Objective: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with pegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6-day and 11-day), or no prophylaxis to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan.
Methods: A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PP vs SP from a US payer perspective. Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy (relative risk of FN with prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis) and mortality, costs, and utility values were estimated from public sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per FN event avoided, incremental cost per life-year saved (LYS), and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted.
Results: For patients receiving docetaxel, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was $7900 per QALY gained, and PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all other comparators. For patients receiving topotecan, PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all comparators. Model results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk. PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective in 68% and 83% of simulations for docetaxel and in >99% of simulations for topotecan at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY.
Conclusions: PP with pegfilgrastim should be considered cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan with a high risk of FN.
Keywords: Cost effectiveness; Febrile neutropenia; Filgrastim; Ovarian cancer; Pegfilgrastim; Prophylaxis.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.