Economic analysis of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

被引:62
|
作者
Eldar-Lissai, Adi [1 ]
Cosler, Leon E. [2 ]
Culakova, Eva [4 ]
Lyman, Gary H. [3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Dept Community & Prevent Med, Rochester, NY USA
[2] Albany Coll Pharm, Albany, NY USA
[3] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Duke Comprehens Canc Ctr, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[4] James P Wilmont Canc Ctr, Rochester, NY USA
[5] Univ Rochester, Sch Med & Dent, Dept Med, Rochester, NY 14642 USA
关键词
cancer; cost analysis; decision models; febrile neutropenia; granulocyte colony-stimulating factors; neutropenia;
D O I
10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00242.x
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objective: Neutropenia and its complications, including febrile neutropenia (FN), are a common side effect of cancer chemotherapy. Results of clinical trials showed that prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) is effective in preventing FN. In this study, the cost effectiveness (measured as cost per quality-adjusted time [days]) of three treatment alternatives were evaluated: no G-CSF, filgrastim administered daily for 7-12 days after chemotherapy, and a pegylated form of G-CSF pegfilgrastim, administered once per cycle. Methods: A cost-utility model based on standard clinical practice of treating FN with immediate hospitalization or with ambulatory treatment, from a societal perspective was developed. Direct medical cost estimates for hospitalization were derived from claims data reported by 115 US academic medical centers. Indirect medical costs, productivity costs, probabilities, and utilities are based on published literature. Results were subjected to sensitivity analyses and95% confidence intervals are based on a Monte Carlo simulation. Results: Mean estimated costs/day of hospitalization were $1984 (SD $1040, N = 24,687) for surviving patients and $3139 (SD $2014, N = 1437) for dying patients. Under baseline conditions, pegfilgrastim dominated both filgrastim and no G-CSF, with expected costs and effectiveness of $4203 and 12.361 quality adjusted life-days (QALDs) for no G-CSF, $3058 and 12.967 QALDs for pegfilgrastim, and $5264 and 12.698 QALDs for filgrastim. Conclusions: This cost-utility analysis provides strong evidence that pegfilgrastim is not only cost-effective but also cost-saving in most common clinical and economic settings. There appear to be both clinical and economic benefits from prophylactic administration of pegfilgrastim.
引用
收藏
页码:172 / 179
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The financial impact of physician practice patterns: An analysis of as-needed filgrastim versus prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients with prostate cancer receiving docetaxel.
    Barrett, Christine
    Park, Seon Jo
    Gaertner, Kelly
    Mao, Shifeng
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2019, 37 (15)
  • [42] Lower cutaneous microvascular reactivity in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy
    Sutterfield, S. L.
    Caldwell, J. T.
    Post, H. K.
    Lovoy, G. M.
    Banister, H. R.
    Ade, C. J.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY, 2018, 125 (04) : 1141 - 1149
  • [43] Vascular and autonomic changes in adult cancer patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy
    Frye, Jacob N.
    Satterfield, Shelbi L.
    Caldwell, Jacob T.
    Behnke, Bradley J.
    Copp, Steven W.
    Banister, Heather R.
    Ade, Carl J.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY, 2018, 125 (01) : 198 - 204
  • [44] PROPHYLACTIC NAPROXEN OR LORATADINE FOR BONE PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH BREAST CANCER RECEIVING CHEMOTHERAPY AND PEGFILGRASTIM: A RANDOMIZED, PHASE 2 STUDY (NOLAN) AMGEN 20110147; NCT 01712009.
    Guinigundo, Andrew S.
    Maxwell, Cathy
    Vanni, Linda
    Watson, Holly
    Badre, Sejal
    Kirshner, Jeffrey J.
    ONCOLOGY NURSING FORUM, 2013, 40 (06) : E429 - E429
  • [45] Analysis of ANC recovery from a Phase III study of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy
    Bondarenko, I.
    Bias, P.
    Elsaesser, R.
    Buchner, A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2013, 49 : S434 - S435
  • [46] Comparison of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in sarcoma patients receiving highly myelosuppressive chemotherapy
    Tarantino, P.
    Zagami, P.
    Trillo, P.
    Conforti, F.
    Pala, L.
    Morganti, S.
    Ferraro, E.
    Viale, G.
    Duso, B. A.
    D'Amico, P.
    Marra, A.
    Trapani, D.
    De Pas, T. M.
    ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2019, 30
  • [47] Same day dosing of pegfilgrastim in patients receiving fractionated dose chemotherapy.
    Watt, LY
    Levin, R
    Musick, RE
    PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2003, 23 (03): : 406 - 407
  • [48] Neutrophil recovery in elderly breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline-containing chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support
    Brugger, W.
    Bacon, P.
    Lawrinson, S.
    Romieu, G.
    CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY, 2009, 72 (03) : 265 - 269
  • [49] Comparative Effectiveness of Filgrastim, Pegfilgrastim, and Sargramostim as Prophylaxis Against Hospitalization for Neutropenic Complications in Patients With Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy
    Weycker, Derek
    Malin, Jennifer
    Barron, Rich
    Edelsberg, John
    Kartashov, Alex
    Oster, Gerry
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 2012, 35 (03): : 267 - 274
  • [50] Udenyca has equivalent efficacy to the pegfilgrastim originator in breast cancer patients receiving highly myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
    Webster, Jennifer
    Scott, Jeffrey A.
    Smith, Helen
    Wieland, Danielle
    Donaldson, Joseph
    Catasus, Casey
    Smith, Robert E.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 38 (15)