Introduction: We report a cost-effectiveness evaluation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) following chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) in the United Kingdom (UK).\ud \ud Methods: A mathematical model was constructed simulating the experience of patients with NHL undergoing chemotherapy. Three strategies were modelled: primary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles); secondary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles following an FN event), and no G-CSF prophylaxis. Three G-CSFs were considered: filgrastim; lenograstim and pegfilgrastim. Costs were taken from UK databases and utility values from published sources with the base case analysis using list prices for G-CSFs and a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. A systematic review provided data on G-CSF efficacy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the effects of uncertainty in model parameters.\ud \ud Results: In the base-case analysis the most cost-effective strategy was primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for a patient with baseline FN risk greater than 22%, secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for baseline FN risk 8-22%, and no G-CSFs for baseline FN risk less than 8%. Using a WTP threshold of £30,000, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim was cost-effective for baseline FN risks greater than 16%. In all analyses, pegfilgrastim dominated filgrastim and lenograstim. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that higher WTP threshold, younger age, or reduced G-CSF prices result in G-CSF prophylaxis being cost-effective at lower baseline FN risk levels.\ud \ud Conclusions: Pegfilgrastim was the most cost-effective G-CSF. The most cost-effective strategy (primary or secondary prophylaxis) was dependent on underlying FN risk level, patient age, and G-CSF price
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.