| Title | Economic implications of using pegfilgrastim rather than conventional G-CSF to prevent neutropenia during small-cell lung cancer chemotherapy. | | Author(s) | Tan Sean P, Chouaid C, Hettler D, Baud M, Hejblum G, Tilleul P | | Institution | AP-HP, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Service de Pharmacie, Paris, France. | | Source | Curr Med Res Opin 2009 May 6. | | Abstract | ABSTRACT
Background: For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile aplasia, a single injection of pegfilgrastim per cycle has the same efficacy as six to ten injections of conventional granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). However, there are few data on the economic impact of pegfilgrastim use, especially in the context of small-cell lung cancer.
Methods: This retrospective study involved 31 patients and 129 treatment cycles (32 with pegfilgrastim and 97 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)). We estimated the direct costs for preventing and managing febrile aplasia from the payer's perspective and also conducted a willingness-to-pay study with 100 healthy subjects, in order to estimate how highly a single-jab strategy was valued relative to multiple injections.
Results: The costs per cycle were respectively euro1743 +/- 837 and euro1466 +/- 836 for the pegfilgrastim and G-CSF strategies (p < 0.001). The excess cost of the pegfilgrastim strategy was partly compensated for by the perceived value of the single-jab strategy: 88% of interviewees would prefer the pegfilgrastim strategy; 16% would be willing to pay all the excess cost (euro277) and 67% would be willing to pay half the excess cost.
Conclusion: In this willingness-to-pay survey, the excess cost associated with pegfilgrastim relative to other G-CSF-based prophylactic strategies is partly offset by the perceived convenience of a single injection. | | Language | ENG | | Pub Type(s) | JOURNAL ARTICLE
| | PubMed ID | 19419340 |
|
