Abstract
Colony-stimulating factors can reduce the morbidity and possibly the mortality from some types of cancer treatment. Reductions in hospitalization and supportive care, eg, transfusion requirements and antibiotics, have been documented in several clinical trials and can lead to lower total care costs. However, the high cost of colony-stimulating factors and the necessity to treat large numbers of patients who do not benefit can offset the economic gains, unless the savings in hospitalization and supportive care are substantial. Primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors is cost- saving only if the rate of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia is 40% or more; no current standard regimens are near that figure. In general, the American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines for the use of colony-stimulating factors lead to effective and cost-conscious use of these expensive growth factors. Colony-stimulating factors are not recommended for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia, are recommended for secondary prophylaxis if dose-reduction is not appropriate, and are recommended for stimulation of hematopoietic progenitor cells and reconstitution after high-dose chemotherapy. Further expansion of use based on economic factors will depend on documented survival benefit, major improvements in supportive care due to colony-stimulating factors, or markedly lower costs of colony-stimulating factors.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 175-179 |
Number of pages | 5 |
Journal | Current Opinion in Hematology |
Volume | 3 |
Issue number | 3 |
State | Published - 1996 |
Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Hematology
Cite this
Economic analysis of the clinical uses of the colony-stimulating factors. / Smith, Thomas J.
In: Current Opinion in Hematology, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1996, p. 175-179.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Economic analysis of the clinical uses of the colony-stimulating factors
AU - Smith, Thomas J
PY - 1996
Y1 - 1996
N2 - Colony-stimulating factors can reduce the morbidity and possibly the mortality from some types of cancer treatment. Reductions in hospitalization and supportive care, eg, transfusion requirements and antibiotics, have been documented in several clinical trials and can lead to lower total care costs. However, the high cost of colony-stimulating factors and the necessity to treat large numbers of patients who do not benefit can offset the economic gains, unless the savings in hospitalization and supportive care are substantial. Primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors is cost- saving only if the rate of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia is 40% or more; no current standard regimens are near that figure. In general, the American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines for the use of colony-stimulating factors lead to effective and cost-conscious use of these expensive growth factors. Colony-stimulating factors are not recommended for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia, are recommended for secondary prophylaxis if dose-reduction is not appropriate, and are recommended for stimulation of hematopoietic progenitor cells and reconstitution after high-dose chemotherapy. Further expansion of use based on economic factors will depend on documented survival benefit, major improvements in supportive care due to colony-stimulating factors, or markedly lower costs of colony-stimulating factors.
AB - Colony-stimulating factors can reduce the morbidity and possibly the mortality from some types of cancer treatment. Reductions in hospitalization and supportive care, eg, transfusion requirements and antibiotics, have been documented in several clinical trials and can lead to lower total care costs. However, the high cost of colony-stimulating factors and the necessity to treat large numbers of patients who do not benefit can offset the economic gains, unless the savings in hospitalization and supportive care are substantial. Primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors is cost- saving only if the rate of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia is 40% or more; no current standard regimens are near that figure. In general, the American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines for the use of colony-stimulating factors lead to effective and cost-conscious use of these expensive growth factors. Colony-stimulating factors are not recommended for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia, are recommended for secondary prophylaxis if dose-reduction is not appropriate, and are recommended for stimulation of hematopoietic progenitor cells and reconstitution after high-dose chemotherapy. Further expansion of use based on economic factors will depend on documented survival benefit, major improvements in supportive care due to colony-stimulating factors, or markedly lower costs of colony-stimulating factors.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029901901&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029901901&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 9372072
AN - SCOPUS:0029901901
VL - 3
SP - 175
EP - 179
JO - Current Opinion in Hematology
JF - Current Opinion in Hematology
SN - 1065-6251
IS - 3
ER -