Febrile neutropenia-related care and associated costs in elderly patients with breast cancer, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Limited information is available regarding elderly patients experiencing febrile neutropenia (FN). This study evaluated FN-related care among elderly cancer patients who received high/intermediate FN-risk chemotherapy and experienced ≥ 1 FN episodes. METHODS: We used Medicare data to identify patients aged ≥ 66 years who initiated high/intermediate FN-risk chemotherapy between 1 January 2008 and 31 August 2015 to treat breast cancer (BC), lung cancer (LC), or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and had ≥ 1 FN episodes. We identified within-cycle FN episodes for each chemotherapy cycle on Part A inpatient claims or outpatient or Part B claims. We described the FN-related care setting (inpatient hospital, outpatient emergency department [ED], or outpatient non-ED) and reported mean total cost of FN-related care per episode overall and by care setting (adjusted to 2015 US$). RESULTS: We identified 2138, 3521, and 2862 patients with BC, LC, and NHL, respectively, with ≥ 1 FN episodes (total episodes: 2407, 3840, 3587, respectively). Most FN episodes required inpatient care (BC, 88.1%; LC, 93.0%; NHL, 93.2%) with mean hospital length of stay (LOS) 6.2, 6.5, and 6.8 days, respectively. Intensive care unit admission was required for 20.4% of BC, 29.0% of LC, and 25.7% of NHL hospitalizations (mean LOS: 4.7, 4.7, 5.5 days, respectively). The mean total cost of FN care per episode was $11,959 BC, $14,388 LC, and $15,006 NHL, with inpatient admission the costliest care component ($11,826; $14,294; and $14,873; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among elderly patients with BC, LC, or NHL who experienced FN, most FN episodes required costly hospital care, highlighting the FN burden on healthcare systems.

Hospitalizations, outcomes, and management costs of febrile neutropenia in patients from a managed care population.

PURPOSE: The study objective was to evaluate chemotherapy treatment patterns and incidence, cost, and resource utilization of febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization (FNH) in patients with breast cancer, lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large integrated delivery system. METHODS: Adults ≥18 years with any stage breast cancer, lung cancer, or NHL who initiated myelosuppressive chemotherapy from 01/01/2006 to 12/31/2009 were included. Chemotherapy dose delays ≥7 days, relative dose intensity (RDI), regimen switching, FNH and all-cause mortality, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and antibiotic use, and healthcare utilization/cost were evaluated by cancer type, regimen, and/or cycle. RESULTS: Among 3314 breast cancer patients, 25.3% received an RDI ≤85%, 13.9% experienced FNH with an all-cause mortality rate of 2.0%, and 20.2% received primary prophylaxis with G-CSF. Among those with FNH, mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was 4.1 days, and mean total costs were $20,462. Among 1443 lung cancer patients, 17.9% had an RDI ≤85%, 8.0% experienced FNH with an all-cause mortality rate of 25.2%, and 4.5% received primary prophylaxis with G-CSF. Among those with FNH, mean LOS was 6.8 days, and mean total costs were $32,964. Among 581 NHL patients, 27.9% had an RDI ≤85% and 22.4% experienced FNH with an all-cause mortality rate of 13%. Among those with FNH, mean LOS was 7.9 days, and mean total costs were $37,555. CONCLUSIONS: Marked variability was observed among different cancer types and chemotherapy regimens. Given the variability, detailed insight into incidence, management, and burden of FN can help inform clinical decision making.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis treatment strategies for febrile neutropenia in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

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.