T Ichimura1, H Nomura2, H Shimizu3, Y Machida3, K Suzuki4. 1. Department of Hospital Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, Showa University, Japan. 2. Department of Date Science/Pharmacy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan. 3. Department of Pharmacy, The Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Japan; Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Rehabilitation Sciences, Showa University, Japan. 4. Division of Applied Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Hoshi University, Tokyo, Japan;, Email: kenichi-suzuki@hoshi.ac.jp.
Abstract
Objective: The efficacy of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy in treating esophageal cancer has been reported. However, febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially serious adverse event of DCF therapy with an incidence of 10 to 40%. Pegfilgrastim, a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), has been shown to have a primary prophylactic role in FN. However, it has been suggested that excessive use of expensive G-CSF should be avoided. Therefore, we performed a cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis using decision tree modelling. Methods: We used a decision tree analysis model based on the report of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim. Based on a previous study, the FN incidence rate was set at 40.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 11.9-68.1) for the pegfilgrastim group and 43.5% (95%CI: 21.6-65.4) for the no pegfilgrastim group. The FN treatment cost was US$726.63, and the duration of FN was 3.65±1.20 days. The utility value of patients who received DCF therapy was 0.643, and the change in utility value at FN onset was -0.15. Expected cost, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated, and cost-utility analysis was performed. Results: The ICER of pegfilgrastim was 184,976.75 USD/QALY. As a result of sensitivity analysis, the utility of FN had the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness analysis, followed by the drug cost of pegfilgrastim. Conclusion: Primary prophylaxis of FN with pegfilgrastim might not be cost-effectiveness. In determining whether to administer pegfilgrastim it is necessary to consider patient factors, not just the incidence of FN.
Objective: The efficacy of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy in treating esophageal cancer has been reported. However, febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially serious adverse event of DCF therapy with an incidence of 10 to 40%. Pegfilgrastim, a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), has been shown to have a primary prophylactic role in FN. However, it has been suggested that excessive use of expensive G-CSF should be avoided. Therefore, we performed a cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis using decision tree modelling. Methods: We used a decision tree analysis model based on the report of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim. Based on a previous study, the FN incidence rate was set at 40.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 11.9-68.1) for the pegfilgrastim group and 43.5% (95%CI: 21.6-65.4) for the no pegfilgrastim group. The FN treatment cost was US$726.63, and the duration of FN was 3.65±1.20 days. The utility value of patients who received DCF therapy was 0.643, and the change in utility value at FN onset was -0.15. Expected cost, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated, and cost-utility analysis was performed. Results: The ICER of pegfilgrastim was 184,976.75 USD/QALY. As a result of sensitivity analysis, the utility of FN had the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness analysis, followed by the drug cost of pegfilgrastim. Conclusion: Primary prophylaxis of FN with pegfilgrastim might not be cost-effectiveness. In determining whether to administer pegfilgrastim it is necessary to consider patient factors, not just the incidence of FN.