Health-related quality of life anticipated with different management strategies for febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To describe anticipated health-related quality of life (HRQL) for different hypothetical strategies of febrile neutropenia (FN) management in adult cancer patients. METHODS: Seventy-eight adult cancer patients were enrolled. Our study considered four different hypothetical treatment strategies for FN: (1) entire inpatient management with intravenous (IV) antibiotics; (2) oral treatment at home after an initial observation in hospital with IV antibiotics; (3) entire outpatient management with IV antibiotics; and (4) entire outpatient management with oral antibiotics. Initially, patients were asked to rank the different treatment strategies for FN based on their personal preference. Subsequently, HRQL was rated using visual analog scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and willingness-to-pay (WTP). RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of all respondents preferred an outpatient strategy for FN (36% oral, 21% intravenous, 18% early discharge). Further, outpatient strategies were associated with higher mean VAS scores (possible range 0-10) (oral: 6.1 (standard deviation (SD) 3.1); intravenous: 6.2 (SD 2.2); early discharge: 5.7 (SD 2.1)) as compared to inpatient care (5.3 (SD 2.9)). On the aggregate level, patients were willing to give up between 9 and 10 weeks of their life (TTO; corresponding to <1% of remaining life expectancy) and to pay between $255 and $327 Canadian dollars (WTP) to avoid treatment in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that the majority of adult cancer patients would prefer an outpatient strategy for FN. However, patients' preferences vary substantially at the individual level. Implementation of outpatient strategies into routine clinical practice should consider this variability.

Cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment for febrile neutropaenia in adult cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty whether low-risk episodes of febrile neutropaenia (FN) in adult cancer patients are best managed in the in- or outpatient setting. METHODS: A Monte Carlo cost-utility model was created to compare four treatment strategies for low-risk FN: (1) treatment in hospital with intravenous antibiotics (HospIV); (2) early discharge after 48 h in-patient observation, followed by oral outpatient treatment (EarlyDC); (3) outpatient management with IV antibiotics (HomeIV); and (4) outpatient management with oral antibiotics (HomePO). The model used a health-care payer perspective and a time horizon of one FN episode. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted FN episodes (QAFNE), costs (Canadian dollars) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Parameter uncertainty was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: HomePO was cost saving ($3470 vs $4183), but less effective (0.65 QAFNE vs 0.72 QAFNE) than HomeIV. The corresponding ICER was $10,186 per QAFNE. Both EarlyDC ($6115; 0.66 QAFNE) and HospIV ($13,557; 0.62 QAFNE) were dominated strategies. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $4,000 per QAFNE, HomePO and HomeIV were cost effective in 54 and 38% of simulations, respectively. INTERPRETATION: For adult cancer patients with an episode of low-risk FN, treatment in hospital is more expensive and less effective than outpatient strategies.