Search

The move toward early detection and treatment of cancer presents challenges for value assessment using traditional endpoints. Current cancer management rarely considers the full economic and societal benefits of therapies. Our study used a modified Delphi process to develop principles for defining and assessing value of cancer therapies that aligns with the current trajectory of oncology research and reflects broader notions of value. 24 experts participated in consensus-building activities across 5 months (16 took part in structured interactions, including a survey, plenary sessions, interviews, and off-line discussions, while 8 participated in interviews). Discussion focused on: 1) which oncology-relevant endpoints should be used for assessing treatments for early-stage cancer and access decisions for early-stage treatments, and 2) the importance of additional value components and how these can be integrated in value assessments. The expert group reached consensus on 4 principles in relation to the first area (consider oncology-relevant endpoints other than overall survival; build evidence for endpoints that provide earlier indication of efficacy; develop evidence for the next generation of predictive measures; use managed entry agreements supported by ongoing evidence collection to address decision-maker evidence needs) and 3 principles in relation to the second (routinely use patient reported outcomes in value assessments; assess broad economic impact of new medicines; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society).

Introduction Parenteral anticoagulants may improve outcomes in patients with cancer by reducing risk of venous thromboembolic disease and through a direct antitumour effect. Study-level systematic reviews indicate a reduction in venous thromboembolism and provide moderate confidence that a small survival benefit exists. It remains unclear if any patient subgroups experience potential benefits.Methods and analysis First, we will perform a comprehensive systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, hand search scientific conference abstracts and check clinical trials registries for randomised control trials of participants with solid cancers who are administered parenteral anticoagulants. We anticipate identifying at least 15 trials, exceeding 9000 participants. Second, we will perform an individual participant data meta-analysis to explore the magnitude of survival benefit and address whether subgroups of patients are more likely to benefit from parenteral anticoagulants. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. For our primary outcome, mortality, we will use multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect. We will adjust analysis for important prognostic characteristics. To investigate whether intervention effects vary by predefined subgroups of patients, we will test interaction terms in the statistical model. Furthermore, we will develop a risk-prediction model for venous thromboembolism, with a focus on control patients of randomised trials.Ethics and dissemination Aside from maintaining participant anonymity, there are no major ethical concerns. This will be the first individual participant data meta-analysis addressing heparin use among patients with cancer and will directly influence recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Major cancer guideline development organisations will use eventual results to inform their guideline recommendations. Several knowledge users will disseminate results through presentations at clinical rounds as well as national and international conferences. We will prepare an evidence brief and facilitate dialogue to engage policymakers and stakeholders in acting on findings.Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42013003526.

ABSTRACTObjectives:Prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Randomized clinical trials have shown that pegfilgrastim, a 2nd-generation G-CSF, is at least as effective as the 1st-generation G-CSF filgrastim. In the meta-analysis of trials pegfilgrastim performed better than filgrastim with respect to FN risk. The incremental cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (starting in cycle 1 and continuing in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy) with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim used for 6 days (as is often used in clinical practice) was estimated in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin''s lymphoma (NHL) receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the United States.Methods:A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health insurer''s perspective with a life-time study horizon. The model considered direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits due to reduced FN-related mortality. Inputs for the model were obtained from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across plausible ranges in parameter values.Results:The incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis was 2167/FN episode avoided. Adding survival benefit from avoiding FN mortality yielded an ICER of 5532/LY gained or 6190/QALY gained. When the potential benefit of optimized chemotherapy was included, the ICER was 1494/LY gained or 1677/QALY gained. The most influential factors included cost of pegfilgrastim, relative risk of FN between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, FN case-fatality rate, cost of filgrastim and baseline FN risk.Conclusions:Pegfilgrastim is cost-effective in primary prophylaxis of FN compared to 6 days per cycle of filgrastim, in patients with NHL receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy (e.g., cyclophosphamide  doxorubicin  vincristine  prednisolone [CHOP-21]) chemotherapy. Study limitations included lack of direct evidence linking G-CSF use with a reduction in FN-related mortality and limited data that show a relationship between relative dose intensity (RDI) and cancer-specific patient survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: While head-to-head clinical trials demonstrate pegfilgrastim to be as efficacious as filgrastim in reducing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, these studies lacked the statistical power to demonstrate better outcomes with one therapy compared to the other. Our objective was to obtain a pooled estimate of the effect of pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim on incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and related outcomes among patients with solid tumors and malignant lymphomas receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.Research design and methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles published from January 1, 1990 to August 31, 2006 reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim. We only accepted studies in which filgrastim (5 μg/kg/day) and pegfilgrastim (100 μg/kg or a fixed dose of 6 mg) were administered at approved doses indicated on the package insert. Pooled relative risk (RR) was estimated using the conservative random effects, empirical Bayesian method of Hedges and Olkin.Main outcome measures: Rates of grade IV neutropenia and of FN, time to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery, and bone pain.Results: We identified five RCTs, with a total of 617 patients, evaluating the efficacy of a single dose of pegfilgrastim per cycle versus daily filgrastim injections. Although only one study had a statistically significant difference in FN reductions favoring pegfilgrastim over filgrastim (relative risk reduction of 50%; p = 0.027), the pooled RR showed a statistically significant favorable result for pegfilgrastim (RR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43–0.97). Grade IV neutropenia rates (for cycle 1: RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91–1.08; cycle 2: RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70–1.11; cycle 3: RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.47–1.36; cycle 4: RR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71–1.13), time to ANC (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI, −0.34–0.56), and incidence of bone pain (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.76–1.19) were similar between the two G-CSFs. The included trials varied in the type of cancer, chemotherapy regimen and type of trial.Conclusion: A single dose of pegfilgrastim performed better than a median of 10–14 days of filgrastim in reducing FN rates for patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]