bleed, transient ischemic attack or stroke, or preinfarction angina or myocardial infarction) prevented. Sensitivity analyses indicate that, after the first 3 months of treatment, total costs of anagrelide treatment were in the range of $1,505 to $1,615 per major complication prevented. To make well-informed therapeutic decisions, policymakers and physicians require head-to-head studies of a new pharmaceutical agent with its major competitor. However, economic models can be used to derive estimates of cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceutical agents when such data are lacking. The interpretation of these models raises general issues related to the perspective of the investigator, study design, estimation of costs of care, rates of response, toxicity, survival, and the ability to generalize the results to other settings, as well as methodologic issues that are unique to rare diseases. If a comparative study found better therapeutic outcomes, then cost-effectiveness models would be of limited usefulness. Almost all physicians would use the drug with the better therapeutic profile.

Anagrelide, a selective thrombocytopenic agent

The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, and dosage and administration of anagrelide are reviewed. Anagrelide is a selective thrombocytopenic agent with FDA-approved labeling for the treatment of essential thrombocythemia. Clinical trials have shown that the drug may have a role in the treatment of other chronic myeloproliferative disorders, including polycythemia vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and agnogenic myeloid metaplasia. The mechanism by which anagrelide reduces platelet count is not yet clear. The current hypothesis is that anagrelide affects the late (postmitotic) phases of megakaryocyte development. Anagrelide has a large volume of distribution and is extensively metabolized; less than 1% is recovered unchanged in the urine. Plasma half-life after a 0.5-mg dose is 1.3 hours. Anagrelide's efficacy and safety have been evaluated in open-label, noncomparative trials, in which the response rate was 60-93%. Adverse effects include headache, diarrhea, edema, palpitations, and abdominal pain. Patients with renal or hepatic dysfunction need to be closely monitored for signs of toxicity. The recommended starting dosage is 0.5 mg four times a day or 1 mg twice a day, with dosage adjustment to the lowest effective amount required to reduce and maintain platelet count below 600 x 10(9)/L. The wholesale acquisition price for 0.5-mg capsules is $350 per 100. Whether anagrelide will replace hydroxyurea as first-line therapy in some or all patients remains to be determined. Anagrelide is effective in the treatment of essential thrombocythemia and may have a role in the treatment of other myeloproliferative disorders.

Mature results from three large controlled studies with raltitrexed ('Tomudex')

Since the publication of the results of phase I dose-finding studies, an extensive phase II and III clinical study programme has been undertaken to study the clinical efficacy and tolerability of the quinazoline folate analogue raltitrexed ('Tomudex'), a novel direct and specific inhibitor of thymidylate synthase. Two international phase III trials, studies 3 and 12, have compared raltitrexed 3 mg m(-2) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus low-dose leucovorin (LV) (Mayo regimen) or high-dose LV (Machover regimen) respectively. A North American study (study 10) was originally set up to compare two raltitrexed dosage arms (3.0 and 4.0 mg m[-2]) with 5-FU and low-dose LV, but the 4.0 mg m(-2) arm was discontinued prematurely because of excessive toxicity. Minimum follow-up times for studies 3, 10 and 12 were 15.5, 12 and 9 months, respectively (for data other than survival), with corresponding survival follow-up times of 26, 12 and 17 months. Objective response rates were similar for raltitrexed and 5-FU + LV, and palliative improvements were seen to a similar extent with both treatments in all phase III studies. Survival was statistically similar for raltitrexed and 5-FU + LV in both studies 3 and 12. Raltitrexed was, however, associated with inferior survival to 5-FU + low-dose LV in study 10, but there appears to be evidence that this was linked to an unconscious effect on investigator behaviour of early toxicity problems in this trial, in that patients appeared to be withdrawn from raltitrexed treatment without progression or protocolled toxicity. Moreover, it appeared that 5-FU + LV patients were continued on treatment after disease progression. 5-FU-based therapy was associated with a higher incidence of mucositis than raltitrexed in all studies, with the attainment of statistical significance in studies 3 and 12. Elevations in hepatic transaminase levels were seen with raltitrexed, but these are thought to be of no clinical significance. Overall, much greater levels of toxicity were seen with 5-FU + LV than with raltitrexed in early treatment cycles. In addition, retrospective UK audit data have shown the monthly cost of raltitrexed therapy to be similar to that of Mayo and continuous infusion 5-FU regimens, and appreciably lower than that of the de Gramont regimen of 5-FU (bolus + 22-h infusion) + high-dose LV. Thus, raltitrexed is an effective alternative to 5-FU-based therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, with an acceptable and, unlike 5-FU, predictable toxicity profile. In particular, patients receiving raltitrexed may benefit from the minimization or avoidance of mucositis, and both patients and healthcare providers may find the convenient administration schedule of the drug advantageous.

The costs of managing advanced colorectal cancer: a broad perspective

Cancer care is expensive, consuming between 5 and 10% of health-care resources in industrialized countries. Therefore increasing emphasis is being placed on the value of treatment interventions. Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer in the Western world and nearly two-thirds of patients will require palliative treatment. Only limited data are available on the cost of palliative chemotherapy for patients with advanced disease. The profile of raltitrexed ('Tomudex', formerly ZD1694) suggests that it may reduce costs associated with the administration of chemotherapy. Recent studies demonstrate that the total monthly cost of raltitrexed is lower or about the same as a variety of commonly used 5-fluorouracil-based regimens and offers potential savings for hospitals in terms of demand on specialist facilities, physician, nursing and pharmacy time, and overnight bed occupancy. The personal cost borne by patients and their carers for travelling and time off work is reduced with raltitrexed compared with the widely used Mayo regimen. However, there may be disincentives within certain national health-care systems to the introduction of a more resource-efficient drug such as raltitrexed. Physicians will need information on both the benefits and costs of drug treatments to be able to make informed decisions on the provision of high quality, cost-effective patient care, and it is likely that health economic assessment will be incorporated into increasing numbers of clinical trials.

Raltitrexed in colorectal cancer

Each year about 26,000 people in Britain develop colorectal cancer. Roughly half of these patients die from locally advanced or metastatic disease. Systemic chemotherapy, usually with regimens including fluorouracil, can prolong survival in patients with advanced or recurrent disease and may improve their quality of life. [symbol: see text] Raltitrexed (Tomudex-Zeneca), a new class of cytotoxic drug introduced last year, is claimed to simplify treatment and be as effective as one established fluorouracil regimen while causing less toxicity. We review raltitrexed and assess its place in the treatment of patients in whom colorectal cancer is advanced.

Cost of treating advanced colorectal cancer: a retrospective comparison of treatment regimens

Introduction of new agents on to hospital drug formularies requires the demonstration of efficacy, safety and cost advantages. An audit of the total monthly costs of 'Tomudex' (raltitrexed; administered every 3 weeks), a drug recently introduced for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, and three 5-fluorouracil-based regimens [5-day daily bolus (Mayo); continuous ambulatory pump; 48-h continuous infusion (De Gramont)] was undertaken. Patient-specific costs associated with fluids, concomitant medication and consumables were largely negligible, but chemotherapy was the main cost driver in the raltitrexed and De Gramont groups. Fixed inpatient costs were highest for the patients receiving the De Gramont regimen which required more impatient stays each month. Total costs (patient-specific plus fixed costs) were lowest in patients on the Mayo regimen (mean 954.03 Pounds; median 659.68 Pounds), followed by patients in the ambulatory pump (mean 1207.61 Pounds; median 749.19 Pounds), raltitrexed [mean 1256.93 Pounds; median 1087.14 Pounds (mean 1117.85 Pounds; median 959.34 Pounds when costs of protocol-driven visits were excluded)], and De Gramont groups (mean 2028.52 Pounds; median 1775.66 Pounds). The pattern of costs varied considerably between regimens, such that high drug costs, for example those associated with raltitrexed therapy, were partially offset by reductions in hospital visits and stays.