Literature DB >> 10172484

Economic analysis of lenograstim in the correction of neutropenia following chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

E Souêtre1, W Qing.   

Abstract

A prospective economic analysis of lenograstim and placebo was performed as part of a randomised double-blind trial in 162 patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). The primary clinical end-point was the percentage of patients experiencing > or = 1 documented infection in each treatment group. The cost of hospitalisation and the cost of medical services used were the primary economic end-points. Economic analysis was based on the French Hospital perspective. Over the 56-day study period, patients in the placebo group received more days of inpatient intravenous (8.9 vs 5.3 days; p < 0.01) and oral (5.3 vs 4.2 days) antibiotic therapy than those in the lenograstim group. This difference was due to a higher rate of documented infection in the placebo group. Patients treated with placebo also spent more days in hospital for reasons other than administration of chemotherapy (18.5 vs 14.4; p < 0.05). The number of days of chemotherapy was significantly greater in the lenograstim group than in the placebo group (19.4 vs 17.5; p < 0.001) because of shorter delays between chemotherapy cycles in the lenograstim group. The use of lenograstim to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with NHL was associated with a reduction in total direct medical costs (excluding the cost of lenograstim) of FF7297 as a result of reduced patient morbidity. Furthermore, the higher rate of completion of chemotherapy in the lenograstim group may lead to better long term survival; this observation deserves further clinical investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 10172484     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199400062-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  7 in total

Review 1.  Methodological issues in economic assessments of new therapies. The case of colony-stimulating factors.

Authors:  M Drummond; J Menzin; G Oster
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  The importance of dose and dose intensity in lung cancer chemotherapy.

Authors:  N Murray
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 4.929

3.  Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rG-CSF): pharmacoeconomic considerations in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Authors:  D Faulds; N J Lewis; R J Milne
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Pharmacoeconomics: therapeutic and economic considerations in treating the critically ill patient.

Authors:  V S Crane
Journal:  DICP       Date:  1990-11

5.  Prognostic significance of received relative dose intensity in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients: application to LNH-87 protocol. The GELA. (Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte).

Authors:  E Lepage; C Gisselbrecht; C Haioun; C Sebban; H Tilly; A Bosly; P Morel; R Herbrecht; F Reyes; B Coiffier
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 6.  Management of the febrile neutropenic patient with cancer.

Authors:  R Gucalp
Journal:  Oncology (Williston Park)       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 2.990

7.  The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to increase the intensity of treatment with doxorubicin in patients with advanced breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  M H Bronchud; A Howell; D Crowther; P Hopwood; L Souza; T M Dexter
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 7.640

  7 in total
  8 in total

1.  Challenges to the economic evaluation of new biotechnological interventions in healthcare.

Authors:  J Mason
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Low-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor overcomes neutropenia in the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with higher cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  Takeshi Hara; Hisashi Tsurumi; Senji Kasahara; Nobuhiro Kanemura; Takeshi Yoshikawa; Naoe Goto; Yasushi Kojima; Toshiki Yamada; Michio Sawada; Takeshi Takahashi; Masami Oyama; Eiichi Tomita; Hisataka Moriwaki
Journal:  Int J Hematol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.490

Review 3.  Lenograstim: an update of its pharmacological properties and use in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and related clinical settings.

Authors:  C J Dunn; K L Goa
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 4.  Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of lenograstim. Conclusions and future directions.

Authors:  J Menzin; G Oster; V Cour-Chabernaud; D Richard
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Overview of the lenograstim pharmacoeconomics programme.

Authors:  G Oster; J Menzin; D Richard; V Cour-Chabernaud
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  Implications of the European Organisation for Research And Treatment Of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for lymphoma care.

Authors:  Ruth Pettengell; Matti Aapro; Ercole Brusamolino; Dolores Caballero; Bertrand Coiffier; Michael Pfreundschuh; Marek Trneny; Jan Walewski
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.859

Review 7.  Lenograstim. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy in neutropenia and related clinical settings.

Authors:  J E Frampton; Y E Yarker; K L Goa
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 8.  Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma.

Authors:  Julia Bohlius; Christine Herbst; Marcel Reiser; Guido Schwarzer; Andreas Engert
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-10-08
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.