854
Coyte et al.
4. Veal DF, Altman CE, McKinnon BT, et al. Evaluation of flow
rates for six disposable infusion devices. Am J Health Syst
Pharmaceut 1995; 52 (5): 500-4
5. Capes DF, Asiimwe D. Performance of selected flow-restricting
infusion devices. Am J Health Syst Pharmaceut 1999 Feb 15;
55 (4): 351-9
are necessary to consider fully the potential eco-
nomic impact of the treatment options.
Conclusion
6. Hamid SK, Wong PK, Carmichael F, et al. A novel device for
patient-controlled sedation: laboratory and clinical evaluation
of the baxter intermate LV250 infusor and patient-control
module. Anaesthesia 1996 Feb; 51 (2): 145-50
7. Otsuka A, Ono S, Hata M, et al. Outpatient chemotherapy with
continuous intravenous infusion for patients with recurrent
renal cell carcinoma or advanced prostate carcinoma. Gan To
Kagaku Ryoho 1997 Dec; 24 (4): 485-9
8. Health Services Utilization and Research Commission
(HSURC). The cost-effectiveness of home care: a rigorous
review of the literature. Saskatchewan: HSURC, 1996
9. Poretz D, Woolard D, Eron L, et al. Outpatient use of
ceftriaxone: a cost-benefit analysis. Am J Med 1984; 77 (4C):
77-83
10. Stiver H, Trosky S, Cote D, et al. Self-administration of intra-
venous antibiotics: an efficient, cost-effective home care pro-
gram. CMAJ 1982; 127: 207-11
The results from this cost analysis suggest that
more efficient use of resources, from a societal per-
spective, could be made through the provision of
infusional IV therapy for patients with multiple
myeloma in the home. A significant cost saving
to society of $Can52.98/cycle was demonstrated
through the home-based treatment rather than the
clinic-based treatment. This cost saving should
form part of the treatment decision and should sup-
plement information on the effectiveness of treat-
ment options and the preferences of patients and
providers. Future evaluations of home-based treat-
ment which include more precise determination of
clinic overhead costs and the valuation of lost work
and/or leisure time would be beneficial.
11. Culbertson V, Rhodes R, Hill E, et al. Impact of home infusion
therapy on the Colorado Medicaid program budget. Am J
Hosp Pharm 1988; 45: 1346-9
12. Eisenberg J, Kitz, D. Savings from outpatient antibiotic therapy
for osteomyelitis: economic analysis of a therapeutic strategy.
J Am Med Assoc 1986; 255 (12): 1584-8
13. Robson L, Bain C, Beck S, et al. Cost analysis of methly-
prednisolone treatment of multiple sclerosis patients. Can J
Neurol Sci 1998; 25: 222-9
14. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based
medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medi-
cine. JAMA 1992; 268: 2420-5
15. Drummond MF, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for
the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed.
Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1997
16. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effective-
ness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1996
17. Posnett J, Jan S. Indirect cost in economic evaluation: the op-
portunity cost of unpaid inputs. Health Econ 1996; 5 (1): 13-23
18. Coukell A, Markham A. Pamidronate: a review of its use in the
management of osteolytic bone metastases, tumour-induced
hypercalcaemia and Paget’s disease of bone. Drugs Aging
1998; 12 (2): 149-68
19. van Holten-Verzantvoort A, Kroon H, Bijvoet O, et al. Palliative
pamidronate treatment in patients with bone metastases from
breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11 (3): 491-8
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the co-operation and assistance of
Hannah Farrell, National AMS Business Manager, Baxter
Corporation. Dr. Coyte holds a Canadian Health Services
Research Foundation/Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Professorship in Healthcare Settings and Canadians. The
opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the opinion of any funding agency or
institution. The Home and Community Care Evaluation and
Research Centre, University of Toronto, is partially sup-
ported by a contribution from Baxter Corporation.
References
1. Berenson J, Lichtenstein A, Porter L, et al. Efficacy of pamidron-
ate in reducing skeletal events in patients with advanced mul-
tiple myeloma. Myeloma aredia study group. N Engl J Med
1996; 334 (8): 488-93
2. Hillner BE, Ingle JN, Berenson JR, et al. American Society of
Clinical Oncology guideline on the role of bisphosphonates
in breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology
Bisphosphonates Expert Panel. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18 (6):
1378-91
3. Schleis TG, Tice AD. Selecting infusion devices for use in am-
bulatory care. Am J Health Syst Pharmaceut 1996 Apr 15; 53:
868-77
Correspondence and offprints: Professor Peter C. Coyte, De-
partment of Health Administration, University of Toronto,
McMurrich Building, 12 Queen’s Park Crescent West, To-
ronto, Ontario, M5S 1A8, Canada.
E-mail: peter.coyte@utoronto.ca
© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.
Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (8)