Retrospective chart review of hospitalizations and costs associated with the treatment of adults with Philadelphia-negative B-cell relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Belgium.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify hospitalizations and costs among adults with Philadelphia-negative relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who received current salvage chemotherapies in Belgium. METHODS: A retrospective chart review identified patients aged ≥18 years and hospitalized between 2005 and 2015 for Ph-negative R/R B-cell ALL. Data were collected from the index date (first diagnosis of R/R ALL) until death or loss to follow-up. The salvage chemotherapy period was defined as the first chemotherapy hospitalization after the index date to the earliest of death, loss to follow-up, last chemotherapy dose plus 30 days, or initiation of hematological stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The primary endpoint was the percent of time in the hospital during the salvage chemotherapy period. Hospitalization costs were reported from the public health care payer perspective. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included, with median age of 37 years. The average proportion of time patients spent in the hospital during the salvage chemotherapy period was 50.5%. From the index date to death, patients received a mean of 1.8 lines of chemotherapy, most commonly hyper-CVAD (31%). There was a mean of 5.5 inpatient hospitalizations and 40.1 outpatient visits with 40.8 outpatient lab tests. Mean costs per patient were €79,973 for hospitalization (excluding HSCT), €26,337 for HSCT, €21,007 for chemotherapy drugs, and €6,341 for outpatient management, resulting in a total cost from the payer's perspective of €133,965 per patient. CONCLUSION: Adults with Ph-negative R/R ALL spend half the time receiving salvage chemotherapy in the hospital. Their treatment is associated with large reimbursement costs in Belgium.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis Treatment Strategies to Reduce the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer or Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of no prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis (PP), or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), i.e., pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6- and 11-day), or lenograstim (6- and 11-day), to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with stage II breast cancer receiving TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide) and in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) over a lifetime horizon from a Belgian payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree tracked FN events during chemotherapy (3-week cycles) and long-term survival (1-year cycles). Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy, risk of reduced relative dose intensity (RDI), and the impact of RDI on mortality, utilities, and costs (in €; 2014 values) were estimated from public sources and the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per FN event avoided, life-year (LY) saved, and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) saved. LYs and QALYs saved were discounted at 1.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSAs and PSAs) were conducted. RESULTS: Base-case ICERs for PP with pegfilgrastim relative to SP with pegfilgrastim were €15,500 per QALY and €14,800 per LY saved for stage II breast cancer and €7800 per QALY and €6900 per LY saved for NHL; other comparators were either more expensive and less effective than PP or SP with pegfilgrastim or had lower costs but higher ICERs (relative to SP with pegfilgrastim) than PP with pegfilgrastim. Results of the DSA for breast cancer and NHL comparing PP and SP with pegfilgrastim indicate that the model results were most sensitive to the cycle 1 risk of FN, the proportion of FN events requiring hospitalization, the relative risk of FN in cycles ≥2 versus cycle 1, no history of FN, and the mortality hazard ratio for RDI (<90% vs ≥90% [for NHL]). In the PSAs for stage II breast cancer and NHL, the probabilities that PP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective or dominant versus all other prophylaxis strategies at a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold were 52% (other strategies ≤24%) and 58% (other strategies ≤24%), respectively. CONCLUSION: From a Belgian payer perspective, PP with pegfilgrastim appears cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with stage II breast cancer or NHL at a €30,000/QALY threshold.