Tehran University of Medical Sciences Iranian Journal of Public Health 2251-6085 47 3 2018 03 04 407 412 Hadi HAYATI Faculty of Pharmacy, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran AND Dept. of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Administration, School of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Abbas KEBRIAEEZADEH Pharmaceutical Administration, School of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Mohammad Ali EHSANI Dept. of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Bahrami Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Shekoufeh NIKFAR Pharmaceutical Administration, School of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Ali AKBARI SARI Dept. of Health Management and Economics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Azim MEHRVAR MAHAK Pediatric Cancer Treatment and Research Center, Tehran, Iran Elham SHAHGHOLI Dept. of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Bahrami Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 2018 03 04 2018 03 04 Background: There is a requirement to assess the effectiveness and resources used in two protocols United Kingdom (UK-ALL) and Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster (BFM-ALL) that are most commonly used to treatment of ALL patients by oncologists in Iran. Accordingly, we analyzed the cost of treatment and utility of children treated with two protocols in Iran. Methods: The entire medical direct costs of patients in "BFM ALL" protocol and "UK ALL" protocol in multi-centers calculated from Apr 2010 to Jun 2015. For calculating utility and Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) of the patients, we used standard questionnaire Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3). The patients and their parents were interviewed. Data were analyzed using software SPSS18 and EXCEL. Results: The average direct medical cost for each patient for BFM-ALL was 15026 USD and UK-ALL was 8282 USD which showed a significant difference in the total cost of the treatment in the two protocols (P≤0.02). Finally, there was a significant difference in the utility score of the maintenance phase of these two methods (P≤0.003). Conclusion: UK-ALL is dominant and BFM protocol is dominated by both sides total costs and utility and QALY. Mainly, more hospital stay in "BFM ALL" protocol is the cause of raised costs in this protocol. Consequently, by considering different QALYs in the methods and low costs in "UK ALL" protocol, "UK ALL" protocol is more preferred.     https://ijph.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijph/article/view/12689 https://ijph.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijph/article/download/12689/5927