The epidemiology, treatment patterns, healthcare utilizations and costs of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) in Taiwan.

BACKGROUNDS: An increasing incidence of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) has been reported in several Western countries. However, the epidemiology of AML in Asia is very limited. According to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline of AML, a range of conventional therapy options is available to AML patients. Nevertheless, different treatment strategies may result in diverse healthcare utilization and costs. Understanding the treatment patterns, healthcare utilization and costs of AML would thus be essential for clinicians and policymakers to optimize the treatment strategies of AML. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence, treatment patterns, healthcare utilization and costs of AML in Taiwan using a nationwide population database. METHODS: We retrospectively identified AML patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2015 from the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database (TCRD) and estimated the epidemiology of AML in Taiwan. The TCRD was linked to National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) to collect the treatment patterns and health care utilization. Patients diagnosed with AML from 2011 to 2015 were further identified to analyze treatment patterns, healthcare utilization and costs. RESULTS: The crude annual incidence of AML increased from 2.78 to 3.21 cases per 100,000 individuals from 2006 to 2015. However, the age-standardized rate (ASRs) of AML slightly declined from 2.47 to 2.41 cases per 100,000 individuals in the same period. Among 2,179 AML patients who received induction therapy (median age: 56 years), most of them (n = 1744; 80.04%) received standard-dose cytarabine (SDAC) regimen. The remaining 162 patients received high dose cytarabine (HDAC) and 273 patients received non-standard dose cytarabine (N-SDAC) regimen as the induction therapy. The median medical costs in our study for patients treated with chemotherapy alone was $42,271 for HDAC, $36,199 for SDAC and $36,250 for N-SDAC. For those who received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) after induction therapy, their median medical costs were $78,876 for HDAC, $78,593 for SDAC and $79,776 for N-SDAC. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first population-based study conducted in Asia to provide updated and comprehensive information on epidemiology, treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization and costs of AML.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia among breast cancer and Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients under Taiwan's national health insurance system.

RATIONALE, AIM AND OBJECTIVE: The beneficial effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis on reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (CIFN) were well documented throughout the literature. However, existing data regarding its cost-effectiveness were conflicting. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of G-CSF prophylaxis in CIFN under Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) system. METHODS: Data on clinical outcomes and direct medical costs were derived for 5179 newly diagnosed breast cancer and 629 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients from the NHI claims database. Patients were further categorized into three subgroups as "primary-", "secondary-" and "no -" prophylaxis based on their patterns of G-CSF use. Generalized estimating equations were applied to estimate the impact of G-CSF use on the incidence of CIFN. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of primary and secondary prophylactic G-CSF use were calculated and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Primary prophylaxis of G-CSF decreased the incidence of CIFN by 27% and 83%, while secondary prophylaxis by 34% and 22% in breast cancer and NHL patients, respectively. Compared with those with no prophylaxis, the incremental cost per CIFN reduced in primary prophylaxis is $931 and $52 among patients with breast cancer and NHL, respectively. In contrast, secondary prophylaxis is dominated by no prophylaxis and primary prophylaxis in both cancer patients. CONCLUSION: Primary but not secondary prophylactic use of G-CSF was cost-effective in CIFN in breast cancer and NHL patients under Taiwan's NHI system.