scholarly journals Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.01047
Author(s):  
Edward Li ◽  
Dylan J. Mezzio ◽  
David Campbell ◽  
Kim Campbell ◽  
Gary H. Lyman
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Biosimilar Filgrastim

PURPOSE: Temporary COVID-19 guideline recommendations have recently been issued to expand the use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer with intermediate to high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz in patients with intermediate risk of FN compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) over three different cancer types. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was constructed from the US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with breast cancer, non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds for incremental cost per FN avoided, life year gained, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared with SP, PP provided an additional 0.102-0.144 LYs and 0.065-0.130 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ranged from $5,660 in US dollars (USD) to $20,806 USD per FN event avoided, $5,123 to $31,077 USD per life year gained, and $7,213 to $35,563 USD per QALY gained. Over 1,000 iterations, there were 73.6%, 99.4%, and 91.8% probabilities that PP was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $50,000 USD per QALY gained for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL, respectively. CONCLUSION: PP with a biosimilar filgrastim (specifically filgrastim-sndz) is cost-effective in patients with intermediate risk for FN receiving curative chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL. Expanding the use of colony-stimulating factors for patients may be valuable in reducing unnecessary health care visits for patients with cancer at risk of complications because of COVID-19 and should be considered for the indefinite future.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of primary prophylaxis (PP) versus secondary prophylaxis (SP) with biosimilar myeloid growth factors (MGFs) for preventing chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients at intermediate risk.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 107-107
Author(s):  
Gary H. Lyman ◽  
Dylan Mezzio ◽  
Edward C. Li ◽  
Kim Campbell ◽  
Sanjeev Balu
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Secondary Prophylaxis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Hospitalization Costs

107 Background: Historically, PP with a MGF was recommended in patients with a ≥40% risk for developing chemotherapy-induced FN, based on clinical and regimen-related factors. Previous economic studies provided evidence to lower the threshold to 20%, the current high-risk threshold listed by practice guidelines. Biosimilar MGFs, such as filgrastim-sndz or LA-EP2006 (a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar), offer an opportunity to evaluate whether it is cost-effective to further lower the threshold for intermediate-risk regimens (i.e., 10-20% FN risk). Methods: A Markov model was constructed to evaluate the total costs and clinical outcomes of biosimilar or reference MGFs when used as PP vs. SP in patients 55 years old with NHL receiving 6 cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) with no additional FN risk factors. Model inputs, including MGF efficacy and acquisition costs, were estimated from publically available data and literature, as were FN hospitalization costs and clinical utilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for cost per FN event avoided, life-year saved (LYS), and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from a payer perspective within the United States. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Use of filgrastim-sndz as PP vs. SP provided an additional 0.130 QALYs (0.144 LYS) at an incremental cost of $5,999. The ICERs were $50,676, $41,761, and $46,207 for cost per FN event avoided, cost per LYS, and cost per QALY gained, respectively. Using LA-EP2006 as PP vs. SP provided an additional 0.166 QALYs (0.184 LYS) at an incremental cost of $17,648. The ICERs were $123,840, $95,963, and $106,265 for cost per FN event avoided, cost per LYS, and cost per QALY gained, respectively. Conclusions: Within NHL patients receiving R-CHOP at an intermediate risk for FN, PP with filgrastim-sndz and LA-EP2006 are cost-effective compared to their respective use as SP based on a cost-effectiveness threshold of $150,000/QALY.

Trends in pegfilgrastim average sales price and cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis for patients at intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 58-58
Author(s):  
Edward C. Li ◽  
Kimberley J. Campbell ◽  
Bridgette Kanz Schroader ◽  
David Campbell ◽  
Stephen Chaplin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

58 Background: The introduction of biosimilar colony-stimulating factors has led to the reduction in prices for these historically expensive therapies. To understand the impact of recent pricing trends on delivering efficient care, the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) versus secondary prophylaxis (SP) using pegfilgrastim was assessed in patients with breast cancer, non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving potentially curative chemotherapy at intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia per NCCN guidelines. Methods: A Markov decision analytic model was constructed from the US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon to evaluate pegfilgrastim PP versus SP in patients with breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL receiving curative chemotherapy at intermediate risk of FN. Modeled chemotherapy regimens were adjuvant docetaxel (breast cancer), adjuvant carboplatin/paclitaxel (NSCLC), and R-CHOP (NHL) representing baseline FN risk of 16%, 18%, and 18%, respectively. Historical average sales prices (ASP) according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of all pegfilgrastim products were obtained from January 2017 to April 2021. When more than one pegfilgrastim product was available, the average ASP was used as the cost input for the model. Cost-effectiveness for the base case scenario of each cancer type was evaluated over the range of years for cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results: Pegfilgrastim as PP vs. SP provided an additional 0.069, 0.112, and 0.166 QALYs for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL, respectively. The peak ASP for pegfilgrastim was $4,554 per 6 mg during July 2018. Afterwards, a linear regression observed a declining ASP of approximately $134 dollars every 3 months to $3,024 per 6 mg during April 2021. At peak ASP, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for pegfilgrastim PP in patients with breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL were $200,320, $113,942, and $103,495 per QALY, respectively. For April 2021, the ICERs were $124,845, $67,294, and $57,269 per QALY, respectively (Table). Conclusions: The trend of decreasing pegfilgrastim ASP improved the cost-effectiveness of PP vs. SP across intermediate risk breast cancer, NHL, and NSCLC indications between July 2018 to April 2021. For the most recent ASP, PP was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY for NSCLC and NHL, and $150,000/QALY for breast cancer. This analysis provides support to expand the use of growth factor PP to intermediate risk patients. [Table: see text]

Societal and Economic Effect of Meniscus Scaffold Procedures for Irreparable Meniscus Injuries

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 1724-1734 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan J. Rongen ◽  
Tim M. Govers ◽  
Pieter Buma ◽  
Janneke P.C. Grutters ◽  
Gerjon Hannink
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Medial Meniscus ◽  
Relative Risk Reduction ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Meniscus Scaffolds

Background: Meniscus scaffolds are currently evaluated clinically for their efficacy in preventing the development of osteoarthritis as well as for their efficacy in treating patients with chronic symptoms. Procedural costs, therapeutic consequences, clinical efficacy, and future events should all be considered to maximize the monetary value of this intervention. Purpose: To examine the socioeconomic effect of treating patients with irreparable medial meniscus injuries with a meniscus scaffold. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Two Markov simulation models for patients with an irreparable medial meniscus injury were developed. Model 1 was used to investigate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a meniscus scaffold compared with standard partial meniscectomy by the possibility of preventing the development of osteoarthritis. Model 2 was used to investigate the short-term (5-year) cost-effectiveness of a meniscus scaffold compared with standard partial meniscectomy by alleviating clinical symptoms, specifically in chronic patients with previous meniscus surgery. For both models, probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations were applied. Treatment effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), while costs (estimated in euros) were assessed from a societal perspective. We assumed €20,000 as a reference value for the willingness to pay per QALY. Next, comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the most influential variables on the cost-effectiveness of meniscus scaffolds. Results: Model 1 demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a meniscus scaffold treatment of €54,463 per QALY (€5991/0.112). A threshold analysis demonstrated that a meniscus scaffold should offer a relative risk reduction of at least 0.34 to become cost-effective, assuming a willingness to pay of €20,000. Decreasing the costs of the meniscus scaffold procedure by 33% (€10,160 instead of €15,233; an absolute change of €5073) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7876 per QALY. Model 2 demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a meniscus scaffold treatment of €297,727 per QALY (€9825/0.033). On the basis of the current efficacy data, a meniscus scaffold provides a relative risk reduction of “limited benefit” postoperatively of 0.37 compared with standard treatment. A threshold analysis revealed that assuming a willingness to pay of €20,000, a meniscus scaffold would not be cost-effective within a period of 5 years. Most influential variables on the cost-effectiveness of meniscus scaffolds were the cost of the scaffold procedure, cost associated with osteoarthritis, and quality of life before and after the scaffold procedure. Conclusion: Results of the current health technology assessment emphasize that the monetary value of meniscus scaffold procedures is very much dependent on a number of influential variables. Therefore, before implementing the technology in the health care system, it is important to critically assess these variables in a relevant context. The models can be improved as additional clinical data regarding the efficacy of the meniscus scaffold become available.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Tailored Exercise Prescription for Women with Breast Cancer with 8-Year Follow-Up

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (22) ◽  
pp. 8608
Author(s):  
Louisa G. Gordon ◽  
Elizabeth G. Eakin ◽  
Rosalind R. Spence ◽  
Christopher Pyke ◽  
John Bashford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Exercise Intervention ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Care Groups ◽  
Life Years

Studies show conflicting results on whether exercise interventions to improve outcomes for women with breast cancer are cost-effective. We modelled the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Exercise for Health intervention compared with usual care. A lifetime Markov cohort model for women with early breast cancer was constructed taking a societal perspective. Data were obtained from trial, epidemiological, quality of life, and healthcare cost reports. Outcomes were calculated from 5000 Monte Carlo simulations, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Over the cohort’s remaining life, the incremental cost for the exercise versus usual care groups were $7409 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 0.35 resulting in an incremental cost per QALY ratio of AU$21,247 (95% Uncertainty Interval (UI): Dominant, AU$31,398). The likelihood that the exercise intervention was cost-effective at acceptable levels was 93.0%. The incremental cost per life year gained was AU$8894 (95% UI Dominant, AU$11,769) with a 99.4% probability of being cost effective. Findings were most sensitive to the probability of recurrence in the exercise and usual care groups, followed by the costs of out-of-pocket expenses and the model starting age. This exercise intervention for women after early-stage breast cancer is cost-effective and would be a sound investment of healthcare resources.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18829-e18829
Author(s):  
Kishan Patel ◽  
Stacey Stein ◽  
Janki Luther ◽  
Scott F. Huntington
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health State ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Advanced Hcc

e18829 Background: The IMbrave150 trial found that atezolizumab and bevacizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared to sorafenib. However, atezolizumab and bevacizumab are costly treatments and are administered indefinitely until disease progression. Therefore, it is unclear whether atezolizumab-bevacizumab is cost-effective in this clinical setting. Methods: We constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the costs and effectiveness of atezolizumab-bevacizumab to sorafenib in advanced HCC. PFS and OS curves for each treatment strategy were derived from the IMbrave150 trial using parametric survival modeling. The utility of each health state and the costs of treatment, adverse events, and terminal care were derived from literature and Medicare fee schedules. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab-bevacizumab from a US healthcare perspective, using a lifetime horizon, an annual discount rate of 3%, and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of model conclusions. Results: Atezolizumab-bevacizumab was associated with an incremental cost of $102,648 and an incremental effectiveness of 0.42 QALYs compared to sorafenib, leading to an ICER of $244,213/QALY (Table). The price of atezolizumab would need to be reduced by 40% (from ̃$9,400 to ̃$5,700 per dose) or the price of bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 47% (from ̃$8,400 to ̃$4,400 per dose) for atezolizumab-bevacizumab to be cost-effective compared to sorafenib. Alternatively, the price of both atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be simultaneously decreased by ̃21% for the combination therapy to be cost-effective. Our model was most sensitive to the hazard ratios (HR) of OS and PFS; varying the HRs across the 95% confidence interval reported in IMbrave150 (0.42-0.79) corresponded to ICERs of $137,435/QALY and $621,365/QALY, respectively. During probabilistic sensitivity analyses, >99%, 99%, and 90% of iterations produced ICERs greater than willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $150,000/QALY, respectively. Conclusions: Use of atezolizumab-bevacizumab for advanced HCC is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Significant price reduction of atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab would be required to reduce the ICER to a more widely acceptable value.[Table: see text]

Cost Effectiveness of Primary Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis in Patients With Breast Cancer at Risk of Febrile Neutropenia

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (34) ◽  
pp. 4283-4289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen J. Aarts ◽  
Janneke P. Grutters ◽  
Frank P. Peters ◽  
Caroline M. Mandigers ◽  
M. Wouter Dercksen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Stimulating Factor

Purpose Guidelines advise primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis during chemotherapy if risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is more than 20%, but this comes with considerable costs. We investigated the incremental costs and effects between two treatment strategies of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. Methods Our economic evaluation used a health care perspective and was based on a randomized study in patients with breast cancer with increased risk of FN, comparing primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (G-CSF 1-6 cycles) with prophylaxis during the first two cycles only (G-CSF 1-2 cycles). Primary outcome was cost effectiveness expressed as costs per patient with episodes of FN prevented. Results The incidence of FN increased from 10% in the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles study arm (eight of 84 patients) to 36% in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles study arm (30 of 83 patients), whereas the mean total costs decreased from € 20,658 (95% CI, € 20,049 to € 21,247) to € 17,168 (95% CI € 16,239 to € 18,029) per patient, respectively. Chemotherapy and G-CSF determined 80% of the total costs. As expected, FN-related costs were higher in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles arm compared with the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm was € 13,112 per patient with episodes of FN prevented. Conclusion We conclude that G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is more effective, but more costly, compared with prophylaxis limited to the first two cycles. Whether G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is considered cost effective depends on the willingness to pay per patient with episodes of FN prevented.

scholarly journals Cost‐Effectiveness of Advanced Neuroimaging for Transient and Minor Neurological Events in the Emergency Department

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ava L. Liberman ◽  
Hui Zhang ◽  
Sara K. Rostanski ◽  
Natalie T. Cheng ◽  
Charles C. Esenwa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Neurological Symptoms ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses

Background Accurate diagnosis of patients with transient or minor neurological events can be challenging. Recent studies suggest that advanced neuroimaging can improve diagnostic accuracy in low‐risk patients with transient or minor neurological symptoms, but a cost‐effective emergency department diagnostic evaluation strategy remains uncertain. Methods and Results We constructed a decision‐analytic model to evaluate 2 diagnostic evaluation strategies for patients with low‐risk transient or minor neurological symptoms: (1) obtain advanced neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging brain and magnetic resonance angiography head and neck) on every patient or (2) current emergency department standard‐of‐care clinical evaluation with basic neuroimaging. Main probability variables were: proportion of patients with true ischemic events, strategy specificity and sensitivity, and recurrent stroke rate. Direct healthcare costs were included. We calculated incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios, conducted sensitivity analyses, and evaluated various diagnostic test parameters primarily using a 1‐year time horizon. Cost‐effectiveness standards would be met if the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio was less than willingness to pay. We defined willingness to pay as $100 000 US dollars per quality‐adjusted life year. Our primary and sensitivity analyses found that the advanced neuroimaging strategy was more cost‐effective than emergency department standard of care. The incremental effectiveness of the advanced neuroimaging strategy was slightly less than the standard‐of‐care strategy, but the standard‐of‐care strategy was more costly. Potentially superior diagnostic approaches to the modeled advanced neuroimaging strategy would have to be >92% specific, >70% sensitive, and cost less than or equal to standard‐of‐care strategy’s cost. Conclusions Obtaining advanced neuroimaging on emergency department patient with low‐risk transient or minor neurological symptoms was the more cost‐effective strategy in our model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document