A retrospective chart review was performed at 3 Swedish hospitals to evaluate the utilization, outcomes, and cost of using epoetin alfa or darbepoetin alfa to treat cancer patients with chemotherapy-related anemia. Data on dosage, duration of treatment, hematologic response, red blood cell transfusions, and healthcare resource consumption were collected and analyzed at various time points following the initiation of drug therapy. A significantly faster hematologic response and increase in hemoglobin were observed in patients treated with epoetin alfa. Dosages used in clinical practice appeared to be lower than those recommended by Swedish treatment guidelines. There were no significant differences in resource utilization or healthcare costs between the 2 treatment groups. By day 112, the mean treatment cost per patient, in Swedish kronors (SEK), was SEK74,701 (approximately US$9800 or approximately 8300) with epoetin alfa and SEK85,285 (approximately US$11,000 or approximately 9500) with darbepoetin alfa. Drug acquisition and administration accounted for 81% and 67% of the total cost of epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa therapy, respectively; the remainder of the total cost was for hospitalization and transfusions.
This paper aims to describe the priority-setting procedure for new original pharmaceuticals practiced by the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN), to analyse the outcome of the procedure in terms of decisions and the relative importance of ethical principles, and to examine the reactions of stakeholders. All the 'principally important' decisions made by the LFN during its first 33 months of operation were analysed. The study is theoretically anchored in the theory of fair and legitimate priority-setting procedures by Daniels and Sabin, and is based on public documents, media articles, and semi-structured interviews. Only nine cases resulted in a rejection of a subsidy by the LFN and 15 in a limited or conditional subsidy. Total rejections rather than limitations gave rise to actions by stakeholders. Primarily, the principle of cost-effectiveness was used when limiting/conditioning or totally rejecting a subsidy. This study suggests that implementing a priority-setting process that fulfils the conditions of accountability for reasonableness can result in a priority-setting process which is generally perceived as fair and legitimate by the major stakeholders and may increase social learning in terms of accepting the necessity of priority setting in health care. The principle of cost-effectiveness increased in importance when the demand for openness and transparency increased.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.