Back to Search Start Over

Cost Effectiveness of Primary Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis in Patients With Breast Cancer at Risk of Febrile Neutropenia

Authors :
Vera Mattijssen
Annette W.G. van der Velden
George F. Borm
Maureen J.B. Aarts
Caroline M.P.W. Mandigers
Janneke P.C. Grutters
Agnes J. van de Wouw
Erdogan Batman
Saskia M. van Gastel
Tineke J. Smilde
Laurence J. C. van Warmerdam
Manuela A. Joore
M. Wouter Dercksen
Carin C.D. van der Rijt
Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven
Frank P. J. Peters
Hans J. Nortier
Vivianne C. G. Tjan-Heijnen
Jacqueline M. Stouthard
Erik W. Muller
Mehmet Temizkan
E.M.G. Jacobs
Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism
Cancer Center Amsterdam
Oncology
MUMC+: MA Medische Oncologie (9)
Health Services Research
MUMC+: KIO Kemta (9)
Interne Geneeskunde
RS: CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care
RS: GROW - School for Oncology and Reproduction
Medical Oncology
Pathology
Source :
Journal of clinical oncology, 31(34), 4283-4289. American Society of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31(34), 4283-4289. American Society of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31, 4283-9, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31, 34, pp. 4283-9, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31(34), 4283-4289
Publication Year :
2013

Abstract

Purpose Guidelines advise primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis during chemotherapy if risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is more than 20%, but this comes with considerable costs. We investigated the incremental costs and effects between two treatment strategies of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. Methods Our economic evaluation used a health care perspective and was based on a randomized study in patients with breast cancer with increased risk of FN, comparing primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (G-CSF 1-6 cycles) with prophylaxis during the first two cycles only (G-CSF 1-2 cycles). Primary outcome was cost effectiveness expressed as costs per patient with episodes of FN prevented. Results The incidence of FN increased from 10% in the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles study arm (eight of 84 patients) to 36% in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles study arm (30 of 83 patients), whereas the mean total costs decreased from € 20,658 (95% CI, € 20,049 to € 21,247) to € 17,168 (95% CI € 16,239 to € 18,029) per patient, respectively. Chemotherapy and G-CSF determined 80% of the total costs. As expected, FN-related costs were higher in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles arm compared with the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm was € 13,112 per patient with episodes of FN prevented. Conclusion We conclude that G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is more effective, but more costly, compared with prophylaxis limited to the first two cycles. Whether G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is considered cost effective depends on the willingness to pay per patient with episodes of FN prevented.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
0732183X
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Journal of clinical oncology, 31(34), 4283-4289. American Society of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31(34), 4283-4289. American Society of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31, 4283-9, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31, 34, pp. 4283-9, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31(34), 4283-4289
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....87b686057a9db6ef226d38e22d73e4d8