Economic analyses of phase III cooperative cancer group clinical trials: are they feasible?

Evaluating the Time Toxicity of Cancer Treatment in the CCTG CO.17 Trial

PURPOSE

The time spent in pursuing treatments for advanced cancer can be substantial. We have previously proposed a pragmatic and patient-centered metric of these time costs-which we term time toxicity-as any day with physical health care system contact. This includes outpatient visits (eg, bloodwork, scans, etc), emergency department visits, and overnight stays in a health care facility. Herein, we sought to assess time toxicity in a completed randomized controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 RCT that evaluated weekly cetuximab infusions versus supportive care alone in 572 patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Initial results reported a 6-week improvement in median overall survival (OS) with cetuximab (6.1 v 4.6 months). Subsequent analyses reported that benefit was restricted to patients with K-ras wild-type tumors. We calculated patient-level time toxicity by analyzing trial forms. We considered days without health care contact as home days. We compared medians of time measures across arms and stratified results by K-ras status.

RESULTS

In the overall population, median time toxic days were higher in the cetuximab arm (28 v 10, P < .001) although median home days were not statistically different between arms (140 v 121, P = .09). In patients with K-ras-mutated tumors, cetuximab was associated with almost numerically equal home days (114 days v 112 days, P = .571) and higher time toxicity (23 days v 11 days, P < .001). In patients with K-ras wild-type tumors, cetuximab was associated with more home days (186 v 132, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This proof-of-concept feasibility study demonstrates that measures of time toxicity can be extracted through secondary analyses of RCTs. In CO.17, despite an overall OS benefit with cetuximab, home days were statistically similar across arms. Such data can supplement traditional survival end points in RCTs. Further work should refine and validate the measure prospectively.

Cost-effectiveness of adding rituximab to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide for the treatment of previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia

A recent phase III trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) associated with adding rituximab to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) compared to FC in treatment of previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). A cost-effectiveness analysis of R-FC over FC was performed from a US third-party payer perspective over a lifetime horizon in the base case. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. A secondary analysis was performed by also considering a societal perspective. R-FC was associated with an incremental 1.15 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to FC and resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23 530 per QALY in the base case and $31 513 per QALY considering a societal perspective. Results were most sensitive to time horizon, discount rate and unit drug cost for rituximab. Within the limitations of modeling long-term outcomes, R-FC is cost-effective for previously untreated CLL.

Costs of home versus inpatient treatment for fever and neutropenia: analysis of a multicenter randomized trial

PURPOSE

For patients with cancer who have febrile neutropenia, relative costs of home versus hospital treatment, including unreimbursed costs borne by patients and families, are poorly characterized. We estimated costs from a randomized trial of patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia for whom outpatient care was feasible, comparing inpatient treatment with discharge to home care after inpatient observation.

METHODS

We collected direct medical and self-reported indirect costs for 57 inpatient and 35 outpatient treatment episodes of patients enrolled in a randomized trial from 1996 through 2000. Charges from hospital bills were converted to costs using Medicare cost-to-charge ratios. Patients kept daily logs of out-of-pocket payments and time spent by informal caregivers providing care. Dollar amounts were standardized to June 2008.

RESULTS

Mean total charges for the hospital arm were 49% higher than for the home treatment arm ($16,341 v $10,977; P < .01). Mean estimated total costs for the hospital arm were 30% higher ($10,143 v $7,830; P < .01). Inspection of sparse available data suggests that payments made were similar by treatment arm. Inpatients and their caregivers spent more out of pocket than their outpatient counterparts (mean, $201 v $74; P < .01). Informal caregivers for both treatment arms reported similar time caring and lost from work.

CONCLUSION

Home intravenous antibiotic treatment was less costly than continued inpatient care for carefully selected patients with cancer having febrile neutropenia without significantly increased indirect costs or caregiver burden.

Economic analysis of NCIC CTG JBR.10: a randomized trial of adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin compared with observation in early stage non-small-cell lung cancer--a report of the Working Group on Economic Analysis, and the Lung Disease Site Group, National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group

PURPOSE

National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group JBR.10 study is among the landmark trials that have established third generation platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy as the standard of care after resection of stages IB-II NSCLC, improving absolute 5-year survival by 15% and median survival by 21 months. This cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy from the perspective of Canada's public health care system was undertaken based on the JBR.10 study population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The primary outcome of the study was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed in dollars per life-year gained (LYG). Direct medical resource utilization data were collected retrospectively from trial data and medical records of patients enrolled in the JBR.10 study at the five largest accruing Canadian centers, from the time of random assignment until death or study closure (April 2004). Survival and available costs (2005 Canadian dollars [$CAD]) are presented both with and without discounting at 5% per year.

RESULTS

Utilization data were collected from 172 Canadian patients (36% of the trial population), 85 randomly assigned to observation and 87 randomly assigned to chemotherapy. The mean costs of treatment per patient in the observation and adjuvant chemotherapy arms were $23,878 and $31,319, respectively, with an ICER of CAD$7,175/LYG discounted (95% CI, -$3,463 to $41,565), and $10,096/LYG undiscounted (95% CI, -$819 to $55,651).

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin is a highly cost effective treatment that compares very favorably with other standard health care interventions.

Markov-modeling for the administration of platinum analogues and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy as well as topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin as second-line chemotherapy with epithelial ovarian carcinoma

PURPOSE

So far there is no analysis available on the cost effectiveness of the paclitaxel/platinum-analogue combination versus carboplatin monotherapy with ovarian cancer. Up-to-now only a cost-utility analysis on ovarian carcinoma has been published (Ortega et al. in Gynecol Oncol 66(3):454-463, 1997), which in addition to the first-line chemotherapy included second-line chemotherapy with effectiveness and cost data in the analysis. Therefore, within the scope of our study the cost effectiveness of platinum analogues and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy as well as topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin as second-lie chemotherapy was to be determined with epithelial ovarian carcinoma.

METHODS

For this purpose a decision-making Markov model was developed which represents the medical and economic consequences of the administration of paclitaxel and platinum derivatives in first-line chemotherapy and the administration of topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin in second-line chemotherapy in the treatment of epithelial ovarian carcinoma by means of data from the literature. Patients were treated either in the early (FIGO stage I-IIa) or advanced stage (FIGO stage IIb-IV).

RESULTS

The therapeutic strategy caboplatin followed by topotecan costs 20,123.91 euros, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by liposomal doxorubicin 22,336.57 euros, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/pactlitaxel followed by liposomal topotecan 29,820.64 euros and the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by liposomal doxorubicin 31,560.47 euros from the time of diagnosis until death or survival within 5 years. With lives saved, accordingly of 2.55, 2.70, 2.60 and 2.65 years' costs amounted to 7,891 euros, 8,270.35 euros, and 11,453.62 euros per year of life saved.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the threshold value of social willingness to pay 45,500 euros per year of life saved, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by topotecan, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by liposomal doxorubicin, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by topotcan and the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by liposomal doxorubicin can be evaluated to be cost effective.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor to Primary Prophylaxis With Antibiotics in Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose

Recently, a Dutch, randomized, phase III trial demonstrated that, in small-cell lung cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the addition of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) to prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced the incidence of FN in cycle 1 (24% v 10%; P = .01). We hypothesized that selecting patients at risk of FN might increase the cost-effectiveness of GCSF prophylaxis.

Methods

Economic analysis was conducted alongside the clinical trial and was focused on the health care perspective. Primary outcome was the difference in mean total costs per patient in cycle 1 between both prophylactic strategies. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as costs per percent-FN-prevented.

Results

For the first cycle, the mean incremental costs of adding GCSF amounted to 681 euro (95% CI, −36 to 1,397 euro) per patient. For the entire treatment period, the mean incremental costs were substantial (5,123 euro; 95% CI, 3,908 to 6,337 euro), despite a significant reduction in the incidence of FN and related savings in medical care consumption. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 50 euro per percent decrease of the probability of FN (95% CI, −2 to 433 euro) in cycle 1, and the acceptability for this willingness to pay was approximately 50%.

Conclusion

Despite the selection of patients at risk of FN, the addition of GCSF to primary antibiotic prophylaxis did not result in cost savings. If policy makers are willing to pay 240 euro for each percent gain in effect (ie, 3,360 euro for a 14% reduction in FN), the addition of GCSF can be considered cost effective.

Low-Dose Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Overcomes Neutropenia in the Treatment of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma with Higher Cost-Effectiveness

To facilitate more economical medical care, we carried out a prospective study of whether a THP-COP regimen (cyclophosphamide, pirarubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) with low-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) would effectively treat non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). From April 2003 through March 2004, we enrolled 19 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed NHL treated at our hospital. The patients were divided into young and elderly groups. Each patient underwent chemotherapy with 8 courses of a THP-COP regimen with a 50-microg dose of lenograstim. Age- and sex-matched historical control patients (n = 141) received NHL diagnoses between 1998 and 2003. Each patient in the control group underwent the same chemotherapy and received a 100-microg dose of lenograstim. The mean (+/-SD) total amounts of G-CSF per cycle of chemotherapy were 332 +/- 103 microg (young patients) and 345 +/- 128 microg (elderly patients) in the low-dose group and 594 +/- 439 microg (young) and 730 +/- 551 microg (elderly) in the control group. The duration of fever in 1 cycle of chemotherapy was 0.3 +/- 1.0 days (young) and 0.1 +/- 0.8 days (elderly) in the low-dose group and 0.5 +/- 1.3 days (young) and 0.8 +/- 2.0 days (elderly) in the control group. A THP-COP regimen with low-dose G-CSF could be administered to NHL patients with safety. Administration of a 50-microg dose of lenograstim is sufficient and recommended for the treatment of NHL.

Beyond efficacy and effectiveness: conducting economic analyses during clinical trials

Few studies have examined cost issues in the field of dysphagia. This study presents cost data collected during a clinical trial in speech-language pathology, demonstrating the types of cost analyses that can be conducted and highlighting obstacles and issues facing investigators who seek to conduct economic analyses in this arena. Seventy-nine patients were enrolled in the clinical trial to assess the impact of a swallowing intervention on swallowing and speech function. The patients were at least one year past treatment for head and neck cancer. No significant intervention differences were detected in these outcomes. A companion economic analysis was conducted in 37 of these patients using patient diaries and followup with identified health care providers. Analyses indicated that (1) the intervention did not significantly reduce health care expenditures; (2) indirect costs and costs of hospitalizations are both important factors to consider during a trial; and (3) health care costs of this population are high relative to the rest of the U.S. population. Attrition from the overall study population can pose a serious threat to the viability of an economic study. The article concludes with a discussion of how these issues can be addressed in future studies.

A comparative economic analysis of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus topotecan in ovarian cancer in the USA and the UK

BACKGROUND

Economic information is necessary for rational decision-making in health care. Many European countries require financial impact statements prior to drug approval, and many health care organizations in the USA consider cost-effectiveness when making formulary decisions. We report the findings and discuss the policy implications of an economic evaluation based on an international, randomized controlled trial of salvage therapy for epithelial ovarian cancer, wherein topotecan and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) were found to have similar efficacy but differing toxicities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Direct costs to the payer were estimated for 235 North American and 239 European trial participants who had relapsed or failed platinum-based therapy. Unit costs were obtained from national sources or previously reported economic analyses. Sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Total cost per person in the topotecan arm was 12,325 dollars (95% CI 9445 dollars to 15,415 dollars; P >0.05) higher in the USA-based analysis and 2909 dollars (95% CI 779 dollars to 3415 dollars; P <0.05) higher in the UK-based analysis than for PLD. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin was cost saving over a wide range of assumptions. The main differences (per person) in toxicity management following PLD compared with topotecan in Europe were for blood transfusions (1190 dollars versus 181 dollars, respectively) and hospitalizations (1197 dollars versus 280 dollars, respectively). In North America, differences were mainly for granulocyte colony stimulating factors (1936 dollars versus 419 dollars micro g, respectively), erythropoietin (3493 dollars versus 308 dollars, respectively) and blood transfusions (1346 dollars versus 140 dollars, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Policy makers who evaluate pharmacoeconomic studies should consider international differences in health care delivery. Cost assessments based on information obtained from one country may not be relevant for policy makers in a different country.

Cost-benefit analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in the management of elderly cancer patients

Health care costs continue to rise, and hospitalization represents the single largest component of direct medical costs associated with cancer care. Neutropenia and its complications including febrile neutropenia (FN) remain the major dose-limiting toxicity of systemic cancer chemotherapy. The risk of FN varies considerably across treatment regimens but appears to be significantly higher among elderly patients. The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) have been used effectively in a variety of clinical settings to prevent or treat FN and to assist patients receiving dose-intensive chemotherapy with or without stem cell support. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the clinical efficacy of the prophylactic use of CSFs. A recently presented meta-analysis of the available RCTs has confirmed the efficacy of prophylactic CSFs. The cost of these agents, along with their large-scale clinical use, has prompted a number of economic investigations. Economic models based on measures of resource utilization derived from RCTs have provided FN risk threshold estimates for the cost-saving use of prophylactic CSF. A number of important studies concerning the clinical and economic impact of these agents in elderly cancer patients have been reported during the past year. Continuing clinical and economic evaluation along with an updating of clinical practice guidelines especially related to elderly patients is recommended because of rapid technologic and clinical advances.

Economic analysis of randomized, controlled trials

To facilitate the comparison of different treatment strategies, measures have been developed that bring together clinical, quality-of-life, and economic outcomes into summary measures such as the quality-adjusted life year, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility ratios. A number of different types of economic evaluations have been developed, including cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Performance of economic analyses in association with randomized, controlled trials (RCT) has gained increasing enthusiasm in recent years. However, economic measures in RCTs are often outcomes of secondary interest and associated with frequent missing data and inadequate sample size. Variability in the cost measures used and the lack of agreement on clinically meaningful cost differences further limit the conclusions derived from such studies. Economic analyses should be limited to large trials with important trade-offs between efficacy and cost. The strengths and limitations of such analyses are discussed, and guidelines are offered for proper economic analyses in randomized, controlled trials.

Economic analysis of granulocyte colony stimulating factor as adjunct therapy for older patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML): estimates from a Southwest Oncology Group clinical trial

Considerable morbidity, mortality, and economic costs result during remission induction therapy for elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In this study, the economic costs of adjunct granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) are estimated for AML patients > 55 years of age who received induction chemotherapy on a recently completed Southwest Oncology Group study (SWOG). Clinical data were based on Phase III trial information from 207 AML patients who were randomized to receive either placebo or G-CSF post-induction therapy. Analyses were conducted using a decision analytic model with the primary source of clinical event probabilities based on in-hospital care with or without an active infection requiring intravenous antibiotics. Estimates of average daily costs of care with and without an infection were imputed from a previously reported economic model of a similar population. When compared to AML patients who received placebo, patients who received G-CSF had significantly fewer days on intravenous antibiotics (median 22 vs. 26, p = 0.05), whereas overall duration of hospitalization did not differ (median 29 days). The median cost per day with an active infection that required intravenous antibiotics was estimated to be $1742, whereas the median cost per day without an active infection was estimated to be $1467. Overall, costs were $49,693 for the placebo group and $50,593 for the G-CSF patients. G-CSF during induction chemotherapy for elderly patients with AML had some clinical benefits, but it did not reduce the duration of hospitalization, prolong survival, or reduce the overall cost of supportive care. Whether the benefits of G-CSF therapy justify its use in individual patients with acute leukemia for the present remains a matter of clinical judgment.

Comparing cost-effectiveness analyses for the clinical oncology setting: the example of the Gynecologic Oncology Group 111 trial

For the practicing oncologist, balancing quality of care with cost containment has become an unavoidable challenge. The development of new technologies, increased patient awareness, growth of managed care, and aging of our population represent conflicting interests in this endeavor. Medical literature has recently been inundated with economic analyses in an effort to approach some of these difficult questions, but often times it is difficult to see how this research applies to any particular oncologist's practice. This article identifies many of the key issues raised in the critical evaluation of cost-effectiveness analyses as they relate to the practicing oncologist. We offer suggestions on the interpretation of these studies to the clinical setting, using the recently published Journal of Clinical Oncology articles on cost-effectiveness analyses of paclitaxel-cisplatin as first-line therapy for ovarian cancer as examples.

Evaluating the financial impact of clinical trials in oncology: results from a pilot study from the Association of American Cancer Institutes/Northwestern University clinical trials costs and charges project

PURPOSE

Medical care for clinical trials is often not reimbursed by insurers, primarily because of concern that medical care as part of clinical trials is expensive and not part of standard medical practice. In June 2000, President Clinton ordered Medicare to reimburse for medical care expenses incurred as part of cancer clinical trials, although many private insurers are concerned about the expense of this effort. To inform this policy debate, the costs and charges of care for patients on clinical trials are being evaluated. In this Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) Clinical Trials Costs and Charges pilot study, we describe the results and operational considerations of one of the first completed multisite economic analyses of clinical trials.

METHODS

Our pilot effort included assessment of total direct medical charges for 6 months of care for 35 case patients who received care on phase II clinical trials and for 35 matched controls (based on age, sex, disease, stage, and treatment period) at five AACI member cancer centers. Charge data were obtained for hospital and ancillary services from automated claims files at individual study institutions. The analyses were based on the perspective of a third-party payer.

RESULTS

The mean age of the phase II clinical trial patients was 58.3 years versus 57.3 years for control patients. The study population included persons with cancer of the breast (n = 24), lung (n = 18), colon (n = 16), prostate (n = 4), and lymphoma (n = 8). The ratio of male-to-female patients was 3:4, with greater than 75% of patients having stage III to IV disease. Total mean charges for treatment from the time of study enrollment through 6 months were similar: $57,542 for clinical trial patients and $63,721 for control patients (1998 US$; P =.4)

CONCLUSION

Multisite economic analyses of oncology clinical trials are in progress. Strategies that are not likely to overburden data managers and clinicians are possible to devise. However, these studies require careful planning and coordination among cancer center directors, finance department personnel, economists, and health services researchers.

Treatment of acute myelogenous leukemia in older adults

The overall strategy for the treatment of older adults is summarized in Table 8. Soon after the birth of effective chemotherapy for acute leukemia, the perspective for all patients was summarized as follows: 'With all humility it may be claimed that there are, at least, grounds for hope and encouragement in this recently acquired ability occasionally to halt for a while the formerly unrelenting malignant process known as acute leukemia'. In reviewing the overall survival data for older adults one may feel that we are at a similar juncture in assessing the outcome for this particular population. It is hoped that some of the potential advances may provide greater hope and improved results over the next decade.

Cost analysis of filgrastim for the prevention of neutropenia in pediatric T-cell leukemia and advanced lymphoblastic lymphoma: a case for prospective economic analysis in cooperative group trials

BACKGROUND

Growth factor use has been shown to ameliorate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, leading to shorter hospital stays and lower use of parenteral antibiotics, two costly areas of cancer treatment. Prior reports on pediatric patients have shown evidence of cost savings in some studies, but no such evidence in others. In this study a retrospective analysis compared the costs of inpatient supportive care for pediatric patients with T-cell leukemia and advanced lymphoblastic lymphoma enrolled in a Pediatric Oncology Group trial.

PROCEDURE

Patients 1-22 years of age were randomized to receive either granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; n = 45) or no G-CSF (n = 43) following induction and two cycles of maintenance therapy. There were no significant differences in neutropenia-related outcomes during the induction phase. During maintenance therapy, G-CSF patients had significantly fewer days to an ANC >500 cells/microl and a trend towards fewer days of hospitalization. Data on resource utilization were tabulated from case report forms. Costs were imputed from national data on hospitalization costs, average wholesale prices of pharmaceuticals, and patient billing information from a single institution.

RESULTS

Total median costs of supportive care were $34,190 for patients receiving G-CSF and $28,653 for patients not receiving G-CSF (P > 0. 05 for the cost difference). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the total cost difference was not statistically significant, even in scenarios that included reasonable variations in estimates of the range of the length of stay, antibiotic regimen, and dosage and cost of G-CSF.

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of pediatric leukemia, the cost of growth factor may offset potential savings from shorter hospital stays or lower antibiotic use, a finding consistent with that from the Children's Cancer Study Group.

Update of the economic analyses of the use of the colony-stimulating factors

The colony-stimulating factors have been used effectively in a variety of clinical settings to prevent febrile neutropenia and to assist patients receiving dose-intensive chemotherapy with or without stem cell support. Several studies have confirmed the clinical efficacy of the colony-stimulating factors used prophylactically in both solid tumors and the hematologic malignancies. The cost of these agents, along with their large scale clinical use, has prompted a number of economic investigations. Economic analyses based on measures of resource utilization derived from randomized clinical trials have provided febrile neutropenia risk threshold estimates for the cost saving use of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor. A number of important studies concerning the clinical and economic impact of these agents have been reported over the past year. These include a revised cost minimization study based on improved febrile neutropenia cost information and a cost-effectiveness analysis in the adjuvant breast cancer setting based on a clinical prediction model to select patients at high risk for neutropenic complications. Continuing clinical and economic evaluation along with updating of clinical practice guidelines is needed due to rapid technologic and clinical advances in this area.

Economic analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled phase III study of granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor in adult patients (> 55 to 70 years of age) with acute myelogenous leukemia. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (E1490)

PURPOSE

Considerable morbidity and mortality and costs occur during induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) can shorten neutropenia, and may lower costs. We performed a cost-minimization analysis of granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) for AML patients > 55 to 70 years of age during an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical data were from a randomized double-blind phase III trial of 117 AML patients. Estimates of costs were from financial accounts from seven participating institutions. Costs were reported from the third party payor perspective. Analyses were conducted utilizing a decision analytic model. The primary source of event probabilities was in-hospital care with or without an active infection. Sensitivity analyses were also reported.

RESULTS

When compared to AML patients who received placebo. GM-CSF patients had fewer grade 4-5 infections (9.6% versus 36.2%, P = 0.002) and grade 3-5 infections (52% versus 70%. P = 0.07) and $2.310 in savings. Sensitivity analyses indicated that similar cost estimates applied over a range of clinical and economic assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis can serve as a template for cooperative group cost analyses. Cooperation on study methodologies may allow for results that are relevant to both clinicians and policy makers.

Pharmacoeconomic considerations in treating patients with acute leukaemia

Whereas individual cost-effectiveness analyses of new agents for acute leukaemia should be performed in target populations, any meaningful pharmacoeconomic evaluation of treatment options for this condition should include the many types of costs and outcomes in unselected, representative groups of patients. Both direct costs (e.g. costs for medication and hospitalisation) and indirect costs (e.g. lost productivity costs and reduced quality of life) are important parameters to assess, as are the costs of chronic adverse effects, research and development costs for new agents, and costs of procedure-related deaths. Complete remission, cure and survival are the 'success' response criteria for acute leukaemia treatments, in addition to prolonged life with acceptable quality of life for patients with incurable acute leukaemia. Death is 'failure', caused either by resistant disease (relapse and progressive disease) inspite of optimal chemotherapy or, sometimes, by insufficient treatment. All of these parameters should be taken into account when a pharmacoeconomic evaluation is performed (either for administrative or scientific purposes) in order to ensure a comprehensive and reliable background for the evaluation in question. Treatment of acute leukaemia is expensive with a total cost of about $US3000 per patient per day during the induction. Although 80% of children with acute leukaemia are cured, only less than 50% of adults are cured. Thus, a great cost is associated with death during treatment and only optimal medical treatment with full-scale combination chemotherapy and full supportive treatment can keep the number of deaths to a minimum.

The economics of febrile neutropenia: implications for the use of colony-stimulating factors

The occurrence of fever and neutropenia following cancer chemotherapy generally prompts hospitalisation for evaluation and treatment. Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) have been shown to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and the need for hospitalisation in such patients. This study was undertaken to obtain estimates of the actual institutional costs associated with FN and the impact of these costs on threshold estimates for the appropriate use of CSFs. Total hospital expenditures for patients admitted with FN over a 2 year period were studied. A cost allocation function was utilised to allocate all direct costs for non-revenue-generating support centres to revenue-generating service centres as indirect costs. A cost accounting function was then utilised to allocate direct and indirect costs for each service centre to the charge code level. Two groups of patients were defined based on diagnostic codes to represent the spectrum of patients with FN. Total hospital costs were estimated and incorporated into a cost model for the use of CSFs. Variation in the total cost of hospitalisation for FN relates primarily to differences in the average length of stay. The daily cost of hospitalisation was comparable in the groups studied, averaging between US$1675 and US$1892. Incorporation of these cost estimates into the cost model yielded FN risk threshold projections for CSF use in the range of 20-25%. Preliminary studies suggest that incorporation of non-medical, indirect and intangible costs into the CSF decision models will further decrease FN risk threshold projections. Total hospitalisation cost estimates for managing patients with FN are greater than those previously reported, reducing projected FN risk thresholds for CSF use.

Cost-minimization analysis of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after induction chemotherapy in children with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Colony-stimulating factors promote the proliferation of certain bone marrow cell populations. The primary objective of treating patients with these factors prophylactically following chemotherapy is to reduce the risk of infection, thereby minimizing the need for hospitalization and parenteral antibiotics. The use of colony-stimulating factors in children is widespread, despite the absence of conclusive supportive data and the high cost of these drugs. Consequently, the cost-benefit ratio of using prophylactic colony-stimulating factors is an important issue in cancer therapy.

METHODS

During the period from January 1994 through June 1996, 149 afebrile children with newly diagnosed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were randomly assigned either to receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (lenograstim; 5 microg/kg body weight per day subcutaneously) or not to receive it (the control) at the end of the first two courses of induction chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, doxorubicin, and methotrexate. A cost-minimization analysis was performed to assess the cost of chemotherapy in each group and to quantify how much could be economized by prescribing G-CSF.

RESULTS

The total cost for induction chemotherapy was $29,765 in the G-CSF-treated group and $30,774 in the control group, indicating that the treatment strategy with G-CSF was slightly less expensive than the strategy without G-CSF (mean difference = $1009; 95% confidence interval = -$1474 to $3492).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with G-CSF following chemotherapy in children with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma--previously shown to be of limited clinical benefit--also does not appear to reduce the costs of chemotherapy.

Neutropenia and neoplasia: an overview of the pharmacoeconomics of sargramostim in cancer therapy

Sargramostim is a myeloid growth factor that is widely used as adjunctive support in patients with neutropenia. Sargramostim enhances neutrophil recovery and myeloid engraftment, reduces infectious complications, and shortens the duration of hospitalization in selected patients. The high cost of sargramostim and other myeloid growth factors and their ability to reduce infections and days of hospitalization have generated interest in their pharmacoeconomic impact. Cost minimization studies in patients receiving chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia and in recipients of autologous bone marrow transplantation (BMT) show estimated cost savings with sargramostim of 1996 US$12,513 and 1994 US$14,500, respectively. These data are consistent with cost savings of 1989 US$16,000 using molgramostim in autologous BMT recipients. Although no pharmacoeconomic data have been published in patients with other conditions, clinical outcomes research demonstrates a clear benefit for sargramostim administration in recipients of peripheral blood progenitor cell and allogeneic BMT and in patients who experience graft delay or failure. Because of reductions in the duration of hospitalization and infectious complications, economic outcomes of these conditions would probably also support sargramostim use. More data regarding the use of sargramostim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia are required to properly assess the pharmacoeconomic impact in these patients.