OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic impact of adding granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to amphotericin B to treat a presumed deep-seated fungal infection in neutropenic patients. This study was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) hospital sector. DESIGN: We used our previously reported trial as the clinical basis for the analysis (see Participants and interventions). These data were combined with resource utilisation data, enabling us to construct a decision tree model of the treatment paths attributable to managing patients in each arm of the trial. The model was used to calculate the cost effectiveness of using amphotericin B plus G-CSF compared to amphotericin B monotherapy in neutropenic patients with a presumed deep-seated fungal infection. SETTING: An adult leukaemia/bone marrow transplant (BMT) unit in a large UK teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a neutrophil count of < 0.5 x 10(9)/L and having a presumed deep-seated fungal infection after either chemotherapy or stem cell/bone marrow transplantation for haematological malignancy. INTERVENTIONS: 29 patients received intravenous amphotericin B (1 mg/kg daily) plus subcutaneous G-CSF (3 to 5 micrograms/kg daily) and 30 patients received intravenous amphotericin B (1 mg/kg daily) monotherapy. The clinical trial showed that 62% of patients responded to antifungal treatment with amphotericin B plus G-CSF compared to 33% of patients who responded to amphotericin B monotherapy (p = 0.027). Nonresponders went on to receive a lipid formulation of amphotericin B. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND RESULTS: The mean cost per patient treated with amphotericin B plus G-CSF was 11,247 Pounds and the corresponding cost for amphotericin B monotherapy was 14,317 Pounds (1996/1997 values)--a cost reduction of 3070 Pounds per patient. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the addition of G-CSF to conventional amphotericin B in the treatment of a presumed deep-seated fungal infection offers not only clinical benefits, but cost benefits which are robust to changes in clinical and economic parameters. CONCLUSION: From a UK hospital perspective, amphotericin B plus G-CSF is cost effective compared with amphotericin B monotherapy in managing a presumed deep-seated fungal infection in neutropenic patients. This result should provide strong arguments to clinicians and policy-makers for the adoption of this treatment strategy in such patients.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic impact of adding granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to amphotericin B to treat a presumed deep-seated fungal infection in neutropenicpatients. This study was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) hospital sector. DESIGN: We used our previously reported trial as the clinical basis for the analysis (see Participants and interventions). These data were combined with resource utilisation data, enabling us to construct a decision tree model of the treatment paths attributable to managing patients in each arm of the trial. The model was used to calculate the cost effectiveness of using amphotericin B plus G-CSF compared to amphotericin B monotherapy in neutropenicpatients with a presumed deep-seated fungal infection. SETTING: An adult leukaemia/bone marrow transplant (BMT) unit in a large UK teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a neutrophil count of < 0.5 x 10(9)/L and having a presumed deep-seated fungal infection after either chemotherapy or stem cell/bone marrow transplantation for haematological malignancy. INTERVENTIONS: 29 patients received intravenous amphotericin B (1 mg/kg daily) plus subcutaneous G-CSF (3 to 5 micrograms/kg daily) and 30 patients received intravenous amphotericin B (1 mg/kg daily) monotherapy. The clinical trial showed that 62% of patients responded to antifungal treatment with amphotericin B plus G-CSF compared to 33% of patients who responded to amphotericin B monotherapy (p = 0.027). Nonresponders went on to receive a lipid formulation of amphotericin B. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND RESULTS: The mean cost per patient treated with amphotericin B plus G-CSF was 11,247 Pounds and the corresponding cost for amphotericin B monotherapy was 14,317 Pounds (1996/1997 values)--a cost reduction of 3070 Pounds per patient. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the addition of G-CSF to conventional amphotericin B in the treatment of a presumed deep-seated fungal infection offers not only clinical benefits, but cost benefits which are robust to changes in clinical and economic parameters. CONCLUSION: From a UK hospital perspective, amphotericin B plus G-CSF is cost effective compared with amphotericin B monotherapy in managing a presumed deep-seated fungal infection in neutropenicpatients. This result should provide strong arguments to clinicians and policy-makers for the adoption of this treatment strategy in such patients.
Authors: Leon E Cosler; Adi Eldar-Lissai; Eva Culakova; Nicole M Kuderer; David Dale; Jeffrey Crawford; Gary H Lyman Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2007 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Lorenz Grigull; Andreas Beilken; Hansjoerg Schmid; P Kirschner; Karl-Walter Sykora; Christin Linderkamp; Frank Donnerstag; Lilia Goudeva; Hans-Gert Heuft; Karl Welte Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-02-16 Impact factor: 3.603