[Cost-reduction analysis for oral versus intravenous fludarabine (Beneflur) in Spain].

INTRODUCTION Various international studies have shown that fludarabine is effective, safe, and efficient for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL). The purpose of the present study was to carry out a cost-minimization analysis for two alternative forms of fludarabine (oral and intravenous) used to treat B-CLL in Spain. METHODS The presence of clinical evidence about the treatment equivalence of the two options being compared (oral fludarabine vs. intravenous fludarabine) led us to carry out a cost-minimization analysis. A pharmacoeconomic model was constructed to compile data from the literature and experts' opinions in order to determine the use of health resources associated with the treatment; unit costs were obtained from Spanish databases. The analysis contemplated two perspectives: that of the national health service, which includes only direct health costs, and the social perspective, which also includes the indirect costs that result from loss of productivity. RESULTS Although fludarabine in its oral form has a higher purchase price than generic intravenous fludarabine does, increased administration costs for the latter, which is used in hospitals, mean that oral fludarabine use produces total savings of euro1,908 and euro1,292 for single-drug therapy and combined therapy with cyclophosphamide, respectively. Including indirect costs increased the savings associated with the oral form of the drug. CONCLUSIONS In B-CLL patients, treatment with oral fludarabine has a lower cost than treatment with intravenous fludarabine, in both single-drug therapy and combined therapy. Various sensitivity analyses confirmed these results and showed that oral fludarabine should be the treatment of choice for B-CLL in Spain, unless contrain.