Economic Analysis of Prophylactic Pegfilgrastim in Adult Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy

AbstractObjectivesNeutropenia and its complications, including febrile neutropenia (FN), are a common side effect of cancer chemotherapy. Results of clinical trials showed that prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) is effective in preventing FN. In this study, the cost effectiveness (measured as cost per quality-adjusted time [days]) of three treatment alternatives were evaluated: no G-CSF, filgrastim administered daily for 7–12 days after chemotherapy, and a pegylated form of G-CSF pegfilgrastim, administered once per cycle.MethodsA cost-utility model based on standard clinical practice of treating FN with immediate hospitalization or with ambulatory treatment, from a societal perspective was developed. Direct medical cost estimates for hospitalization were derived from claims data reported by 115 US academic medical centers. Indirect medical costs, productivity costs, probabilities, and utilities are based on published literature. Results were subjected to sensitivity analyses and95% confidence intervals are based on a Monte Carlo simulation.ResultsMean estimated costs/day of hospitalization were $1984 (SD$1040, N = 24,687) for surviving patients and $3139 (SD$2014, N = 1437) for dying patients. Under baseline conditions, pegfilgrastim dominated both filgrastim and no G-CSF, with expected costs and effectiveness of $4203 and 12.361 quality adjusted life-days (QALDs) for no G-CSF,$3058 and 12.967 QALDs for pegfilgrastim, and $5264 and 12.698 QALDs for filgrastim.ConclusionsThis cost-utility analysis provides strong evidence that pegfilgrastim is not only cost-effective but also cost-saving in most common clinical and economic settings. There appear to be both clinical and economic benefits from prophylactic administration of pegfilgrastim

Therapeutic Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Established Febrile Neutropenia: Effect on Costs from a Hospital Perspective

Background: The prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) reduces the severity and duration of neutropenia and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia after cancer chemotherapy. However, the use of G-CSFs, particularly filgrastim, to treat established neutropenia remains controversial. A recent meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating G-CSF treatment for established febrile neutropenia demonstrated a reduction in prolonged hospitalisations. Because more than one-third of patients in the analysis were hospitalised for at least 10 days, this finding has broad pharmacoeconomic and clinical significance. This analysis presents the potential cost implications of G-CSF treatment for established neutropenia among hospitalised patients. Methods: Direct medical costs ($US, year 2003 values) related to hospitalisation for established neutropenia were modelled using a hospital perspective and according to two treatment options: (i) no use of G-CSF during the neutropenic episode (control); and (ii) addition of daily G-CSF until neutrophil recovery. Within each option, we modelled the probability of a long stay (>=10 days) and patient survival. The model used three data sets: discharge data from a consortium of academic medical institutions, drug cost data (filgrastim) from Federal payers, and estimates of G-CSF efficacy derived from a meta-analysis of RCTs of treatment in patients with established febrile neutropenia. The lowest expected total cost was predicted for both treatment options; sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations were used to evaluate the robustness of the model. Results: The G-CSF arm produced the lowest expected cost, and predicted net estimated savings of$US1046 per neutropenic episode compared with the control strategy. G-CSF was less expensive than the control for most reasonable estimates of cost per day and all lengths of stay (LOS) >=10 days. G-CSF was the least costly strategy for 73.5% of 10_000 Monte Carlo iterations, while the no-G-CSF control strategy predicted savings in 26.5% of iterations. Conclusions: This pharmacoeconomic model suggests that therapeutic use of G-CSF should be considered for patients with established neutropenia in order to reduce overall hospital cost. G-CSF treatment may offer substantial potential savings for hospitalised patients with established neutropenia over a wide range of model assumptions. Therapeutic G-CSF use among patients hospitalised for established neutropenia may complement the recommended prophylactic use of these agents for the prevention of neutropenic episodes.Cost-analysis, Febrile-neutropenia, Filgrastim, Granulocyte-colony-stimulating-factors

Racial Disparities in Access After Regulatory Surveillance of Benzodiazepines

Background We examined the effects of a prescription-monitoring program on benzodiazepine access among Medicaid enrollees living in neighborhoods of different racial composition. Methods We used interrupted time series and logistic regression to analyze data from noninstitutionalized persons aged 18 years or older (N = 124 867) enrolled continuously in New York Medicaid 12 months before and 24 months and 7 years after initiation of the program. We used census data to identify the racial composition of the neighborhoods. Outcome measures were nonproblematic use (short term, within dosing guidelines), potentially problematic use (>120 days' use or more than twice the recommended dose), and pharmacy hopping (filling prescriptions for the same benzodiazepine in different pharmacies within 7 days). Results There was a sudden, sustained reduction in benzodiazepine use in all the neighborhoods after the program's introduction. Despite the lowest rates of baseline use, enrollees in predominantly (≥75%) black neighborhoods experienced the highest rates of discontinuation after introduction of the program. This difference remained 7 years after policy initiation. Compared with white participants, black participants were more likely to discontinue nonproblematic (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-2.17) and potentially problematic (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-2.17) benzodiazepine use, after adjusting for sex, eligibility status, neighborhood poverty, and baseline use. The program almost completely eliminated pharmacy hopping in all racial groups, although less among white participants (82.6%) vs black participants (88.7%). Conclusions A systematic benzodiazepine prescription-monitoring program reduced inappropriate prescribing, with a stronger effect in predominantly black neighborhoods despite lower baseline use. The policy may have resulted in an unintended decrease in nonproblematic use that disproportionately affects black populations