Lan Gao1, Shu-Chuen Li2. 1. Deakin Health Economics, Centre for Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap St, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. lan.gao@deakin.edu.au. 2. School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the cost-effectiveness of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis in women with early stage breast cancer. METHODS: Two Markov models including a chemotherapy and a post-chemotherapy models were constructed with a time horizon of 12 weeks and 30 years, respectively. All the transition probabilities and utility weights were derived from clinical trials and/or published literatures. The costs populated in the chemotherapy model were extracted from Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme and the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. No cost was considered in the post-chemotherapy model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: From the first chemotherapy model, lipegfilgrastim was associated with fewer episodes of severe neutropenia (SN) (N = 142 per 1000 patients treated), febrile neutropenia (FN) (N = 29 per 1000 patients treated), infection (N = 17 per 1000 patients treated) and chemotherapy delayed (N = 170 per 1000 patients treated) and lower cost ($116.88 less per patient treated). The post-chemotherapy model indicated lipegfilgrastim led to higher gains in both life years (18.72 versus 18.61) and quality-adjusted life years (17.28 versus 17.18) in comparison to pegfilgrastim. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results from the chemotherapy model is very sensitive to the baseline risk of SN; while from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, lipegfilgrastim was likely to be more cost-effective than pegfilgrastim based on two models. CONCLUSIONS: Lipegfilgrastim was likely to be a cost-effective alternative to pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis. The sensitivity analysis showed the confidence interval for the cost and benefit outcomes overlapped to a great extent, suggesting an insignificant difference.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the cost-effectiveness of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis in women with early stage breast cancer. METHODS: Two Markov models including a chemotherapy and a post-chemotherapy models were constructed with a time horizon of 12 weeks and 30 years, respectively. All the transition probabilities and utility weights were derived from clinical trials and/or published literatures. The costs populated in the chemotherapy model were extracted from Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme and the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. No cost was considered in the post-chemotherapy model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: From the first chemotherapy model, lipegfilgrastim was associated with fewer episodes of severe neutropenia (SN) (N = 142 per 1000 patients treated), febrile neutropenia (FN) (N = 29 per 1000 patients treated), infection (N = 17 per 1000 patients treated) and chemotherapy delayed (N = 170 per 1000 patients treated) and lower cost ($116.88 less per patient treated). The post-chemotherapy model indicated lipegfilgrastim led to higher gains in both life years (18.72 versus 18.61) and quality-adjusted life years (17.28 versus 17.18) in comparison to pegfilgrastim. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results from the chemotherapy model is very sensitive to the baseline risk of SN; while from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, lipegfilgrastim was likely to be more cost-effective than pegfilgrastim based on two models. CONCLUSIONS: Lipegfilgrastim was likely to be a cost-effective alternative to pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis. The sensitivity analysis showed the confidence interval for the cost and benefit outcomes overlapped to a great extent, suggesting an insignificant difference.
Authors: Hartmut Link; G Illerhaus; U M Martens; A Salar; R Depenbusch; A Köhler; M Engelhardt; S Mahlmann; M Zaiss; A Lammerich; P Bias; A Buchner Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 3.603