Routine Primary Prophylaxis for Febrile Neutropenia with Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (Nivestim) or Pegfilgrastim Is Cost Effective in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients undergoing Curative-Intent R-CHOP Chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of various strategies of myeloid growth factor prophylaxis for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Singapore who are undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy with curative intent.

METHODS

A Markov model was created to compare seven prophylaxis strategies: 1) primary prophylaxis (PP) with nivestim (biosimilar filgrastim) throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 2) PP with nivestim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 3) secondary prophylaxis (SP) with nivestim; 4) PP with pegfilgrastim throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 5) PP with pegfilgrastim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 6) SP with pegfilgrastim; and 7) no prophylaxis (NP). The perspective of a hospital was taken and cost-effectiveness was expressed as the cost per episode of FN avoided over six cycles of chemotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Strategies 3, 6, and 7 were dominated in the base case analysis by strategy 5. The costs associated with strategies 2, 5, 1, and 4 were US$3,813, US$4,056, US$4,545, and US$5,331, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for strategy 5 vs. strategy 2, strategy 1 vs. strategy 5, and strategy 4 vs. strategy 1 were US$13,532, US$22,565, and US$30,452, respectively, per episode of FN avoided. Strategy 2 has the highest probability to be cost-effective (ranged from 48% to 60%) when the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold is lower than US$10,000 per FN episode prevented.

CONCLUSION

In Singapore, routine PP with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (nivestim or pegfilgrastim) is cost-effective for reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving R-CHOP.

[Levofloxacin prophylaxis in neutropenic patients]

Fluorquinolone-prophylaxis has proven useful in preventing infections in high risk neutropenic patients. The objective of this study was to describe the clinical, microbiological and therapeutic characteristics, and outcome of patients in the first episode of febrile neutropenia, comparing those who received levofloxacin prophylaxis with those who didn't. It was a prospective observational study that included all the episodes of inpatients with febrile neutropenia (February 1997- November 2014), also including the first episode in a same patient in different hospitalizations. Of 946 episodes here included, 821 presented high risk febrile neutropenia. A total of 264 cases (27.9%) received levofloxacin prophylaxis. This group consisted of a higher proportion of high risk febrile neutropenia (99.2% vs. 82.3%, p = 0.0001) and patients that had received an hematopoietic stem cell transplant (67.8% vs. 29.3%, p = 0.0001) compared to those who didn't receive prophylaxis. Those who received levofloxacin prophylaxis presented a similar frequency of clinically diagnosed but a lower proportion of microbiologically documented infections (28.8% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.012) than those who didn't receive prophylaxis. The episodes of bacteremia that occurred in the first group were more frequently caused by multidrug resistant bacteria (MDRB) (34.5% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.007) and by extended spectrum beta lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae (19% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.0001). The group that received prophylaxis had a lower proportion of adequate empirical antibiotic treatment (69.7% vs. 83.7%, p = 0.009), with similar outcomes in both groups. We suggest that levofloxacin prophylaxis should be stopped whenever there is a rise in the frequency of MDRB infections in this population.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G(M)-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony-stimulating factors (G(M)-CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony-stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full-text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials and post-hoc retrospective trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and G-CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving GM-CSF or antibiotics.We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G-CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM-CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias.For the trial comparing G-CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection-related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection-related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias.There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM-CSF and antibiotics. Two-year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM-CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non-haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM-CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection-related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

The impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors on febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The study aims to assess the relative efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) products administered as primary prophylaxis (PP) to patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified publications (January 1990 to September 2013) of randomized controlled trials evaluating PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, lenograstim, or lipegfilgrastim in adults receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Direct, indirect, and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) were used to estimate the odds ratio and 95 % credible interval of febrile neutropenia (FN) during cycle 1 and all cycles of chemotherapy combined without adjusting for differences in relative dose intensity (RDI) between study treatment arms.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven publications representing 30 randomized controlled trials were included. Using MTC over all chemotherapy cycles, PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, lenograstim, and lipegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF PP or placebo were associated with statistically significantly reduced FN risk. FN risk was also significantly reduced with pegfilgrastim PP versus filgrastim PP. Over all chemotherapy cycles, there was a numerical but statistically nonsignificant increase in the FN risk for lipegfilgrastim PP versus pegfilgrastim PP. Using MTC in cycle 1, PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF PP or placebo were associated with statistically significantly reduced FN risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, using MTC without adjustment for RDI, PP with all G-CSFs evaluated reduced the FN risk in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Future studies are needed to assess the influence of RDI on FN outcomes and to eliminate potential bias between G-CSF arms receiving more intensive chemotherapy than control arms.

Impact of Prophylactic Levofloxacin on Rates of Bloodstream Infection and Fever in Neutropenic Patients with Multiple Myeloma Undergoing Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Few studies have evaluated the role of antibacterial prophylaxis during neutropenia in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). At our center, levofloxacin prophylaxis was initiated in June 2006 in patients with myeloma who were undergoing autologous HSCT. We compared the incidence of bloodstream infection (BSI) and fever and neutropenia (FN) within 30 days of transplantation before (January 2003 to May 2006) and after (June 2006 to April 2010) the initiation of levofloxacin prophylaxis in patients undergoing autologous HSCT for myeloma. We also compared rates of BSI and FN during the same time periods in autologous HSCT recipients with lymphoma who did not receive antibacterial prophylaxis during either time period. After the initiation of levofloxacin prophylaxis, the BSI rate decreased from 41.2% (49 of 119) to 14.7% (23 of 156) and the rate of FN decreased from 91.6% to 60.9% in patients with myeloma (P < .001, for each). In contrast, rates of BSI (43.1% versus 47.3%; P = .50) and FN (98.8% versus 97.1%; P = .63) did not change in patients with lymphoma. Levofloxacin prophylaxis was independently associated with decreased odds of BSI (odds ratio, .27; 95% confidence interval, .14 to .51; P < .001) and FN (odds ratio, .18; 95% confidence interval, .09 to .36; P < .001) in multivariate analysis. Patients with myeloma had a nonsignificant increase in the risk of BSI due to levofloxacin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (5% versus 1%, P = .08) and Clostridium difficile infection (7% versus 3%, P = .12) after the initiation of levofloxacin prophylaxis but did not have higher rates of BSI due to other resistant bacteria. Levofloxacin prophylaxis is associated with decreased risk of BSI and FN in patients with myeloma undergoing autologous HSCT.

Design Rationale and Development Approach for Pegfilgrastim as a Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor

Filgrastim, a recombinant methionyl human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (r-metHuG-CSF), is efficacious in stimulating neutrophil production and maturation to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) in response to chemotherapy. Because of its relatively short circulating half-life, daily filgrastim injections are required to stimulate neutrophil recovery. In an effort to develop a long-acting form of filgrastim that was as safe and efficacious as filgrastim but had a longer in vivo residence time, a number of strategies were considered. Ultimately, fusion of filgrastim to polyethylene glycol (PEG) was selected. Following extensive analysis of conjugation chemistries as well as in vitro and in vivo characterization of a panel of PEGylated proteins, a construct containing a 20 kDa PEG moiety covalently conjugated to the N-terminus of filgrastim was chosen for advancement as pegfilgrastim. Pegfilgrastim is primarily cleared by neutrophils and neutrophil precursors (rather than the kidneys), meaning that clearance from the circulation is self-regulating and pegfilgrastim is eliminated only after neutrophils start to recover. Importantly, addition of PEG did not alter the mechanism of action and safety profile compared to filgrastim. Clinical evaluation revealed that a single 6 mg dose effectively reduces the duration of neutropenia and risk of FN in patients receiving chemotherapy. This work demonstrates the benefit of using PEGylation to generate pegfilgrastim, which allows for once-per-chemotherapy cycle administration while maintaining similar safety and efficacy profiles as those for multiple daily administration of filgrastim. Approaches that may provide advances for therapeutic agonists of G-CSF receptor are also discussed.

Febrile neutropenia in FEC-D regimen for early stage breast cancer: is there a place for G-CSF primary prophylaxis?

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer clinical trials prove better outcomes for anthracycline-taxane regimes albeit of a higher hematologic toxicity. Original trials may under-estimate febrile neutropenia (FN) event rates.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the occurrence of FN events related to FEC-D for breast cancer treatment in the real-life setting.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 189 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer consecutively treated with FEC-D (3 cycles of 5-FU, Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide followed by 3 cycles of Docetaxel) at our Center during 33 months. FN and related dose delay and reduction, regimen change, G-CSF prophylaxis and hospitalization were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients (27%) developed at least one episode of FN during FEC-D, 21% during Docetaxel cycles. There were 61 (5.6%) FN episodes in 1100 cycles of FEC-D administered, 77% occurred during Docetaxel cycles (46% on the first D cycle). G-CSF was used in 5.8% of cycles. Hospital admission needed in 54.1% of FN events, 16.4% prompted dose reduction and 23% next cycle delay. There were no FN related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

G-CSF prophylaxis is recommended for chemotherapy regimens associated with a FN rate higher than 20%. Based on our FN rates, we now recommend primary G-CSF prophylaxis during the administration of cycles 4 to 6 in FEC-D.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors used in clinical practice: PoloNord Registry-Based Cohort Italian Study

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are widely used to reduce myelotoxicity of chemotherapy and to allow its regular administration. National and international guidelines regulate their use. The aim of the study was to evaluate the use of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim/lenograstim in clinical practice, adherence to ASCO and ESMO guidelines, chemotherapy-related complications and adverse reactions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 645 consecutive patients and 3,150 chemotherapy administrations, receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, as primary/secondary prophylaxis or therapeutic use, for the first time during a line of chemotherapy, were recorded from 08/2008 to 08/2011, in 10 Lombardy Italian cancer centers. Patients and chemotherapy administrations data were examined in a multiple logistic regression analysis model.

RESULTS

Adherence to guidelines: primary prophylaxis, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim/ lenograstim 66%/47% (P = 0.002); secondary prophylaxis, 19.0%/26.8%; but 56.8%/ 53.6% including patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia with grade 3-4 neutropenia. Correct timing start (administration 24-72 h after chemotherapy): pegfilgrastim and filgrastim/lenograstim, 93.2%/61.5% (P <0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest the more correct administration of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis and timing start, compared to filgrastim/lenograstim. In secondary prophylaxis, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors is extended beyond guideline recommendations to support patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia and to guarantee dose intensity. These outcomes suggest both the need of educational activities and the development of predictive tools to better define high risk patients and the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.

G-CSF utilization rate and prescribing patterns in United States: associations between physician and patient factors and GCSF use

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common complication among patients with chemotherapy-induced myelotoxicity and is associated with a number of negative outcomes including prolonged hospitalization, increased medical costs, increased risk of mortality, dose reductions, and delays. Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), granulocyte-macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), and pegylated G-CSF are effective at reducing risk and duration of neutropenia-related events. However, despite guidelines, the use of G-CSF and pegylated G-CSF in the United States has not been consistent and pattern of care studies have focused primarily on G-CSF. A number of studies found that G-CSF is underutilized in patients undergoing chemotherapy treatments associated with a high risk of FN, while being over utilized in patients with a low-risk FN. Wide variations in overuse, underuse, and misuse of G-CSF are associated with a number of physician and patient factors. Improved awareness of the guidelines, feedback to providers regarding proper usage, and understanding of chemotherapy regimens associated with very low risks as well as high risks (>20%) of FN is some of the approaches that could lead to improving care.

Prophylaxis of infectious complications with colony-stimulating factors in adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy-evidence-based guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Working Party AGIHO of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

BACKGROUND

Current evidence on myelopoietic growth factors is difficult to overview for the practicing haematologist/oncologist. International guidelines are sometimes conflicting, exclude certain patient groups, or cannot directly be applied to the German health system. This guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of G-CSF, pegylated G-CSF, and biosimilars to prevent infectious complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, including those with haematological malignancies.

METHODS

We systematically searched and evaluated current evidence. An expert panel discussed the results and recommendations. We then compared our recommendations to current international guidelines.

RESULTS

We summarised the data from eligible studies in evidence tables, developed recommendations for different entities and risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive literature search and expert panel consensus confirmed many key recommendations given by international guidelines. Evidence for growth factors during acute myeloid leukaemia induction chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim use in haematological malignancies was rated lower compared with other guidelines.

[Comparison of garenoxacin and levofloxacin for the prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia]

Placebo-controlled randomized trials have demonstrated that prophylactic levofloxacin (LVFX) significantly reduced the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors. Garenoxacin (GRNX) has been reported to be more effective than LVFX against gram-positive bacteria especially Streptococcus pneumoniae. Against this background we conducted a study to compare the efficacy and safety of GRNX with that of LVFX for the prophylaxis of FN. We retrospectively analyzed 127 patients at high risk for FN who were administered GRNX or LVFX for the prophylaxis of FN that occurred during chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors. Our primary outcome of interest was the incidence of febrile episodes. Secondary outcomes included evidence of bacterial infection and infection focus when febrile episodes were observed; adverse drug reactions and mortality were also evaluated. Febrile episodes were observed in 2 patients administered GRNX and 7 patients administered LVFX (p=0.044). Definitive pathogenic bacteria and infection focus could not be identified in any patient with febrile episodes and all cases of fever resolved simultaneously with the recovery from neutropenia. We observed 4 cases of rashes and 3 cases of liver dysfunction in the GRNX group and 2 cases of rashes and 2 cases of liver dysfunctions were observed in the LVFX group(not statistically significant in both the groups). No severe adverse effects or deaths were associated with either of these drugs. These results suggest that GRNX is useful for the prophylaxis of FN.

[Overview of guidelines for proper use of the G-CSF(2013 edition)]

Guidelines for proper use of the G-CSF(2001 edition)by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology have been revised the first time in 12 years. The differences between the first edition and the new one are as follows: The new guidelines(2013 edition) adopted the clinical question format, and used the level of evidence and recommendation grades, along with the Handbook of Clinical Guidelines of Minds(2007 edition). There are relatively few evidence-based randomized controlled trials(RCTs) that can inform G-CSF use in Japan at present. Thus, we had to select the evidence from RCTs conducted in Europe and the USA when setting the recommendation level. Guidelines from Europe and the USA were also referred to; however, because the incidence of febrile neutropenia(FN)is presumed to differ between Japan and the USA/Europe, the clinical trials conducted in Japan were investigated as much as possible. New chapters on topics such as biosimilars, pegfilgrastim(domestic non-release), and the dosage and method of G-CSF administration(medical insurance in Japan)were added. The chemotherapy regimen-specific incidence of FN in Japan for primary prophylactic G-CSF administration and G-CSF use in hematological malignancy were described in detail. Nurses, pharmacists, and medical doctors participated in guideline steering committee, because the new guidelines are directed at a wide range of health care workers.

[Use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor(G-CSF)in patients with cancer at high risk of febrile neutropenia on the basis of high age and complications, recommendations for patients receiving radiotherapy, and adverse events because of G-CSF]

Neutropenic complications are the primary dose-limiting toxic effects observed in patients treated with systemic cancer chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy should be promptly administered to patients with febrile neutropenia(FN). The risk assessment of FN includes the disease characteristics, chemotherapy regimen, individual patient risk factors, and treatment intent. After considering such risk factors of FN, clinicians should appropriately consider the use of granulocytecolony stimulating factor(G-CSF)as a prophylactic or therapeutic measure. Some types of lymphoma can be cured with chemotherapy. The incidence of FN in patients receiving the standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone(R-CHOP)regimen is approximately 20%. Primary prophylactic use of G-CSF is recommended for patients agedB 65 years having diffuse aggressive lymphoma and treated with curative chemotherapy in an effort to improve their quality of life(QOL). Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of FN in patients at high risk, on the basis of factors other than age. G-CSF should be avoided in patients receiving concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy, particularly in those with cancer involving the mediastinum. The adverse events of G-CSF are generally graded mild to moderate; however, rare life-threatening adverse effects have been published in the literature. A clinical practice guideline for the use of G-CSF was published by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology in 2013. On the basis of this guideline, the above issues have been discussed in this paper.

[Primary and secondary prophylactic administration of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor(G-CSF)for febrile neutropenia]

The Japanese guidelines for the proper use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor(G-CSF)have been revised on the basis of the current international guidelines and latest evidence. The guidelines for primary and secondary prophylactic administration of G-CSF are clearly defined in the revised version. Primary prophylactic administration is recommended as per the incidence of febrile neutropenia(FN): it is highly recommended for patients with an FN rate>20%, but selectively recommended for patients with an FN rate<20%. Secondary prophylactic administration is recommended only for patients who should be maintained on a constant dose of G-CSF for curative purposes. The revised version aims to improve, not limit, the clinical use of G-CSF based on both patient- and evidence-oriented decisions in clinical practice.

Primary vs secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for the reduction of febrile neutropenia risk in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: cost-effectiveness analyses

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary vs secondary prophylaxis (PP vs SP) with pegfilgrastim to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to compare PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim in a cohort of patients receiving six cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP plus rituximab (CHOP-R) chemotherapy. Model inputs, including efficacy of pegfilgrastim in reducing risk of FN and costs, were estimated from publicly available sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per life-year saved (LYS), per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and per FN event avoided over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess sensitivity and robustness of results.

RESULTS

Lifetime costs for PP were $5000 greater than for SP; however, PP was associated with fewer FN events and more LYs and QALYs gained vs SP. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PP vs SP for CHOP were $13,400 per FN event avoided, $29,500 per QALY gained, and $25,800 per LYS. CHOP-R results were similar ($15,000 per FN event avoided, $33,000 per QALY gained, and $28,900 per LYS). Results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk, cost per FN episode, and odds ratio for reduced relative dose intensity due to prior FN event. PP was cost-effective vs SP in 85% of simulations at a $50,000 per QALY threshold.

LIMITATIONS

In the absence of NHL-specific data, estimates for pegfilgrastim efficacy and relative risk reduction of FN were based on available data for neoadjuvant TAC in patients with breast cancer. Baseline risks of FN for CHOP and CHOP-R were assumed to be equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

PP with pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to SP with pegfilgrastim in NHL patients receiving CHOP or CHOP-R.