We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Primary vs secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for the reduction of febrile neutropenia risk in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: cost-effectiveness analyses.
Journal of Medical Economics 2014 January
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary vs secondary prophylaxis (PP vs SP) with pegfilgrastim to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy from a US payer perspective.
METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim in a cohort of patients receiving six cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP plus rituximab (CHOP-R) chemotherapy. Model inputs, including efficacy of pegfilgrastim in reducing risk of FN and costs, were estimated from publicly available sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per life-year saved (LYS), per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and per FN event avoided over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess sensitivity and robustness of results.
RESULTS: Lifetime costs for PP were $5000 greater than for SP; however, PP was associated with fewer FN events and more LYs and QALYs gained vs SP. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PP vs SP for CHOP were $13,400 per FN event avoided, $29,500 per QALY gained, and $25,800 per LYS. CHOP-R results were similar ($15,000 per FN event avoided, $33,000 per QALY gained, and $28,900 per LYS). Results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk, cost per FN episode, and odds ratio for reduced relative dose intensity due to prior FN event. PP was cost-effective vs SP in 85% of simulations at a $50,000 per QALY threshold.
LIMITATIONS: In the absence of NHL-specific data, estimates for pegfilgrastim efficacy and relative risk reduction of FN were based on available data for neoadjuvant TAC in patients with breast cancer. Baseline risks of FN for CHOP and CHOP-R were assumed to be equivalent.
CONCLUSIONS: PP with pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to SP with pegfilgrastim in NHL patients receiving CHOP or CHOP-R.
METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim in a cohort of patients receiving six cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP plus rituximab (CHOP-R) chemotherapy. Model inputs, including efficacy of pegfilgrastim in reducing risk of FN and costs, were estimated from publicly available sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per life-year saved (LYS), per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and per FN event avoided over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess sensitivity and robustness of results.
RESULTS: Lifetime costs for PP were $5000 greater than for SP; however, PP was associated with fewer FN events and more LYs and QALYs gained vs SP. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PP vs SP for CHOP were $13,400 per FN event avoided, $29,500 per QALY gained, and $25,800 per LYS. CHOP-R results were similar ($15,000 per FN event avoided, $33,000 per QALY gained, and $28,900 per LYS). Results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk, cost per FN episode, and odds ratio for reduced relative dose intensity due to prior FN event. PP was cost-effective vs SP in 85% of simulations at a $50,000 per QALY threshold.
LIMITATIONS: In the absence of NHL-specific data, estimates for pegfilgrastim efficacy and relative risk reduction of FN were based on available data for neoadjuvant TAC in patients with breast cancer. Baseline risks of FN for CHOP and CHOP-R were assumed to be equivalent.
CONCLUSIONS: PP with pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to SP with pegfilgrastim in NHL patients receiving CHOP or CHOP-R.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app