Cargando…
Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer
PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10511548/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37728795 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08043-4 |
_version_ | 1785108166215729152 |
---|---|
author | Aapro, Matti S. Chaplin, Stephen Cornes, Paul Howe, Sebastian Link, Hartmut Koptelova, Natalia Mehl, Andrea Di Palma, Mario Schroader, Bridgette Kanz Terkola, Robert |
author_facet | Aapro, Matti S. Chaplin, Stephen Cornes, Paul Howe, Sebastian Link, Hartmut Koptelova, Natalia Mehl, Andrea Di Palma, Mario Schroader, Bridgette Kanz Terkola, Robert |
author_sort | Aapro, Matti S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-023-08043-4. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10511548 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105115482023-09-22 Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer Aapro, Matti S. Chaplin, Stephen Cornes, Paul Howe, Sebastian Link, Hartmut Koptelova, Natalia Mehl, Andrea Di Palma, Mario Schroader, Bridgette Kanz Terkola, Robert Support Care Cancer Research PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-023-08043-4. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-09-20 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10511548/ /pubmed/37728795 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08043-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Aapro, Matti S. Chaplin, Stephen Cornes, Paul Howe, Sebastian Link, Hartmut Koptelova, Natalia Mehl, Andrea Di Palma, Mario Schroader, Bridgette Kanz Terkola, Robert Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer |
title | Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer |
title_full | Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer |
title_fullStr | Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer |
title_short | Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (g-csfs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (fn) in patients with cancer |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10511548/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37728795 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08043-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aapromattis costeffectivenessofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorsgcsfsforthepreventionoffebrileneutropeniafninpatientswithcancer AT chaplinstephen costeffectivenessofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorsgcsfsforthepreventionoffebrileneutropeniafninpatientswithcancer AT cornespaul costeffectivenessofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorsgcsfsforthepreventionoffebrileneutropeniafninpatientswithcancer AT howesebastian costeffectivenessofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorsgcsfsforthepreventionoffebrileneutropeniafninpatientswithcancer AT linkhartmut costeffectivenessofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorsgcsfsforthepreventionoffebrileneutropeniafninpatientswithcancer AT koptelovanatalia costeffectivenessofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorsgcsfsforthepreventionoffebrileneutropeniafninpatientswithcancer AT mehlandrea costeffectivenessofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorsgcsfsforthepreventionoffebrileneutropeniafninpatientswithcancer AT dipalmamario costeffectivenessofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorsgcsfsforthepreventionoffebrileneutropeniafninpatientswithcancer AT schroaderbridgettekanz costeffectivenessofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorsgcsfsforthepreventionoffebrileneutropeniafninpatientswithcancer AT terkolarobert costeffectivenessofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorsgcsfsforthepreventionoffebrileneutropeniafninpatientswithcancer |