Effect of outpatient treatment of febrile neutropenia on the risk threshold for the use of CSF in patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy

Incidence, treatment, and consequences of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the inpatient and outpatient settings

Objective

To examine the incidence, treatment, and consequences of febrile neutropenia across inpatient and outpatient care settings.

Methods

Data were obtained from Humedica's National Electronic Health Record-Derived Longitudinal Patient-Level Database (2007–2010). The study population included adult patients who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy for a solid tumor or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. For each patient, each chemotherapy regimen course and each cycle within each regimen course was characterized. Febrile neutropenia episodes were identified on a cycle-specific basis based on any of the following: (1) absolute neutrophil count <1.0 × 109/L and evidence of infection or fever; (2) inpatient diagnosis of neutropenia, fever, or infection; (3) outpatient diagnosis of neutropenia and non-prophylactic antimicrobial use; or (4) mention of febrile neutropenia in physician notes. Febrile neutropenia episodes were categorized as inpatient or outpatient based on the initial setting of care (i.e. acute-care inpatient facility vs. ambulatory care facility). Febrile neutropenia consequences included hospital length of stay and mortality (inpatient cases only), as well as number of febrile neutropenia-related outpatient encounters.

Results

Among the 2131 patients in this study, 401 experienced a total of 458 febrile neutropenia episodes. Risk of febrile neutropenia during the chemotherapy regimen course was 16.8% (95% CI: 15.3, 18.4). In cycle 1 alone, risk of febrile neutropenia was 8.1% (7.1, 9.3). Most febrile neutropenia episodes (83.2%) were initially treated in the inpatient setting; the hospital mortality rate was 8.1% (5.8, 11.1), and mean hospital length of stay was 8.4 days (7.7, 9.1). Among febrile neutropenia episodes initially treated in the outpatient setting (16.8%), the mean number of outpatient management encounters was 2.6 (2.1, 3.1), most of which were in the physician’s office (69.2%) or emergency department (26.9%).

Conclusions

Febrile neutropenia remains a common occurrence among patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and typically results in extended hospitalization and, for many patients, death. A minority of patients are, however, treated exclusively on an outpatient basis.

A retrospective study of the clinical and economic burden during hospitalizations among cancer patients with febrile neutropenia

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to provide up-to-date estimates of the clinical and economic burden that occurs during inpatient treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia (FN).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 2007-2010 hospital discharge data from the Premier database. The study population included adult patients with discharge diagnoses of neutropenia (ICD-9 code 288.0x) with fever or infection and receipt of intravenous antibiotics and female breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), or Hodgkin lymphoma. Primary study outcomes were inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and total hospitalization cost for each patient's first FN-related hospitalization. Logistic regressions (for mortality) and multivariate linear regressions (for LOS and cost) were conducted to assess the effect of comorbidities and infection types on study outcomes, adjusting for other patient and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 16,273 cancer patients hospitalized with FN, the inpatient case fatality rate was 10.6%, mean LOS was 8.6 days, and mean total hospitalization cost was $18,880. Lung cancer patients had the highest inpatient case fatality rate (15.7%), and NHL patients had the longest LOS (10.1 days) and the highest cost ($24,218). Multivariate analyses showed that most comorbidities were associated with a greater risk of mortality, longer LOS, and higher cost. Septicemia/bacteremia and pneumonia were associated with a greater risk of mortality, and most types of infection were associated with a longer LOS and higher cost.

LIMITATIONS

The total burden of FN may be under-estimated in this study because outpatient treatment and any patient deaths or costs that occurred outside of Premier hospitals could not be captured.

CONCLUSIONS

FN-related hospitalizations among cancer patients are costly and accompanied by considerable mortality risk. Substantial differences in the clinical and economic burden of FN exist depending on cancer types, comorbidities, and infection types.

Costs associated with febrile neutropenia in the US

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially life-threatening condition that may develop in cancer patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy and result in considerable costs. This study was designed to estimate US healthcare utilization and costs in those experiencing FN by location of care, tumour type and mortality.

METHODS

Cancer patients who received chemotherapy between 2001 and 2006 were identified from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database®, a longitudinal claims database with enrolment, medical, prescription and mortality information covering 12 health plans and more than 20 million US patients. Patients who experienced FN were prospectively matched using propensity score methods within each tumour type of interest (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, breast, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer) to those not experiencing FN. Health resource utilization was compared per patient per month for unique prescriptions and visits (inpatient and outpatient) over the length of follow-up. Healthcare total paid costs adjusted to 2009 US dollars per patient per month were examined by FN group (FN vs non-FN, FN died vs FN survived), by source of care (physician office visit, outpatient services, hospitalization and prescriptions) and by tumour type. The number of unique FN-related encounters (inpatient and outpatient) and the number of patients experiencing at least one FN-related encounter were examined. The costs per encounter were tabulated. FN encounters differ from FN episodes in that a single FN episode may include multiple FN encounters (i.e. a patient is seen multiple times [encounters] for treatment of a single FN event [episode]).

RESULTS

A total of 5990 patients each were successfully matched between the FN and non-FN (control) groups. Health resource utilization was generally higher in those with FN than in controls. FN patients incurred greater costs (mean ± SD: $US9628 ± 12 517 per patient-month) than non-FN patients ($US8478 ± 12 978). Chemotherapy comprised the majority of costs for both FN (33.5%) and non-FN (40.6%) patients. The largest cost difference by categorical source of care was for hospitalization (p < 0.001). FN patients who died had the highest mean total costs compared with FN surviving patients ($US21 214 ± 25 596 per patient-month vs $US8227 ± 8850, respectively). Follow-up time for those surviving was, on average, 6.6 months longer. Hospitalization accounted for 53.1% of costs in those experiencing mortality with FN, while chemotherapy accounted for the majority of costs (37.1%) in surviving FN patients. A total of 6574 patients with at least one FN encounter experienced a total of 55 726 unique FN-related encounters, 90% of which were outpatient in nature. The majority of FN-related encounters (79%) occurred during the first chemotherapy course. The average costs for FN encounters were highest for inpatient encounters, $US22 086 ± 43 407, compared with $US985 ± 1677 for outpatient encounters.

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of FN in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy results in greater healthcare resource utilization and costs, with FN patients who die accounting for the greatest healthcare costs. Most FN patients experience at least one outpatient FN encounter, and the total cost of treatment for FN continues to be high.

Cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving curative-intent chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline recommended primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) instead of secondary prophylaxis (SP) for elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving chemotherapy. We examined the cost-effectiveness of PP when compared with SP.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare PP to SP for diffuse aggressive lymphoma. We used a Markov model with an eight-cycle chemotherapy time horizon with a government-payer perspective and Ontario health, economic, and cost data. Data for efficacies of G-CSF, probabilities, and utilities were obtained from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $700,500 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses (willingness-to-pay threshold = $100,000/QALY) showed that if PP were to be cost-effective, the cost of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia (FN) had to be more than $31,138 (2.5 × > base case), the cost of G-CSF per cycle less than $960 (base case = $1,960), the risk of first-cycle FN more than 47% (base case = 24%), or the relative risk reduction of FN with G-CSF more than 91% (base case = 41%). Our result was robust to all variables. PSA revealed a 10% probability of PP being cost-effective over SP at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

PP is not cost-effective when compared with SP in this population. PP becomes attractive only if the cost of hospitalization for FN is significantly higher or the cost of G-CSF is significantly lower.

Initial performance evaluation of the UniCel® DxH 800 Coulter® cellular analysis system

The Beckman Coulter UniCel® DxH 800 is a hematology analyzer incorporating new electronic and mechanical design with advanced algorithm technology to perform CBC, white blood cell (WBC) differential, nucleated red blood cell (NRBC), and reticulocyte analysis. Evaluation of this instrument was performed in our 800-bed tertiary care hospital and specifically centered upon the correlation of WBC, NRBC, and platelet (PLT) enumeration when compared to a predicate analyzer, the Coulter® LH 780, and flow cytometry (FCM) reference methods. Of particular interest were those samples with morphologically confirmed interference and extreme leukocytosis (evaluated with respect to red blood cell parameter correction). The sample set (n=272) consisted of morphologically normal and hematologically abnormal patients. Correlation of the WBC, PLT, and NRBC showed r(2) values of 0.994, 0.985, and 0.910 for the DxH 800 vs. FCM, respectively. The presence of interfering particles did not affect the accuracy of the DxH 800 with respect to WBC counts. The DxH 800 showed accurate PLT and NRBC counts in the clinically significant low range when compared to FCM. Compared to the LH 780, flagging rates were significantly reduced (NRBC flag), or equivalent (WBC, PLT flag) on the DxH 800. The DxH 800 demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity for PLTs and NRBCs and achieved a lower NRBC false negative rate compared to the LH 780. The UniCel® DxH 800 represents a significant improvement to previous impedance analyzers in accurately detecting the presence of NRBCs at counts >1/100 WBC. Furthermore, it provides accurate PLT and WBC counts in the presence of interference and improved NRBC flagging efficiency when compared to the LH 780. Correction of red blood cell parameters is appropriate and accurate in cases of extreme leukocytosis.

Comparison of actual hospital costs versus DRG revenues for in-patient treatment of febrile neutropenia during adjuvant anthracycline plus/minus taxane-based chemotherapy for primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

In flat-rate reimbursement systems, the hospital's own costs should not exceed its revenues. In a cohort of primary breast cancer (pBC) patients, costs and reimbursement for febrile neutropenia (FN) were compared to verify cost coverage.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study in pBC patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline ± taxane-based chemotherapy calculated the costs per in-patient FN episode. The correlating revenues were retrospectively analyzed from diagnosis-related group (DRG) invoices. The actual costs of the therapies were compared to the individual DRG revenues, and the results are presented from the provider's perspective.

RESULTS

In 50 patients, n = 11 patients were treated for FN as in-patients. The hospital's overall treatment costs were € 18,288, on average (Ø) € 1663 per case (range € 1139-2344); the overall DRG revenues were € 23,593, Ø € 2145 per case (range € 1266-2660). In n = 8 cases, the DRGs were cost covering, and in n = 3 cases, a loss was observed, but overall resulting in a gain of Ø € 482 per case and thus being cost covering for the provider. Inadequate DRG coding (n = 4/11; 36.4%) resulted in a preventable loss of Ø € 1069/case.

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of FN treatment vary substantially and DRG reimbursements do not necessarily reflect the provider's costs. Surprisingly, the in-patient treatment of FN here is overall more than cost covering if adequately coded. The main reasons are asymmetrical costs for this FN low-risk pBC group. These results emphasize the importance of correct medical coding to avoid potential losses.

Cost-effectiveness of white blood cell growth factor use among a large nationwide cohort of elderly non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients treated with chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness (as measured as cost per life-year saved) of white blood cell growth factor or colony-stimulating factor (CSF) use among a large cohort of elderly non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We identified 13,203 NHL patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database who received the diagnosis from 1992 to 2002 and who received chemotherapy within 12 months of diagnosis. Benefit (effectiveness) of CSF use (primary and secondary prophylaxis) was measured as observed improvement in overall survival. Costs for each patient were calculated by adding the cumulative reimbursement amounts from Medicare claims. Cost-effectiveness was estimated by modeling the joint influence of CSF use on both costs and effectiveness using a propensity-score net monetary benefit approach.

RESULTS

Primary prophylactic CSF use was cost-effective at lower willingness-to-pay thresholds, whereas at higher thresholds, not providing prophylactic CSF became the cost-effective strategy. For secondary prophylactic CSF use among patients experiencing neutropenia, fever, and/or infection, the opposite trend was observed. For low willingness-to-pay thresholds (<$20,000 per life-year gained), not administering CSF was the cost-effective strategy, whereas CSF use became cost-effective as willingness to pay increased (from $100,000+ per life-year gained).

CONCLUSION

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.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor reduces the risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (starting in cycle 1 of chemotherapy) with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the United States.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health payer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considered direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits due to reduced FN-related mortality and on-time receipt of full-dose chemotherapy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving and more effective (ie, dominant strategy) than 11-day filgrastim. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim was $12,904 per FN episode avoided. Adding the survival benefit due to reduced FN mortality and receipt of optimal chemotherapy dose yielded an ICER of $31,511 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and $14,415 per QALY gained, respectively. The most influential factors included inpatient FN case-fatality rate, cost of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, baseline probability of FN, relative risk for FN between filgrastim and pegfil-grastim, and cost of administration of filgrastim.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving compared with 11-day filgrastim and cost-effective compared with 6-day filgrastim from a health payer's perspective for the primary prophylaxis of FN in these women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of G-CSF pegfilgrastim primary (starting in cycle 1 and continuing in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy) versus secondary (only after an FN event) prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with a >or=20% FN risk.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health insurer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considers direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits because of reduced FN-related mortality. Inputs for the model were obtained from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across plausible ranges in parameter values.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pegfilgrastim as primary versus secondary prophylaxis was $48,000/FN episode avoided. Adding survival benefit from avoiding FN mortality yielded an ICER of $110,000/life-year gained (LYG) or $116,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The most influential factors included FN case-fatality, FN relative risk reduction from primary prophylaxis, and age at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with secondary prophylaxis, the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis may be equivalent or superior to other commonly used supportive care interventions for women with breast cancer. Further assessment of the direct impact of G-CSF on short- and long-term survival is needed to substantiate these findings.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving CHOP-21 in United States

OBJECTIVES

Prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Randomized clinical trials have shown that pegfilgrastim, a 2nd-generation G-CSF, is at least as effective as the 1st-generation G-CSF filgrastim. In the meta-analysis of trials pegfilgrastim performed better than filgrastim with respect to FN risk. The incremental cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (starting in cycle 1 and continuing in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy) with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim used for 6 days (as is often used in clinical practice) was estimated in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the United States.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health insurer's perspective with a life-time study horizon. The model considered direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits due to reduced FN-related mortality. Inputs for the model were obtained from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across plausible ranges in parameter values.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis was $2167/FN episode avoided. Adding survival benefit from avoiding FN mortality yielded an ICER of $5532/LY gained or $6190/QALY gained. When the potential benefit of optimized chemotherapy was included, the ICER was $1494/LY gained or $1677/QALY gained. The most influential factors included cost of pegfilgrastim, relative risk of FN between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, FN case-fatality rate, cost of filgrastim and baseline FN risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Pegfilgrastim is cost-effective in primary prophylaxis of FN compared to 6 days per cycle of filgrastim, in patients with NHL receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy (e.g., cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin + vincristine + prednisolone [CHOP-21]) chemotherapy. Study limitations included lack of direct evidence linking G-CSF use with a reduction in FN-related mortality and limited data that show a relationship between relative dose intensity (RDI) and cancer-specific patient survival.

The economic value of primary prophylaxis using pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in patients with breast cancer in the UK

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious adverse event associated with myelotoxic chemotherapy that predisposes patients to life-threatening bacterial infections. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) from the first cycle of chemotherapy is recommended by the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2008 National Comprehensive Cancer Network and 2006 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines when the overall risk of FN is approximately 20% or higher. Once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily filgrastim are two commonly used G-CSFs with different dosing schedules and associated costs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the UK.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from the UK NHS perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model simulated three clinical scenarios: scenario 1 assumed that pegfilgrastim and filgrastim had differential impact on the risk of FN; scenario 2 assumed additional differential impact on FN-related mortality; and scenario 3 assumed additional differential impact on chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI) with long-term survival effects. The base-case population included 45-year-old women with stage II breast cancer receiving four chemotherapy cycles, with an FN risk of approximately 20% or higher. Model inputs, including FN risk, FN case-fatality, RDI, impact of RDI on survival and utility scores, were based on a review of the literature and expert panel validation. Using data from the literature, it was estimated that the absolute risk of FN associated with pegfilgrastim was 5.5% lower than with 11-day filgrastim (7% vs 12.5%), and 10.5% lower than with 6-day filgrastim (7% vs 17.5%). Costs were taken from official price lists or the literature and included drugs, drug administration, FN-related hospitalizations and subsequent medical costs. Breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality were obtained from official statistics. The main outcome measures were the costs ( pound, year 2006 values) per percentage decrease in (absolute) FN risk, per FN event avoided, per life-year gained (LYG), and per QALY gained. Model robustness was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim was cost saving compared with 11-day filgrastim ( pound 3196 vs pound 4315). Compared with 6-day filgrastim, pegfilgrastim was associated with a cost of pound 4200 per FN event avoided, or pound 42 per 1% decrease in absolute risk of FN, in scenario 1. In scenario 2, pegfilgrastim provided 0.055 more LYGs or 0.052 more QALYs at a minimal cost increase of pound 441 ( pound 3196 vs pound 2754) per person, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound 8075/LYG or pound 8526/QALY. In scenario 3, when all potential benefits of G-CSF were considered, the ICER became pound 3955/LYG or pound 4161/QALY. Results were most sensitive to the relative risk of FN for 6-day filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSION

In this UK analysis, pegfilgrastim appears to dominate 11-day use of filgrastim. The value of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim at pound 4161-8526/QALY was very favourable compared with the commonly used threshold in the UK. In this setting, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim may be cost effective compared with filgrastim.

Economic analysis of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVES

Neutropenia and its complications, including febrile neutropenia (FN), are a common side effect of cancer chemotherapy. Results of clinical trials showed that prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) is effective in preventing FN. In this study, the cost effectiveness (measured as cost per quality-adjusted time [days]) of three treatment alternatives were evaluated: no G-CSF, filgrastim administered daily for 7-12 days after chemotherapy, and a pegylated form of G-CSF pegfilgrastim, administered once per cycle.

METHODS

A cost-utility model based on standard clinical practice of treating FN with immediate hospitalization or with ambulatory treatment, from a societal perspective was developed. Direct medical cost estimates for hospitalization were derived from claims data reported by 115 US academic medical centers. Indirect medical costs, productivity costs, probabilities, and utilities are based on published literature. Results were subjected to sensitivity analyses and 95% confidence intervals are based on a Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Mean estimated costs/day of hospitalization were $1984 (SD $1040, N = 24,687) for surviving patients and $3139 (SD $2014, N = 1437) for dying patients. Under baseline conditions, pegfilgrastim dominated both filgrastim and no G-CSF, with expected costs and effectiveness of $4203 and 12.361 quality adjusted life-days (QALDs) for no G-CSF, $3058 and 12.967 QALDs for pegfilgrastim, and $5264 and 12.698 QALDs for filgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-utility analysis provides strong evidence that pegfilgrastim is not only cost-effective but also cost-saving in most common clinical and economic settings. There appear to be both clinical and economic benefits from prophylactic administration of pegfilgrastim.

Cost of neutropenic complications of chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Cost of neutropenic complications of myelosuppressive chemotherapy has been reported to be substantial. Prior research, however, has focused on initial hospitalization only and has failed to account for follow-on care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using a US health-care claims database, all adult cancer patients who received a course of chemotherapy were identified. For each such patient, each unique cycle of chemotherapy within the course and each occurrence of neutropenic complications within these cycles were characterized. Patients developing neutropenic complications in a given cycle (neutropenia patients), starting with the first, were matched (1:1) to those who did not develop neutropenic complications in that cycle (comparison patients), and health-care costs (i.e. expenditures) were tallied for each matched pair.

RESULTS

Neutropenia patients (n = 373) and comparison patients were similar in terms of baseline characteristics. Costs of neutropenia-related care were $12,397 (95% confidence interval $10,274-$14,754) higher for neutropenia versus comparison patients [$14,407 ($12,357-$16,743) versus $2010 ($1490-$2553)]. Among neutropenia patients, mean cost of initial hospitalization for neutropenic complications was $7813 ($6537-$9379); cost of all subsequent neutropenia-related care averaged $6594 ($5217-$8272).

CONCLUSIONS

Neutropenic complications of myelosuppressive chemotherapy are costly. Prior research focusing on initial hospitalization only may have underestimated the cost of these complications by as much as 40%.

Cancer-associated neutropenic fever: clinical outcome and economic costs of emergency department care

Purpose. Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common, costly, and potentially fatal complication in oncology. While FN in the inpatient setting has been extensively studied, only one study has evaluated emergency department (ED) care for FN cancer patients. That study found that 96% of patients survived the complication. We evaluated clinical and economic outcomes for cancer patients with chemotherapy-associated FN treated in an ED. Methods. ED records for consecutive oncology patients with FN were reviewed for information on death, intensive care unit (ICU) use, blood cultures, and costs. Results. Forty-eight patients (n = 57 visits) were evaluated. Six patients died from FN (12%) and four received ICU care within 2 weeks and survived (8%). Blood cultures were positive for 37% of the ED visits. The median ED time was 3.3 hours. In 91% of visits, i.v. antibiotics were administered in the ED, ordered at a median of 1.7 hours from triage (interquartile range [IQR], 1.2-2.8 hours). All patients with death or ICU in 2 weeks and all but one patient with positive blood cultures received antibiotics. The median per patient ED costs were $1,455 (IQR, $1,300-$1,579)-42.4% for hospital/nursing, 23.5% for radiology, 20.8% for physician services, 10.9% for diagnostic tests, and 2.4% for antibiotics. Conclusions. Cancer patients with FN in this sample presenting to the ED frequently had no identified source of infection. One third of the patients had positive ED blood cultures and one fifth died or required ICU care within 2 weeks. Costs of ED care were similar to the cost of a single day of inpatient care. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: finding the right indication

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neutropenic complications including febrile neutropenia represent major dose-limiting toxicities of cancer chemotherapy. Recommendations for the use of recombinant myeloid growth factors to reduce the risk of neutropenic complications and sustain dose intensity continue to evolve.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have confirmed that the myeloid growth factors reduce the risk of neutropenic complications and may facilitate delivered dose intensity in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Older age and certain comorbidities significantly increase the risk of febrile neutropenia and its consequences. Three new clinical practice guidelines for the use of the myeloid growth factors have been published by major professional oncology organizations including the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The recommendations and evidence basis for these guidelines are presented here. All three new or updated guidelines recommend prophylactic use of the myeloid growth factors in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy at 20% or greater risk of febrile neutropenia and in those with important variables that increase individual risk of neutropenic complications.

SUMMARY

Consistent clinical practice guidelines based on multiple randomized control trials and meta-analyses should further guide the appropriate and cost-effective use of these agents.

Economic burden of haematological adverse effects in cancer patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Patients receiving cancer treatments commonly experience haematological adverse effects (AEs) related to chemotherapy or molecularly targeted therapies, which may be associated with high healthcare costs. The objective of this review was to summarise the published literature on the economic burden of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anaemia as AEs of cancer treatment.

METHODS

A systematic search of the medical literature published between 1990 and 2006 was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, related article links and supplemental searches. References selected for inclusion were prospective or retrospective studies specifically designed to examine the burden of illness, direct medical costs, indirect costs and/or cost drivers associated with neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anaemia in adult cancer patients. All costs are reported as originally published and adjusted to 2006 US dollars.

RESULTS

In the US, the cost of neutropenia ranged from $US 1893 (2006 value $US 2632) per outpatient episode to $US 38,583 ($US 49,917) per febrile neutropenia hospitalisation. For countries outside the US, the cost of neutropenia appeared to be lower. The cost of thrombocytopenia ranged from $US 1035 ($US 1395) to $US 5328 ($US 7635) per cycle or episode in the US. Costs attributable to anaemia ranged from $US 18,418 ($US 22,775) to $US 69,478 ($US 93,454) per year in the US. The costs of AEs for patients with haematological malignancies appeared to be up to 2-3 times higher than those for patients with solid tumours. Economic studies of the cost of haematological AEs specific to new molecularly targeted treatments for haematological malignancy have not been published.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy-related haematological AEs result in a substantial economic burden on patients, payers, caregivers and society in general. Because of their burden, the frequency and severity of these toxicities should be one of the key factors in the selection of optimal treatments for patients with cancer, especially those with haematological malignancies. Future research is needed to assess the economic burden of AEs associated with new molecularly targeted treatments for haematological malignancies.

EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumours

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is not only a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality, but is also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact on the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. The incidence of severe or FN can be reduced by prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim, lenograstim or pegfilgrastim. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. While several academic groups have produced evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in an effort to standardise and optimise the management of FN, there remains a need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines. To this end, we undertook a systematic literature review and formulated recommendations for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors such as elderly age (>or=65 years), be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk prior to administering each cycle of chemotherapy. In addition, when using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in >20% patients, prophylactic G-CSF is recommended. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Finally, studies have shown that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications, where indicated.

Pegfilgrastim: a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with sustained duration of action

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim (Neupogen, Amgen, Inc.) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta, Amgen, Inc.) are frequently used in clinical practice for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and its potentially life-threatening complications. Due to its unique neutrophil-mediated clearance, pegfilgrastim can be administered once per chemotherapy cycle. Clinical trials have shown that a single, fixed subcutaneous dose of pegfilgrastim 6 mg is comparable in safety and efficacy to daily injections of filgrastim for decreasing the incidence of infection following myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Postregistrational trials have been conducted to evaluate the use of pegfilgrastim with emerging dose-dense regimens, in myeloid cancers and for mobilisation and engraftment of autologous stem cells. Ongoing clinical trials continue to explore further potential uses for pegfilgrastim.