Granulocyte colony--stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with small cell lung cancer : the 40% rule revisited
- PMID: 16097839
- DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200523080-00003
Granulocyte colony--stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with small cell lung cancer : the 40% rule revisited
Abstract
Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) [filgrastim and lenograstim] and pegylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) have been shown to reduce the severity and duration of chemotherapy-associated febrile neutropenia (FN) when administered prophylactically to cancer patients receiving chemotherapeutic regimens. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) evidence-based clinical guidelines published in 1994, 1996 and 1997 recommended primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for cancer patients. The 2000 ASCO update, with the same recommendation, highlights the importance of economic considerations in decision making for CSFs. This paper reviews the available cost-effectiveness evidence on the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis against FN in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC).Cost-effectiveness ratios from a healthcare payer perspective supported the use of filgrastim as primary prophylaxis for people with SCLC, on the basis of both clinical and economic benefits, treated with chemotherapeutic regimens that have an FN rate in the range of 40-60%. However, when indirect and patient out-of-pocket costs attributable to severe FN are included, available evidence suggests that the risk threshold may be reduced by more than half. Given that FN rates associated with chemotherapeutic regimens for SCLC are generally <40%, then few circumstances would warrant the use of G-CSFs (filgrastim and lenograstim) under the current rule. However, inclusion of indirect costs would lower the cost-effectiveness threshold. Future cost-effectiveness studies of medications such as pegfilgrastim should attempt to capture the societal perspective by incorporating productivity-related costs and using base-case rates of FN reported in the literature.
Similar articles
-
The economic value of primary prophylaxis using pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in patients with breast cancer in the UK.Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7(3):193-205. doi: 10.1007/BF03256152. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009. PMID: 19799473
-
2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours.Eur J Cancer. 2011 Jan;47(1):8-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.013. Epub 2010 Nov 20. Eur J Cancer. 2011. PMID: 21095116
-
Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the United Kingdom.Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):465-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.037. Epub 2011 Apr 22. Value Health. 2011. PMID: 21669371
-
Colony-stimulating factors for the management of neutropenia in cancer patients.Drugs. 2002;62 Suppl 1:1-15. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200262001-00001. Drugs. 2002. PMID: 12479591 Review.
-
Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving CHOP-21 in United States.Curr Med Res Opin. 2009 Feb;25(2):401-11. doi: 10.1185/03007990802636817. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009. PMID: 19192985
Cited by
-
Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.JCO Oncol Pract. 2021 Aug;17(8):e1235-e1245. doi: 10.1200/OP.20.01047. Epub 2021 Apr 1. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021. PMID: 33793342 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous