Costs associated with febrile neutropenia in solid tumor and lymphoma patients - an observational study in Singapore.

BackgroundThe primary objective was to describe the total direct inpatient costs among solid tumor and lymphoma patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) and the factors that were associated with higher direct cost. The secondary objective was to describe the out-of-pocket patient payments and the factors that were associated with higher out-of-pocket patient payments.MethodsThis was a single-center observational study conducted at the largest cancer center in Singapore. All of the adult cancer patients hospitalized due to FN from 2009 to 2012 were studied. The primary outcomes were the total hospital cost and the out-of-pocket patient payments (adjusted by government subsidy) per FN episode. Univariate analysis and multiple linear regression were conducted to identify the factors associated with higher FN costs.ResultsThree hundred and sixty seven adult cancer patients were documented with FN-related hospitalizations. The mean total hospital cost was US$4,193 (95$3,779-4,607) and the mean out-of-pocket patient payment was US$2,230 (95$1,976-2,484), per FN episode. The factors associated with a higher total hospital cost were longer length of stay, severe sepsis, and lymphoma as underlying cancer. The out-of-pocket patient payment was positively associated with longer length of stay, severe sepsis, lymphoma diagnosed as underlying cancer, the therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF), the private ward class, and younger patients.ConclusionsThe total hospital cost and out-of-pocket patient payments of FN management in lymphoma cases were substantial compared with other solid tumors. Factors associated with a higher FN management cost may be useful for developing appropriate strategies to reduce the cost of FN for cancer patients

A prospective study of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the South West London Cancer Network. Interpretation of study results in light of NCAG/NCEPOD findings

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is a medical emergency complicating the treatment of many cancer patients. It is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, as well as impacting on healthcare resources. METHODS: A prospective study of all cases of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the South West London Cancer Network was conducted over a 4-month period. Factors including demographics, treatment history, management of febrile neutropenia and outcome were recorded. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Our results reflect those of the recent National Chemotherapy Advisory Group (NCEPOD, 2008)/National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcomes and Death reports (NCAG, 2009) and highlight the need for network-wide c inical care pathways to improve outcomes in this area, British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 407-412. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6606059 www.bjcancer.com Published online 21 December 2010 (C) 2011 Cancer Research U

Impact of effective prevention and management of febrile neutropenia

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is costly in both financial and human terms. The associated costs can be reduced substantially through the development and implementation of national policies and locally agreed protocols for the prevention and management of febrile neutropenia. Patients, the NHS, healthcare professionals and the broader community all stand to benefit from a commitment to effective management of this common and predictable side effect of some chemotherapy regimens for early-stage breast cancer

The use of chemotherapy regimens carrying a moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia and the corresponding management of febrile neutropenia: an expert survey in breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

The use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia (defined as having a FN incidence of 10% or more) and the respective incidence and clinical management of FN in breast cancer and NHL has not been studied in Belgium. The existence of a medical need for G-CSF primary and secondary prophylaxis with these regimens was investigated in a real-life setting.Journal ArticleMulticenter StudyResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Economic costs of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia among patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in European and Australian clinical practice

Background: Economic implications of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in European and Australian clinical practice are largely unknown. Methods: Data were obtained from a European (97%) and Australian (3%) observational study of patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) receiving CHOP (±rituximab) chemotherapy. For each patient, each cycle of chemotherapy within the course, and each occurrence of FN within cycles, was identified. Patients developing FN in a given cycle (“FN patients”), starting with the first, were matched to those who did not develop FN in that cycle (“comparison patients”), irrespective of subsequent FN events. FN-related healthcare costs (£2010) were tallied for the initial FN event as well as follow-on care and FN events in subsequent cycles. Results: Mean total cost was £5776 (95%CI £4928-£6713) higher for FN patients (n = 295) versus comparison patients, comprising £4051 (£3633-£4485) for the initial event and a difference of £1725 (£978-£2498) in subsequent cycles. Among FN patients requiring inpatient care (76% of all FN patients), mean total cost was higher by £7259 (£6327-£8205), comprising £5281 (£4810-£5774) for the initial hospitalization and a difference of £1978 (£1262-£2801) in subsequent cycles. Conclusions: Cost of chemotherapy-induced FN among NHL patients in European and Australian clinical practice is substantial; a sizable percentage is attributable to follow-on care and subsequent FN events

Cost-effectiveness of febrile neutropenia prevention with primary versus secondary G-CSF prophylaxis for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review

The adoption of primary (PP) versus secondary prophylaxis (SP) of febrile neutropenia (FN), with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) regimens in breast cancer (BC) could be affected by its “value for money”. This systematic review examined (i) cost-effectiveness of PP versus SP, (ii) FN threshold at which PP is cost-effective including the guidelines 20 % threshold and (iii) potential impact of G-CSF efficacy assumptions on outcomes. The systematic review identified all cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses (CEA/CUA) involving PP versus SP G-CSF for AC in BC that met predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Five relevant CEA/CUA were identified. These CEA/CUA examined different AC regimens (TAC = 2; FEC-D = 1; TC = 2) and G-CSF formulations (filgrastim “F” = 4; pegfilgrastim “P” = 4) with varying baseline FN—risk (range 22–32 %), mortality (range 1.4–6.0 %) and utility (range 0.33–0.47). The potential G-CSF benefit, including FN risk reduction with P versus F, varied among models. Overall, relative to SP, PP was not associated with good value for money, as per commonly utilized CE thresholds, at the baseline FN rates examined, including the consensus 20 % FN threshold, in most of these studies. The value for money associated with PP versus SP was primarily dependent on G-CSF benefit assumptions including reduced FN mortality and improved BC survival. PP G-CSF for FN prevention in BC patients undergoing AC may not be a cost-effective strategy at the guidelines 20 % FN threshold

Impact of febrile neutropenia on R-CHOP chemotherapy delivery and hospitalizations among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

PURPOSE: This analysis from an observational study of clinical practice describes the impact of febrile neutropenia (FN) on chemotherapy delivery and hospitalizations. METHODS: Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) scheduled to receive ≥3 cycles of 2- or 3-weekly CHOP with rituximab (R-CHOP-14/21) were eligible. Primary outcome was incidence of FN. RESULTS:FN data were available for 409 patients receiving R-CHOP-14 and 702 patients receiving R-CHOP-21. FN incidence was R-CHOP-14, 20% (81/409) and R-CHOP-21, 19% (133/702). Rates of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor were R-CHOP-14, 84% (345/409) and R-CHOP-21, 36% (252/702). A large number of patients experienced their first FN episode in cycle 1 (R-CHOP-14, 24/81 [30%]; R-CHOP-21, 63/133 [47%]). Multiple risk factors (≥2) for FN were more frequent in patients experiencing FN than in patients not experiencing FN (R-CHOP-14, 60/81 [74%] versus 179/328 [55%]; R-CHOP-21, 98/133 [74%] versus 339/569 [60%]). A similar trend was observed for unplanned hospitalizations (R-CHOP-14, 63/81 [78%] versus 68/328 [21%]; R-CHOP-21, 105/133 [79%] versus 100/569 [18%]). Achievement of chemotherapy relative dose intensity ≥90% was lower among patients experiencing FN than in patients not experiencing FN (R-CHOP-14, 30/81 [37%] versus 234/328 [71%]; R-CHOP-21, 83/133 [62%] versus 434/569 [76%]). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP-14 or R-CHOP-21, patients with an event of FN were more likely to experience suboptimal chemotherapy delivery and increased incidence of unplanned hospitalizations than those without FN. FN-related hospitalizations are likely to impact chemotherapy delivery and to incur substantial costs