Search

Cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF (C+G-CSF) is one of the most widely used stem cell (SC) mobilization regimens for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Plerixafor plus G-CSF (P+G-CSF) has demonstrated superior SC mobilization efficacy when compared with G-CSF alone and has been shown to rescue patients who fail mobilization with G-CSF or C+G-CSF. Despite the proven efficacy of P+G-CSF in upfront SC mobilization, its use has been limited, mostly due to concerns of high price of the drug. However, a comprehensive comparison of the efficacy and cost effectiveness of SC mobilization using C+G-CSF versus P+G-CSF is not available. In this study, we compared 111 patients receiving C+G-CSF to 112 patients receiving P+G-CSF. The use of P+G-CSF was associated with a higher success rate of SC collection defined as ⩾5 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg (94 versus 83%, P=0.013) and less toxicities. Thirteen patients in the C+G-CSF arm were hospitalized owing to complications while none in the P+G-CSF group. C+G-CSF was associated with higher financial burden as assessed using institutional-specific costs and charges (P<0.001) as well as using Medicare reimbursement rates (P=0.27). Higher rate of hospitalization, increased need for salvage mobilization, and increased G-CSF use account for these differences.

Objective: This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of various strategies of myeloid growth factor prophylaxis for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Singapore who are undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy with curative intent., Methods: A Markov model was created to compare seven prophylaxis strategies: 1) primary prophylaxis (PP) with nivestim (biosimilar filgrastim) throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 2) PP with nivestim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 3) secondary prophylaxis (SP) with nivestim; 4) PP with pegfilgrastim throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 5) PP with pegfilgrastim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 6) SP with pegfilgrastim; and 7) no prophylaxis (NP). The perspective of a hospital was taken and cost-effectiveness was expressed as the cost per episode of FN avoided over six cycles of chemotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted., Results: Strategies 3, 6, and 7 were dominated in the base case analysis by strategy 5. The costs associated with strategies 2, 5, 1, and 4 were US$3,813, US$4,056, US$4,545, and US$5,331, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for strategy 5 vs. strategy 2, strategy 1 vs. strategy 5, and strategy 4 vs. strategy 1 were US$13,532, US$22,565, and US$30,452, respectively, per episode of FN avoided. Strategy 2 has the highest probability to be cost-effective (ranged from 48% to 60%) when the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold is lower than US$10,000 per FN episode prevented., Conclusion: In Singapore, routine PP with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (nivestim or pegfilgrastim) is cost-effective for reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving R-CHOP.

Purpose: Febrile neutropenia (FN) during adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with morbidity, mortality risk, and substantial cost, and subsequent chemotherapy dose reductions may result in poorer outcomes. Patients at high risk of, or who develop FN, often receive prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF). We investigated whether different prophylaxis strategies with G-CSF offered favorable value-for-money., Methods: We developed a decision model to estimate the short- and long-term costs and outcomes of a hypothetical cohort of women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant taxotere + cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy. The short-term phase estimated upfront costs and FN risks with adjuvant TC chemotherapy without G-CSF prophylaxis (i.e., chemotherapy dose reductions) as well as with secondary and primary G-CSF prophylaxis strategies. The long-term phase estimated the expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for patients who completed adjuvant TC chemotherapy with or without one or more episodes of FN., Results: Secondary G-CSF was associated with lower costs and greater QALY gains than a no G-CSF strategy. Primary G-CSF appears likely to be cost-effective relative to secondary G-CSF at FN rates greater than 28%, assuming some loss of chemotherapy efficacy at lower dose intensities. The cost-effectiveness of primary vs. secondary G-CSF was sensitive to FN risk and mortality, and loss of chemotherapy efficacy following FN., Conclusions: Secondary G-CSF is more effective and less costly than a no G-CSF strategy. Primary G-CSF may be justified at higher willingness-to-pay thresholds and/or higher FN risks, but this threshold FN risk appears to be higher than the 20% rate recommended by current clinical guidelines.

Docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) is a widely used breast cancer adjuvant regimen. We sought to compare the rates of febrile neutropenia (FN) between patients receiving no primary prophylaxis (PP) and those receiving PP with either granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) or antibiotics. We also analyzed cost-effectiveness of TC with and without either G-CSF or antibiotics. Charts were reviewed of all 340 patients who received adjuvant TC between January 2008 and December 2012 at two major cancer centers. Rates of FN in the three groups - no PP, PP with G-CSF and PP with antibiotics were compared. A Markov model was constructed comparing cost-effectiveness of PP with G-CSF, PP with antibiotics, and secondary prophylaxis (SP) with G-CSF after an episode of FN in a previous cycle. Costs were based on actual resource utilization and supplemented by the published literature, adjusted to 2012 Canadian dollars. Of the 73 (21%) patients who did not receive any PP, 23 (32%) of patients developed FN. Of the 192 (57%) patients receiving PP with G-CSF alone, only two (1%; p < 0.0001) developed FN; and of the 53 (16%) receiving PP with antibiotics alone, six (11%; p < 0.01) developed FN. From a cost-standpoint, PP with G-CSF was less cost-effective than PP with antibiotics. The rate of FN with TC chemotherapy exceeds 30%, and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend PP with G-CSF in this situation. PP with antibiotics is more cost-effective, and is a reasonable option in resource-limited settings or for patients who decline or do not tolerate G-CSF., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Studies comparing the efficacy and cost of peripheral blood stem and progenitor cells mobilization with low-dose cyclophosphamide (LD-CY) and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) against plerixafor and G-CSF, in multiple myeloma (MM) patients treated in the novel therapy-era are not available. Herein, we report mobilization outcomes of 107 patients who underwent transplantation within 1-year of starting induction chemotherapy with novel agents. Patients undergoing mobilization with LD-CY (1.5 gm/m(2)) and G-CSF (n = 74) were compared against patients receiving plerixafor and G-CSF (n = 33). Compared to plerixafor, LD-CY was associated with a significantly lower median peak peripheral blood CD34+ cell count (68/µL vs. 36/µL, P = 0.048), and lower CD34+ cell yield on day 1 of collection (6.9 × 10(6)/kg vs. 2.4 × 10(6)/kg, P = 0.001). Six patients (8.1%) in the LD-CY group experienced mobilization failure, compared to none in the plerixafor group. The total CD34+ cell yield was significantly higher in the plerixafor group (median 11.6 × 10(6)/kg vs. 7 × 10(6)/kg; P-value = 0.001). Mobilization with LD-CY was associated with increased (albeit statistically non-significant) episodes of febrile neutropenia (5.4% vs. 0%; P = 0.24), higher use of intravenous antibiotics (6.7% vs. 3%; P = 0.45), and need for hospitalizations (9.4% vs. 3%; P = 0.24). The average total cost of mobilization in the plerixafor group was significantly higher compared to the LD-CY group ($28,980 vs. $19,626.5 P-value < 0.0001). In conclusion, in MM plerixafor-based mobilization has superior efficacy, but significantly higher mobilization costs compared to LD-CY mobilization. Our data caution against the use of LD-CY in MM patients for mobilization, especially after induction with lenalidomide-containing regimens., (Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: To estimate the cost effectiveness of TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) compared with FAC (fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) when administered as adjuvant therapy to women with node-positive early breast cancer in the United Kingdom (UK), both with and without primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)., Methods: A standard health economic Markov model estimated the cost and outcome for node-positive early breast cancer patients, from initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy to death. Patient-level data were used from the Breast Cancer International Research Group (BCIRG) 001 trial for estimates of the effect of chemotherapy on toxicity and outcome, and an observational data set collected from a UK university hospital provided estimates of resource use and outcome for patients with relapsed disease., Results: Over a 10-year analysis timeframe, the incremental cost per life-year saved associated with the use of TAC rather than FAC was estimated as pound 15,418 (95% CI, pound 13,734 to pound 17,997) and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (IC/QALY) was pound 18,188 (95% CI, pound 14,161 to pound 32,422). The addition of primary G-CSF (lenograstim or filgrastim) to the TAC regimen resulted in an IC/QALY of pound 20,432. The results were most sensitive to the quality-of-life (QOL) score for patients in remission postchemotherapy. However, even if QOL was assumed to be as poor as for patients with metastatic disease, the IC/QALY estimate rose only to pound 32,430., Conclusion: The use of adjuvant TAC rather than FAC for node-positive early breast cancer patients is cost effective, despite the increased drug and toxicity treatment costs, and when primary G-CSF prophylaxis is given to all patients.

Background: The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) can enable dose intensification of chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, given its acquisition cost, it is important to assess its cost effectiveness within a resource-constrained health service., Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness, from the UK NHS perspective, of G-CSF given in addition to doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (ACE) versus ACE alone in the management of SCLC., Methods: Using data from a UK Medical Research Council trial (LU19) to assess chemotherapy dose intensification in patients with previously untreated SCLC of any disease extent, a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken. Resource use data, including hospitalisations and non-protocol cancer treatments, were collected during the first 6-month treatment phase of the trial. Mean costs ( pound, 2003 values) of managing patients in the two arms of the trial were calculated. Mean survival duration was calculated for the two groups using patient-specific follow-up data collected in the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken, and uncertainty in cost effectiveness was expressed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves., Results: The use of G-CSF in addition to ACE chemotherapy is more costly ( 4647 pounds) but results in longer mean survival duration (0.20 years; 0.18 years when discounted). This generates an incremental cost per additional life-year of 25,816 pounds for ACE + G-CSF therapy. The probability of the addition of G-CSF being cost effective, if decision makers are willing to pay 30,000 pounds for an additional life-year, is 0.57. Secondary analysis suggests that cost effectiveness is likely to be sensitive to assumptions about the health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) experienced by patients., Conclusion: Based on data collected in the LU19 trial, chemotherapy dose intensification using G-CSF in SCLC adds to health service costs but increases survival duration. Its overall cost effectiveness is likely to be finely balanced.

To facilitate more economical medical care, we carried out a prospective study of whether a THP-COP regimen (cyclophosphamide, pirarubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) with low-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) would effectively treat non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). From April 2003 through March 2004, we enrolled 19 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed NHL treated at our hospital. The patients were divided into young and elderly groups. Each patient underwent chemotherapy with 8 courses of a THP-COP regimen with a 50-microg dose of lenograstim. Age- and sex-matched historical control patients (n = 141) received NHL diagnoses between 1998 and 2003. Each patient in the control group underwent the same chemotherapy and received a 100-microg dose of lenograstim. The mean (+/-SD) total amounts of G-CSF per cycle of chemotherapy were 332 +/- 103 microg (young patients) and 345 +/- 128 microg (elderly patients) in the low-dose group and 594 +/- 439 microg (young) and 730 +/- 551 microg (elderly) in the control group. The duration of fever in 1 cycle of chemotherapy was 0.3 +/- 1.0 days (young) and 0.1 +/- 0.8 days (elderly) in the low-dose group and 0.5 +/- 1.3 days (young) and 0.8 +/- 2.0 days (elderly) in the control group. A THP-COP regimen with low-dose G-CSF could be administered to NHL patients with safety. Administration of a 50-microg dose of lenograstim is sufficient and recommended for the treatment of NHL.

Background: Provider claims data are used to make medical analyses and decisions, but such databases typically lack important clinical information., Objective: To compare the patterns of use of filgrastim in analyses of a claims database and a medical chart review., Methods: We extracted data from the Medicare 5% sample claims database for the years 1996 through 1998 and from a medical chart review of the Oncology Practice Pattern Survey (OPPS) for the same period to determine the patterns of use of filgrastim in patients with non-Hodgkin.s lymphoma treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone. The analyses were restricted to the first 3 cycles of the chemotherapy., Results: A total of 414 patients in the Medicare database were treated with 1,360 cycles of chemotherapy. The mean duration of filgrastim use in these patients was 6.6 days. In the OPPS database, 80 patients were treated with 152 cycles of chemotherapy, with a mean duration of filgrastim use of 9.3 days., Conclusion: The mean duration of filgrastim use in the OPPS database was greater than that in the Medicare database and was closer to that shown in clinical trials to produce optimal results (approximately 11 days). The actual use of resources may be underestimated in claims databases, owing to their limitations and potential for bias.

Background: The use of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPCs) instead of autologous bone marrow leads to more rapid engraftment following high-dose chemotherapy. Mobilization regimens differ with respect to toxicity, efficiency, and cost., Study Design and Methods: Two cohorts of patients with breast cancer received one of two mobilization regimens: granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at 10 micrograms per kg was given subcutaneously for 5 days, with leukapheresis begun on Day 6, or low-dose cyclophosphamide followed by sequential granulocyte-macrophage-CSF (GM-CSF) at 5 micrograms per kg for 5 days and by G-CSF at 10 micrograms per kg, with leukapheresis begun on Day 11. Results of CD34+ cell collection, engraftment, and costs of mobilization were determined., Results: The combination chemotherapy and growth factor regimen was more efficient in mobilizing CD34+ cells. Sixty-six percent of patients reached a target 4 x 10(6) CD34+ cells per kg in a single leukapheresis session with the combination regimen, compared to 14 percent who received G-CSF alone (p < 0.01). The mean number of leukapheresis sessions required to reach a target of 4 x 10(6) CD34+ cells per kg was 1.3 for the combination regimen and 2.7 for the regimen of G-CSF alone (p < 0.01). One patient in the chemotherapy and growth factor group developed febrile neutropenia. Engraftment was similar in both cohorts of patients. The cost of mobilization, including all supplies and cryopreservation, was $7381 for the G-CSF regimen and $5508 for the chemotherapy regimen (p < 0.05). This reduction was attributed to the lower number of leukapheresis and cryopreservation sessions, which outweighed the slight increase in expense for chemotherapy and growth factor in the combination regimen., Conclusion: This combination mobilization regimen allowed the predictable and efficient collection of CD34+ cells from the peripheral blood in a limited number of leukapheresis sessions, which reduced the cost of mobilization by approximately 25 percent.

Several randomised comparative trials have shown that granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the duration of neutropenia, hospitalisation and intravenous antibacterial use in patients with cancer who are receiving high-dosage antineoplastic therapy. However, one area that has received less attention is the role of G-CSF in standard-dosage antineoplastic regimens. One such treatment that is considered to have a low potential for inducing fever and neutropenia is the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. We conducted a cost-benefit analysis from a societal perspective in order to estimate the net cost or benefit of prophylactic G-CSF in this patient population. This included direct costs for hospitalisation with antibacterial support, as well as indirect societal costs, such as time off work and antineoplastic therapy delays secondary to neutropenia. The findings were then tested by a comprehensive sensitivity analysis. The administration of G-CSF at a dosage of 5 micrograms/kg/day for 11 doses following CHOP resulted in an overall net cost of $Can1257. In the sensitivity analysis, lowering the G-CSF dosage to 2 micrograms/kg/day generated a net benefit of $Can6564, indicating a situation that was cost saving to society. The results of the current study suggest that the use of G-CSF in patients receiving CHOP antineoplastic therapy produces a situation that is close to achieving cost neutrality. However, low-dosage (2 micrograms/kg/day) G-CSF is an economically attractive treatment strategy because it may result in overall savings to society.