title: Pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors: a critical and systematic review.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors (MGFs) is an important topic that has received substantial attention in recent years. The use of the MGFs as primary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) has grown considerably over the past decade and professional guidelines regarding their use have broadened the settings in which these agents are indicated. Recent data also suggest a potential role for them in reducing infection-related and all-cause mortality. The cost and effectiveness of these agents will continue to gain visibility as companies pursue approval for biosimilar agents in the US, similar to their recent approval in Europe.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The objective of this paper is to review the available pharmacoeconomic literature on the MGFs, which is particularly timely in light of the recent passage of healthcare reform and the increasing focus on cost control. The cost of treating cancer in the US is rising faster than the already rapid increase in overall medical expenditure. The clinical utility and cost effectiveness of supportive care measures in oncology must therefore be weighed carefully. This review focuses on the use of different formulations of MGFs for primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.
  
  
  METHODS
  A MEDLINE search was performed to find studies that became available since the prior review of this topic was published in Pharmacoeconomics in 2003.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Acceptable cost-minimization estimates for primary prophylaxis with the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy have been provided by several studies in the US. Of the commonly used agents in the US, pegfilgrastim appears to be superior to the currently recommended dose and schedule of filgrastim in terms of cost minimization, and primary prophylaxis appears to be less costly than secondary prophylaxis. However, the cost benefits of primary prophylaxis in Europe are not as pronounced as in the US, due to the lower costs of medical care. Data continue to emerge suggesting a decreased risk of early mortality from averted infections as well as the possibility of a disease-specific mortality benefit through maintaining the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy with MGF support.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This evidence will prove valuable in assessing the overall cost effectiveness and cost utility of the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medicine, Duke University and the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
authors.forename: Bradford R
authors.initials: BR
authors.lastname: Hirsch
authors.forename: Gary H
authors.initials: GH
authors.lastname: Lyman
mesh_terms: D000970:Antineoplastic Agents / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use; D059451:Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D016527:Drug Costs; D017850:Economics, Pharmaceutical; D005060:Europe; D005334:Fever / Q000139:chemically induced / Q000191:economics / Q000517:prevention & control; D016179:Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D016178:Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006801:Humans; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy; D009503:Neutropenia / Q000139:chemically induced / Q000191:economics / Q000517:prevention & control*; D014481:United States
chemical_list: D000970:Antineoplastic Agents; D059451:Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; D016179:Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; D016178:Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor