Cost-effectiveness of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia in lymphoma patients

Nina Lathia, Pierre K. Isogai, Carlo De Angelis, Thomas J. Smith, Matthew Cheung, Nicole Mittmann, Jeffrey S. Hoch, Scott Walker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BackgroundFebrile neutropenia is a serious toxicity of cancer chemotherapy that is usually treated in hospital. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients undergoing chemotherapy.MethodsWe used a Markov model that followed patients through induction chemotherapy to compare the three prophylaxis strategies: 1) no primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia; 2) primary prophylaxis with 10 days of filgrastim therapy; and 3) primary prophylaxis with a single dose of pegfilgrastim. The target population was a hypothetical cohort of 64-year-old men and women with DLBCL. Data sources included published literature and current clinical practice. The analysis was conducted from a publicly funded health-care system perspective. The main outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsIn the base-case analysis, costs associated with no primary prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis with 10 days of filgrastim, and primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim were CaD $7314, CaD $13947, and CaD $16290, respectively. The QALYs associated with the three strategies were 0.2004, 0.2015, and 0.2024, respectively. The ICER for the filgrastim vs no primary prophylaxis strategy was CaD $5796000 per QALY. The ICER for the pegfilgrastim vs filgrastim primary prophylaxis strategy was CaD $2611000 per QALY. All one-way sensitivity analyses yielded ICERs greater than CaD $400000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves show that 20.0% of iterations are cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CaD $1595000 for the filgrastim strategy and CaD $561000 for the pegfilgrastim strategy.ConclusionsPrimary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia with either filgrastim or pegfilgrastim is not cost-effective in DLBCL patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1078-1085
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the National Cancer Institute
Volume105
Issue number15
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 7 2013

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-effectiveness of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia in lymphoma patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this