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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aapro, Matti S., Chaplin, Stephen, Cornes, Paul, Howe, Sebastian, Link, Hartmut, Koptelova, Natalia, Mehl, Andrea, Di Palma, Mario, Schroader, Bridgette Kanz, Terkola, Robert
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