Cost-Effectiveness of White Blood Cell Growth Factor Use among a Large Nationwide Cohort of Elderly Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Patients Treated with Chemotherapy

Abstract

To our knowledge, this is the first large population-based study to empirically measure the cost-effectiveness of CSF among NHL patients treated with chemotherapy. CSF use as primary or secondary prophylaxis may be a cost-effective strategy depending on society's (or payers') willingness to pay for improvements in outcomes.

Comparison of Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis Using PEGylated Recombinant Human Granulocyte–Stimulating Factor as a Cost-Effective Measure in Malignant Neoplasms: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

“…In Belgium, a study of PP and SP, including long-acting PEGylated rhG-CSF, found PP to be a costeffective therapy for both breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma at a €30,000/QALY threshold (Fust et al, 2017). Similar conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of PP with long-acting PEGylated rhG-CSF versus SP have been reported in other studies in the United Kingdom, Singapore, and the United States (Gruschkus et al, 2011;Fust et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2016). Here, we expanded on past analyses by including different tumor types and obtained the incidence of FN for each cycle of the patients from multiple centers.…”

Cost‐effectiveness of granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor prophylaxis in chemotherapy‐induced febrile neutropenia among breast cancer and Non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma patients under Taiwan's national health insurance system

“…Whyte et al [10] reported that in UK, primary prophylactic G-CSF cost £253 ($306) higher, and secondary prophylactic G-CSF cost £3252 ($3941) higher than no G-CSF prophylaxis in breast cancer patients. Gruschkus et al [8] reported that primary prophylactic G-CSF among NHL patients in the USA cost $12 374 more and secondary prophylaxis cost $80 302 more compared with no prophylaxis.…”

“…Although many clinical trials have demonstrated the beneficial effect of prophylactic use of G-CSF in decreasing incidence of FN and infection, there have been conflicting data regarding its economic impacts [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Some studies even suggest that primary G-CSF did not result in cost savings [13] or could only be considered cost-effective under certain situations such as a higher willingness-to-pay [12].…”

Health Technology Assessment Challenges in Oncology: 20 Years of Value in Health

“…Nevertheless, Casciano et al 42 noted in an economic evaluation of metastatic renal cell carcinoma the inherent limitation of indirect comparisons arising from differences in baseline characteristics of groups being compared, which could confound the results. Exploring the use of propensity scoring to adjust baseline differences in a cohort of elderly patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma was undertaken by Gruschkus et al 43 An in-depth article extending this method to naive comparisons to perform matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for newly diagnosed patients with chronic myeloid leukemia was published by Signorovitch et al 44 (Figure 3).…”