Cost-effectiveness of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia in lymphoma patients.

Abstract

Febrile neutropenia is a serious toxicity of cancer chemotherapy that is usually treated in hospital. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients undergoing chemotherapy. We used a Markov model that followed patients through induction chemotherapy to compare the three prophylaxis strategies: 1) no primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia; 2) primary prophylaxis with 10 days of filgrastim therapy; and 3) primary prophylaxis with a single dose of pegfilgrastim. The target population was a hypothetical cohort of 64-year-old men and women with DLBCL. Data sources included published literature and current clinical practice. The analysis was conducted from a publicly funded health-care system perspective. The main outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). In the base-case analysis, costs associated with no primary prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis with 10 days of filgrastim, and primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim were CaD $7314, CaD $13947, and CaD $16290, respectively. The QALYs associated with the three strategies were 0.2004, 0.2015, and 0.2024, respectively. The ICER for the filgrastim vs no primary prophylaxis strategy was CaD $5796000 per QALY. The ICER for the pegfilgrastim vs filgrastim primary prophylaxis strategy was CaD $2611000 per QALY. All one-way sensitivity analyses yielded ICERs greater than CaD $400000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves show that 20.0% of iterations are cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CaD $1595000 for the filgrastim strategy and CaD $561000 for the pegfilgrastim strategy. Primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia with either filgrastim or pegfilgrastim is not cost-effective in DLBCL patients.