Pharmacoeconomics of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor

A critical review

Gisoo Barnes, Ashutosh Pathak, Lee Schwartzberg

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: In the USA, neutropenia-related hospitalization is estimated to occur in 34.2 cases per 1,000 chemotherapy-treated patients. The cost of hospitalization is significant with estimates ranging, on average, from $10,000 to $30,000 per neutropenia-related hospitalization. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) significantly reduces the risk and duration of neutropenia-related negative events. However, the exact economic benefits of using G-CSF prophylactically are not completely known. The objective of this review is to examine the cost of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis (PP) as well as when used reactively to treat severe neutropenia (SN) or febrile neutropenia (FN). Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies published up to January 2014. Results: The evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF is inconsistent. The cost savings of PP use of G-CSF associated with the reduction of neutropenia-related events are offset by the increased costs associated with improved chemotherapy administration. Cost savings due to the reduction in mortality and disease/symptoms and use of dose-dense regimens have not been adequately incorporated into previous cost-effectiveness studies. Available data suggest that using G-CSF in conjunction with antibiotics is more cost-effective than antibiotics alone when treating patients with SN/FN. Recent studies of biosimilars suggest that they are as effective as originator G-CSFs and, given their lower cost, could represent a cost-effective alternative. Finally, studies have not taken into consideration the indirect patient costs of experiencing a neutropenia-related event. Conclusion: G-CSF use is effective in preventing SN/FN. Costs due to hospitalization and other neutropenia-related events are lower in patients treated with G-CSF as PP versus untreated patients. Despite this, many studies have not found solid evidence for the overall cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF. One possibility for this is that patients receiving G-CSF prophylactically often receive more intense chemotherapy regimens, have better relative dose intensity, and fewer dose delays, and thereby have greater costs associated with chemotherapy administration than patients who do not receive G-CSF.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)683-695
Number of pages13
JournalAdvances in Therapy
Volume31
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Pharmaceutical Economics
Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor
Neutropenia
Costs and Cost Analysis
Febrile Neutropenia
Hospitalization
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Therapy
Cost Savings
Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals
Anti-Bacterial Agents

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Pharmacoeconomics of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor : A critical review. / Barnes, Gisoo; Pathak, Ashutosh; Schwartzberg, Lee.

In: Advances in Therapy, Vol. 31, No. 7, 01.01.2014, p. 683-695.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Barnes, Gisoo ; Pathak, Ashutosh ; Schwartzberg, Lee. / Pharmacoeconomics of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor : A critical review. In: Advances in Therapy. 2014 ; Vol. 31, No. 7. pp. 683-695.
@article{3996370fcb0e4574ad864000990025ae,
title = "Pharmacoeconomics of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: A critical review",
abstract = "Introduction: In the USA, neutropenia-related hospitalization is estimated to occur in 34.2 cases per 1,000 chemotherapy-treated patients. The cost of hospitalization is significant with estimates ranging, on average, from $10,000 to $30,000 per neutropenia-related hospitalization. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) significantly reduces the risk and duration of neutropenia-related negative events. However, the exact economic benefits of using G-CSF prophylactically are not completely known. The objective of this review is to examine the cost of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis (PP) as well as when used reactively to treat severe neutropenia (SN) or febrile neutropenia (FN). Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies published up to January 2014. Results: The evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF is inconsistent. The cost savings of PP use of G-CSF associated with the reduction of neutropenia-related events are offset by the increased costs associated with improved chemotherapy administration. Cost savings due to the reduction in mortality and disease/symptoms and use of dose-dense regimens have not been adequately incorporated into previous cost-effectiveness studies. Available data suggest that using G-CSF in conjunction with antibiotics is more cost-effective than antibiotics alone when treating patients with SN/FN. Recent studies of biosimilars suggest that they are as effective as originator G-CSFs and, given their lower cost, could represent a cost-effective alternative. Finally, studies have not taken into consideration the indirect patient costs of experiencing a neutropenia-related event. Conclusion: G-CSF use is effective in preventing SN/FN. Costs due to hospitalization and other neutropenia-related events are lower in patients treated with G-CSF as PP versus untreated patients. Despite this, many studies have not found solid evidence for the overall cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF. One possibility for this is that patients receiving G-CSF prophylactically often receive more intense chemotherapy regimens, have better relative dose intensity, and fewer dose delays, and thereby have greater costs associated with chemotherapy administration than patients who do not receive G-CSF.",
author = "Gisoo Barnes and Ashutosh Pathak and Lee Schwartzberg",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12325-014-0133-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "683--695",
journal = "Advances in Therapy",
issn = "0741-238X",
publisher = "Health Communications Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pharmacoeconomics of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor

T2 - A critical review

AU - Barnes, Gisoo

AU - Pathak, Ashutosh

AU - Schwartzberg, Lee

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Introduction: In the USA, neutropenia-related hospitalization is estimated to occur in 34.2 cases per 1,000 chemotherapy-treated patients. The cost of hospitalization is significant with estimates ranging, on average, from $10,000 to $30,000 per neutropenia-related hospitalization. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) significantly reduces the risk and duration of neutropenia-related negative events. However, the exact economic benefits of using G-CSF prophylactically are not completely known. The objective of this review is to examine the cost of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis (PP) as well as when used reactively to treat severe neutropenia (SN) or febrile neutropenia (FN). Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies published up to January 2014. Results: The evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF is inconsistent. The cost savings of PP use of G-CSF associated with the reduction of neutropenia-related events are offset by the increased costs associated with improved chemotherapy administration. Cost savings due to the reduction in mortality and disease/symptoms and use of dose-dense regimens have not been adequately incorporated into previous cost-effectiveness studies. Available data suggest that using G-CSF in conjunction with antibiotics is more cost-effective than antibiotics alone when treating patients with SN/FN. Recent studies of biosimilars suggest that they are as effective as originator G-CSFs and, given their lower cost, could represent a cost-effective alternative. Finally, studies have not taken into consideration the indirect patient costs of experiencing a neutropenia-related event. Conclusion: G-CSF use is effective in preventing SN/FN. Costs due to hospitalization and other neutropenia-related events are lower in patients treated with G-CSF as PP versus untreated patients. Despite this, many studies have not found solid evidence for the overall cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF. One possibility for this is that patients receiving G-CSF prophylactically often receive more intense chemotherapy regimens, have better relative dose intensity, and fewer dose delays, and thereby have greater costs associated with chemotherapy administration than patients who do not receive G-CSF.

AB - Introduction: In the USA, neutropenia-related hospitalization is estimated to occur in 34.2 cases per 1,000 chemotherapy-treated patients. The cost of hospitalization is significant with estimates ranging, on average, from $10,000 to $30,000 per neutropenia-related hospitalization. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) significantly reduces the risk and duration of neutropenia-related negative events. However, the exact economic benefits of using G-CSF prophylactically are not completely known. The objective of this review is to examine the cost of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis (PP) as well as when used reactively to treat severe neutropenia (SN) or febrile neutropenia (FN). Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies published up to January 2014. Results: The evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF is inconsistent. The cost savings of PP use of G-CSF associated with the reduction of neutropenia-related events are offset by the increased costs associated with improved chemotherapy administration. Cost savings due to the reduction in mortality and disease/symptoms and use of dose-dense regimens have not been adequately incorporated into previous cost-effectiveness studies. Available data suggest that using G-CSF in conjunction with antibiotics is more cost-effective than antibiotics alone when treating patients with SN/FN. Recent studies of biosimilars suggest that they are as effective as originator G-CSFs and, given their lower cost, could represent a cost-effective alternative. Finally, studies have not taken into consideration the indirect patient costs of experiencing a neutropenia-related event. Conclusion: G-CSF use is effective in preventing SN/FN. Costs due to hospitalization and other neutropenia-related events are lower in patients treated with G-CSF as PP versus untreated patients. Despite this, many studies have not found solid evidence for the overall cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF. One possibility for this is that patients receiving G-CSF prophylactically often receive more intense chemotherapy regimens, have better relative dose intensity, and fewer dose delays, and thereby have greater costs associated with chemotherapy administration than patients who do not receive G-CSF.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84905915620&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84905915620&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12325-014-0133-9

DO - 10.1007/s12325-014-0133-9

M3 - Review article

VL - 31

SP - 683

EP - 695

JO - Advances in Therapy

JF - Advances in Therapy

SN - 0741-238X

IS - 7

ER -