Introduction: We report a cost-effectiveness evaluation of granulocyte colony–stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy in the United Kingdom (UK).\ud \ud Methods: A mathematical model was constructed simulating the experience of women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Three strategies were modelled: primary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles), secondary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles after 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. 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 UK, base-case analysis with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and using list prices, the most cost-effective strategy was primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for a patient with baseline FN risk greater than 38%, secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for baseline FN risk 11% to 37%, and no G-CSFs for baseline FN risk less than 11%. Using a WTP threshold of £30,000 and list prices, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim was cost-effective for baseline FN risks greater than 29%. In all analyses, pegfilgrastim dominated filgrastim and lenograstim. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that higher WTP threshold, younger age, earlier stage at diagnosis, or reduced G-CSF prices result in G-CSF prophylaxis being cost-effective at lower baseline FN risk levels.\ud \ud Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim was the most cost-effective G-CSF. The most cost-effective strategy (primary or secondary prophylaxis) was dependent on the FN risk level for an individual patient, patient age and stage at diagnosis, and G-CSF price
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.