Cost Considerations: Exploring the Economic Implications of Choosing SC or IV Administration

Speaker(s)

Gherardi A1, Gally S2, Groenez A3, Esnault C4, Thokagevistk K5, Saget S6, Victorion S7, Chinchilla J8, Tuvi C9, Azzazene S10, Gremaud N11
1Health Economics, Roche France, Boulogne-Billancourt, Ile-de-France, France, 2Roche, Market Access, Boulogne-Billancourt, France, 3Public Health Intern, Roche France, Boulogne-Billancourt, Ile-de-France, France, 4Biostatistics & Data Scientist, Roche France, Boulogne-Billancourt, Ile-de-France, France, 5Medical Evidence Strategy Expert, Roche France, Boulogne-Billancourt, Ile-de-France, France, 6Medical Specialist, Roche France, Boulogne-Billancourt, Ile-de-France, France, 7Medical Care Pathway Partner, Roche France, Boulogne-Billancourt, Ile-de-France, France, 8Marketing Specialist, Roche France, Boulogne-Billancourt, Ile-de-France, France, 9Real World Insight, CAP team, IQVIA, La Défense, France, 10Paris-Saclay University, Paris, 75, France, 11Real World Insight, CAP team, IQVIA France, La Défense, Ile-de-France, France

Presentation Documents

OBJECTIVES: Understand the economic impact regarding the decision for subcutaneous (SC) or intravenous (IV) administration including direct and indirect costs.

METHODS: A literature review (PICO methodology) was performed including a total of 30 clinical trials cohort, modeling and investigation studies published between 2017 and 2023, with 20 studies sourced from PubMed and 10 studies from Grey literature.

RESULTS: 19 studies considered direct costs alone and 11 considered direct and indirect costs. The direct costs analysis included national healthcare payers’ perspective in 14 studies and the hospital perspective in 6 studies.

Direct costs were mostly used for modeling (12 articles), hospital database (6 articles) and time and motion (3 articles). Indirect costs were mostly used in modeling analysis (5 articles).

The vast majority (73%) of studies dealing with the economic perspective were related to immunology (n=11) oncology (n=8), or hemato-oncology (n=3).

The overall findings indicate a positive economic impact associated with SC administration. Direct cost analysis demonstrates that SC administration is cost-saving in all onco-hematology studies and in most studies related to breast cancer and immunology (n= 19). Studies show various types of costs can be avoided: medical cost, hospitalization, healthcare professional cost, consumables, and waste costs.

Indirect costs are analyzed in terms of productivity loss for carers and patients, and all 11 studies report potential savings with SC administration. Indirect cost analysis is not based on specific questionnaires such as the WPAI.

CONCLUSIONS: All studies but one (direct and indirect costs) demonstrated that SC administration generates savings (financial or in terms of productivity gains). However, depending on the therapeutic area studied, there was a lack of studies performed from the national healthcare payers’ perspective (particularly in onco-hematology) and the hospital perspective (particularly in immunology).

Code

EE676

Topic

Economic Evaluation, Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Literature Review & Synthesis

Disease

Oncology, Systemic Disorders/Conditions (Anesthesia, Auto-Immune Disorders (n.e.c.), Hematological Disorders (non-oncologic), Pain)