CLINICAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTIVE THERAPY IN ONCOLOGY

Author(s)

Kolbin A1, Velum I2, Balykina Y3, Proskurin M4
1First Pavlov State Medical University of St. Petersburg, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 2First Pavlov State Medical University of St. Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 3Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, SPE, Russia, 4Saint Petersburg State University, Moscow, Russia

Presentation Documents

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to analyze the pharmacoeconomic feasibility of using colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) in supportive therapy, and to assess the economic consequences of following the guidelines for febrile neutropenia (FN) prevention.

METHODS: The target population included patients at high risk of FN in association with cancer chemotherapy (CT). We conducted cost of illness (COI), cost-effectiveness (CEA) and budget impact analyses (BIA). COI involved modeling costs of chemotherapy, prevention and management of FN. We analyzed COI dynamics associated with G-CSF prophylaxis of patients at high risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. CEA determined the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy, including the FN prevention, and, as a consequence, maintenance of the recommended chemotherapy protocol. The model time horizon was 12 months.

RESULTS: Chemotherapy without FN prophylaxis is associated with the highest costs of € 13,903. Adoption of G-CSF for FN prevention leads to the total costs reduction of €2,057 - €4,726 per patient depending on the drug used. Empegfilgrastim prophylaxis results in the lowest total costs (34% lower than in the absence of FN prevention). An estimated target population size was 242,915. The absence of FN prevention in this population imposes the socioeconomic burden ranging from €499.5 million to € 1,147.8 million. In contrast, the use of recommended G-CSF drugs significantly increases the effectiveness of chemotherapy and thus cancer patients’ survival. Corresponding CERs were € 10,312.1 (for Empegfilgrastim), € 10,506.7 (Lipegfilgrastim), € 11,025.4 (Filgrastim), € 11,556.8 (Pegfilgrastim), € 13,310.5 (Lenograstim), and € 17,378.6 (CT without FN prophylaxis with G-CSF).

CONCLUSIONS: The use of G-CSF as a preventive measure for the development of chemotherapy complications is economically viable from CEA and COI perspectives. Although the expansion of FN prophylaxis in cancer patients increases drug costs for the FN prevention, it also reduces the total costs of cancer patient treatment.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2019-11, ISPOR Europe 2019, Copenhagen, Denmark

Code

PCN350

Topic

Economic Evaluation, Health Service Delivery & Process of Care

Topic Subcategory

Budget Impact Analysis, Disease Management

Disease

Drugs, Oncology

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×