This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Timmer-Bonte, J. N.H. Articles by Tjan-Heijnen, V. C.G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Timmer-Bonte, J. N.H. Articles by Tjan-Heijnen, V. C.G. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Modeling the Cost Effectiveness of Secondary Febrile Neutropenia Prophylaxis During Standard-Dose Chemotherapy

Johanna N.H. Timmer-Bonte, Eddy M.M. Adang, Evelien Termeer, Johan L. Severens, Vivianne C.G. Tjan-Heijnen

From the Departments of Medical Oncology, Pulmonary Diseases, and Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Health Technology Assessment, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen; Department of Health Organisation, Policy, and Economics, Maastricht University; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and MTA; and Department Internal Medicine, Division Medical Oncology, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands

Corresponding author: J.N.H. Timmer-Bonte, MD, 452 Department of Medical Oncology/Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands; e-mail: J.Timmer{at}onco.umcn.nl

Purpose Current guidelines (ie, by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) do not recommend secondary infection prophylaxis, whereas, in contrast, caregivers prefer secondary prophylaxis to chemotherapy dose reduction after an episode of febrile neutropenia (FN). Because granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is expensive, this study investigates the economic consequences of secondary prophylactic use of different prophylactic strategies (antibiotics, antibiotics plus G-CSF, and a combined sequential approach) in a population at risk of FN, using a Markov model.

Methods The input for the model is mainly based on the clinical outcome and patient-based cost data set (adopting the health care payer's perspective for the Netherlands) derived from a randomized study on primary prophylaxis in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients; establishing mean cost of an episode FN of 3,290 and prophylaxis of 79 (antibiotics) ± 1,616 (G-CSF) per cycle. The economic analysis was analyzed probabilistically using first- and second-order Monte Carlo simulation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as cost per FN-free cycle.

Results Secondary prophylaxis with antibiotics was the least expensive strategy (mean, 4,496/patient). The strategy antibiotics plus G-CSF was most expensive (mean, 8,998/patient). Comparison of these two strategies resulted in an unacceptably high ICER (343,110 per FN-free cycle) in the Dutch context. In scenarios using higher FN-related costs (as found in the United States), the strategies are less distinct in their monetary effects, but still favor antibiotics.

Conclusion This model-based economic analysis demonstrates that in the Netherlands and most likely also in the United States, if secondary prophylaxis is preferred, the strategy with antibiotics is recommended.

Supported by a research grant from the Dutch Healthcare Insurance Board (OG 99 053).

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?