Search

Purpose: Current guidelines (ie, by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) do not recommend secondary infection prophylaxis, whereas, in contrast, caregivers prefer secondary prophylaxis to chemotherapy dose reduction after an episode of febrile neutropenia (FN). Because granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is expensive, this study investigates the economic consequences of secondary prophylactic use of different prophylactic strategies (antibiotics, antibiotics plus G-CSF, and a combined sequential approach) in a population at risk of FN, using a Markov model., Methods: The input for the model is mainly based on the clinical outcome and patient-based cost data set (adopting the health care payer's perspective for the Netherlands) derived from a randomized study on primary prophylaxis in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients; establishing mean cost of an episode FN of euro3,290 and prophylaxis of euro79 (antibiotics) +/- euro1,616 (G-CSF) per cycle. The economic analysis was analyzed probabilistically using first- and second-order Monte Carlo simulation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as cost per FN-free cycle., Results: Secondary prophylaxis with antibiotics was the least expensive strategy (mean, euro4,496/patient). The strategy antibiotics plus G-CSF was most expensive (mean, euro 8,998/patient). Comparison of these two strategies resulted in an unacceptably high ICER (euro343,110 per FN-free cycle) in the Dutch context. In scenarios using higher FN-related costs (as found in the United States), the strategies are less distinct in their monetary effects, but still favor antibiotics., Conclusion: This model-based economic analysis demonstrates that in the Netherlands and most likely also in the United States, if secondary prophylaxis is preferred, the strategy with antibiotics is recommended.

Purpose: Recently, a Dutch, randomized, phase III trial demonstrated that, in small-cell lung cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the addition of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) to prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced the incidence of FN in cycle 1 (24% v 10%; P = .01). We hypothesized that selecting patients at risk of FN might increase the cost-effectiveness of GCSF prophylaxis., Methods: Economic analysis was conducted alongside the clinical trial and was focused on the health care perspective. Primary outcome was the difference in mean total costs per patient in cycle 1 between both prophylactic strategies. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as costs per percent-FN-prevented., Results: For the first cycle, the mean incremental costs of adding GCSF amounted to 681 euro (95% CI, -36 to 1,397 euro) per patient. For the entire treatment period, the mean incremental costs were substantial (5,123 euro; 95% CI, 3,908 to 6,337 euro), despite a significant reduction in the incidence of FN and related savings in medical care consumption. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 50 euro per percent decrease of the probability of FN (95% CI, -2 to 433 euro) in cycle 1, and the acceptability for this willingness to pay was approximately 50%., Conclusion: Despite the selection of patients at risk of FN, the addition of GCSF to primary antibiotic prophylaxis did not result in cost savings. If policy makers are willing to pay 240 euro for each percent gain in effect (ie, 3,360 euro for a 14% reduction in FN), the addition of GCSF can be considered cost effective.

Purpose: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major complication of chemotherapy. Antibiotics as well as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) are effective in preventing FN. This multicenter randomized phase III trial determines whether the addition of G-CSF to antibiotic prophylaxis can further reduce the incidence of FN in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) at the risk of FN., Patients and Methods: Patients (N = 175) were stratified for stage of disease, performance status, age, and prior chemotherapy treatment, and were randomly assigned for treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE), followed by prophylactic antibiotics alone (ciprofloxacin and roxithromycin) or by antibiotics in combination with G-CSF on days 4 to 13., Results: In cycle 1, 20 patients (24%) in the antibiotics group developed FN compared with nine patients (10%) in the antibiotics plus G-CSF group (P = .01). In cycles 2 to 5, the incidences of FN were practically the same in both groups (17% v 11%). Only the treatment parameters (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.78) and age (1.067 per year; 95% CI, 1.013 to 1.0124) were related to the probability of FN in cycle 1., Conclusion: Primary G-CSF prophylaxis added to primary antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in reducing FN and infections in SCLC patients at the risk of FN with the first cycle of CDE chemotherapy. For patients with similar risk of FN, the combined use of prophylactic antibiotics plus G-CSF can be considered, specifically in the first cycle of chemotherapy.