title: Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States.
abstract: 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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors.affiliation: Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine and the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
authors.forename: Gary H
authors.initials: GH
authors.lastname: Lyman
authors.forename: Anjana
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Lalla
authors.forename: Richard L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Barron
authors.forename: Robert W
authors.initials: RW
authors.lastname: Dubois
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000970:Antineoplastic Agents / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D005260:Female; D000069585:Filgrastim; D016179:Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D009503:Neutropenia / Q000139:chemically induced / Q000517:prevention & control; D011092:Polyethylene Glycols; D011994:Recombinant Proteins; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D016019:Survival Analysis; D014481:United States
chemical_list: D000970:Antineoplastic Agents; D011994:Recombinant Proteins; D016179:Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; C455861:pegfilgrastim; D011092:Polyethylene Glycols; D000069585:Filgrastim