Hospitalization rates for complications due to systemic therapy in the United States.

The aim of this study was to estimate the trends and burdens associated with systemic therapy-related hospitalizations, using nationally representative data. National Inpatient Sample data from 2005 to 2016 was used to identify systemic therapy-related complications using ICD-9 and ICD-10 external causes-of-injury codes. The primary outcome was hospitalization rates, while secondary outcomes were cost and in-hospital mortality. Overall, there were 443,222,223 hospitalizations during the study period, of which 2,419,722 were due to complications of systemic therapy. The average annual percentage change of these hospitalizations was 8.1%, compared to - 0.5% for general hospitalizations. The three most common causes for hospitalization were anemia (12.8%), neutropenia (10.8%), and sepsis (7.8%). Hospitalization rates had the highest relative increases for sepsis (1.9-fold) and acute kidney injury (1.6-fold), and the highest relative decrease for dehydration (0.21-fold) and fever of unknown origin (0.35-fold). Complications with the highest total charges were anemia ($4.6 billion), neutropenia ($3.0 billion), and sepsis ($2.5 billion). The leading causes of in-hospital mortality associated with systemic therapy were sepsis (15.8%), pneumonia (7.6%), and acute kidney injury (7.0%). Promoting initiatives such as rule OP-35, improving access to and providing coordinated care, developing systems leading to early identification and management of symptoms, and expanding urgent care access, can decrease these hospitalizations and the burden they carry on the healthcare system.

Cabazitaxel schedules in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a review.

Cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) is the standard second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel. It is associated with a risk of neutropenic complications, which may be a barrier to its use in daily clinical practice, particularly in frail elderly patients. Here the authors reviewed key studies conducted with cabazitaxel (TROPIC, PROSELICA, AFFINITY, CARD and the European compassionate use program) and pilot studies with adapted schedules. Based on this review, the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor from cycle 1 appears crucial to maximize the benefit-risk ratio of cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Preliminary data with alternative schedules look promising, especially for frail patients. Results of the ongoing Phase III CABASTY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02961257) are awaited.

Outcomes of treatment with CHOP and EPOCH in patients with HIV associated NHL in a low resource setting.

BACKGROUND: The optimal chemotherapy regimen for treating HIV associated NHL in low resource settings is unknown. We conducted a retrospective study to describe survival rates, treatment response rates and adverse events in patients with HIV associated NHL treated with CHOP and dose adjusted-EPOCH regimens at the Uganda Cancer Institute. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients diagnosed with HIV and lymphoma and treated at the Uganda Cancer Institute from 2016 to 2018 was done. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients treated with CHOP and 12 patients treated with DA-EPOCH were analysed. Patients completing 6 or more cycles of chemotherapy were 51 (47%) in the CHOP group and 8 (67%) in the DA-EPOCH group. One year overall survival (OS) rate in patients treated with CHOP was 54.5% (95% CI, 42.8-64.8) and 80.2% (95% CI, 40.3-94.8) in those treated with DA-EPOCH. Factors associated with favourable survival were BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2, (p = 0.03) and completion of 6 or more cycles of chemotherapy, (p < 0.001). The overall response rate was 40% in the CHOP group and 59% in the DA-EPOCH group. Severe adverse events occurred in 19 (18%) patients in the CHOP group and 3 (25%) in the DA-EPOCH group; these were neutropenia (CHOP = 13, 12%; DA-EPOCH = 2, 17%), anaemia (CHOP = 12, 12%; DA-EPOCH = 1, 8%), thrombocytopenia (CHOP = 7, 6%; DA-EPOCH = 0), sepsis (CHOP = 1), treatment related death (DA-EPOCH = 1) and hepatic encephalopathy (CHOP = 1). CONCLUSION: Treatment of HIV associated NHL with curative intent using CHOP and infusional DA-EPOCH is feasible in low resource settings and associated with > 50% 1 year survival.

The cost-effectiveness of empirical antibiotic treatments for high-risk febrile neutropenic patients: A decision analytic model.

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia has a significant clinical and economic impact on cancer patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of different current empiric antibiotic treatments. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the use of cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and piperacillin/tazobactam for treatment of high-risk patients. The analysis was performed from the perspective of U.S.-based hospitals. The time horizon was defined to be a single febrile neutropenia episode. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating costs and deaths averted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP), were used to address the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The base-case analysis results showed that treatments were equally effective but differed mainly in their cost. In increasing order: treatment with imipenem/cilastatin cost $52,647, cefepime $57,270, piperacillin/tazobactam $57,277, and meropenem $63,778. In the probabilistic analysis, mean costs were $52,554 (CI: $52,242-$52,866) for imipenem/cilastatin, $57,272 (CI: $56,951-$57,593) for cefepime, $57,294 (CI: $56,978-$57,611) for piperacillin/tazobactam, and $63,690 (CI: $63,370-$64,009) for meropenem. Furthermore, with a WTP set at $0 to $50,000, imipenem/cilastatin was cost-effective in 66.2% to 66.3% of simulations compared to all other high-risk options. DISCUSSION: Imipenem/cilastatin is a cost-effective strategy and results in considerable health care cost-savings at various WTP thresholds. Cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to differentiate the treatments of febrile neutropenia in high-risk patients.

Treatment-Related Complications of Systemic Therapy and Radiotherapy.

IMPORTANCE: Systemic therapy and radiotherapy can be associated with acute complications that may require emergent care. However, there are limited data characterizing complications and the financial burden of cancer therapy that are treated in emergency departments (EDs) in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence of treatment-related complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy, examine factors associated with inpatient admission, and investigate the overall financial burden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample was performed. Between January 2006 and December 2015, there was a weighted total of 1.3 billion ED visits; of these, 1.5 million were related to a complication of systemic therapy or radiotherapy for cancer. Data analysis was conducted from February 22 to December 23, 2018. External cause of injury codes, Clinical Classifications Software, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), Clinical Modification codes were used to identify patients with complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patterns in treatment-related complications, patient- and hospital-related factors associated with inpatient admission, and median and total charges for treatment-related complications were the main outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 1.5 million ED visits included in the analysis, 53.2% of patients were female and mean age was 63.3 years. Treatment-related ED visits increased by a rate of 10.8% per year compared with 2.0% for overall ED visits. Among ED visits, 90.9% resulted in inpatient admission to the hospital and 4.9% resulted in death during hospitalization. Neutropenia (136 167 [8.9%]), sepsis (128 171 [8.4%]), and anemia (117 557 [7.7%]) were both the most common and costliest (neutropenia: $5.52 billion; sepsis: $11.21 billion; and anemia: $6.78 billion) complications diagnosed on presentation to EDs; sepsis (odds ratio [OR], 21.00; 95% CI, 14.61-30.20), pneumonia (OR, 9.73; 95% CI, 8.08-11.73), and acute kidney injury (OR, 9.60; 95% CI, 7.77-11.85) were associated with inpatient admission. Costs related to the top 10 most common complications totaled $38 billion and comprised 48% of the total financial burden of the study cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Emergency department visits for complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy increased at a 5.5-fold higher rate over 10 years compared with overall ED visits. Neutropenia, sepsis, and anemia appear to be the most common complications; sepsis, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury appear to be associated with the highest rates of inpatient admission. These complications suggest that significant charges are incurred on ED visits.

Evaluation of pegfilgrastim use at an academic medical center.

PURPOSE: Pegfilgrastim is indicated to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. As a cost-savings initiative, Pegfilgrastim Process Guidelines were developed and implemented at a large, academic teaching institution to improve appropriate use of pegfilgrastim and to decrease costs of outpatient infusion center administration by deferring doses to home self-administration for eligible patients. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review was conducted post-implementation of the Pegfilgrastim Process Guideline to evaluate the use of pegfilgrastim and to assess the safety and efficacy of transferring pegfilgrastim orders from outpatient infusion center to home administration for eligible patients. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included in the study, with 35 patients receiving pegfilgrastim in the outpatient infusion center, 13 patients self-injecting at home, and 11 patients receiving doses in both settings. The total wholesale cost avoidance for pegfilgrastim orders transferred to self-administration at home during this time period totaled $205,163. The revenue from outpatient prescriptions of pegfilgrastim totaled $291,111.93. The percentage of febrile neutropenia admissions was 11.4%, 0%, and 9.1% in the outpatient infusion, home, and outpatient/home group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the Pegfilgrastim Process Guidelines demonstrated decreased total pegfilgrastim orders to be dispensed by the infusion center and a cost avoidance of $205,163 in four months without any perceivable changes in patient outcomes. This represents a significant cost-savings opportunity.

Safety and cost benefit of an ambulatory program for patients with low-risk neutropenic fever at an Australian centre.

BACKGROUND: Neutropenic fever (NF) is a common complication of cancer chemotherapy. Patients at low risk of medical complications from NF can be identified using a validated risk assessment and managed in an outpatient setting. This is a new model of care for Australia. This study described the implementation of a sustainable ambulatory program for NF at a tertiary cancer centre over a 12-month period. METHODS: Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre introduced an ambulatory care program in 2014, which identified low-risk NF patients, promoted early de-escalation to oral antibiotics, and early discharge to a nurse-led ambulatory program. Patients prospectively enrolled in the ambulatory program were compared with a historical-matched cohort of patients from 2011 for analysis. Patient demographics, clinical variables (cancer type, recent chemotherapy, treatment intent, site of presentation) and outcomes were collected and compared. Total cost of inpatient admissions was determined from diagnosis-related group (DRG) codes and applied to both the prospective and historical cohorts to allow comparisons. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were managed in the first year of this program with a reduction in hospital median length of stay from 4.0 to 1.1 days and admission cost from Australian dollars ($AUD) 8580 to $AUD2360 compared to the historical cohort. Offsetting salary costs, the ambulatory program had a net cost benefit of $AUD 71895. Readmission for fever was infrequent (8.0%), and no deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: Of relevance to hospitals providing cancer care, feasibility, safety, and cost benefits of an ambulatory program for low-risk NF patients have been demonstrated.

Outcomes of previously untreated elderly patients with AML: a propensity score-matched comparison of clofarabine vs. FLAG.

The 5-year overall survival (OS) in patients ≥ 60 years old with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains < 10%. Clofarabine-based induction (CLO) provides an alternative to low-intensity therapy (LIT) and palliative care for this population, but supporting data are conflicted. Recently, our institution adopted the FLAG regimen (fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) based on data reporting similar outcomes to CLO in elderly patients with AML unable to tolerate anthracycline-based induction. We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of patients ≥ 60 years old with AML treated with FLAG or CLO over the past 10 years. We performed a propensity score match that provided 32 patients in each group. Patients treated with FLAG had a higher CR/CRi rate (65.6 vs. 37.5%, P = 0.045) and OS (7.9 vs. 2.8 months, P = 0.085) compared to CLO. Furthermore, FLAG was better tolerated with significantly less grade 3/4 toxicities and a shorter duration of neutropenia (18.5 vs. 30 days, P = 0.002). Finally, we performed a cost analysis that estimated savings to be $30,000-45,000 per induction with FLAG. Our study supports the use of FLAG both financially and as an effective, well-tolerated high-dose treatment regimen for elderly patients with AML. No cases of cerebellar neurotoxicity occurred.

Cost of Cancer-Related Neutropenia or Fever Hospitalizations, United States, 2012.

PURPOSE: Neutropenia and subsequent infections are life-threatening treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy. Among patients with cancer, hospitalizations related to neutropenic complications result in substantial medical costs, morbidity, and mortality. Previous estimates for the cost of cancer-related neutropenia hospitalizations are based on older and limited data. This study provides nationally representative estimates of the cost of cancer-related neutropenia hospitalizations. METHODS: We examined data from the 2012 National Inpatient Sample and Kids' Inpatient Database. Hospitalizations for cancer-related neutropenia were defined as those with a primary or secondary diagnosis of cancer and a diagnosis of neutropenia or a fever of unknown origin. We examined characteristics of cancer-related neutropenia hospitalizations among children (age < 18 years) and adults (age ≥ 18 years). Adjusted predicted margins were used to estimate length of stay and cost per stay. RESULTS: There were 91,560 and 16,859 cancer-related neutropenia hospitalizations among adults and children, respectively. Total cost of cancer-related neutropenia hospitalizations was $2.3 billion for adults and $439 million for children. Cancer-related neutropenia hospitalizations accounted for 5.2% of all cancer-related hospitalizations and 8.3% of all cancer-related hospitalization costs. For adults, the mean length of stay for cancer-related neutropenia hospitalizations was 9.6 days, with a mean hospital cost of $24,770 per stay. For children, the mean length of stay for cancer-related neutropenia hospitalizations was 8.5 days, with a mean hospital cost of $26,000 per stay. CONCLUSION: We found the costs of cancer-related neutropenia hospitalizations to be substantially high. Efforts to prevent and minimize neutropenia-related complications among patients with cancer may decrease hospitalizations and associated costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dose-dense versus standard intravenous chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: An economic analysis of results from the Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 262 randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of dose-dense versus standard intravenous adjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer using results from the no-bevacizumab cohort of the Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 262 (GOG-262) randomized controlled trial, which reported a smaller absolute progression-free survival (PFS) benefit than the prior Japanese trial. METHODS: A three-state Markov decision model from a healthcare system perspective with a 21day cycle length and 28month time-horizon was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values per progression-free life-year saved (PFLYS) using results from GOG-262. Costs of chemotherapy, complications, and surveillance were from Medicare or institutional data. PFS, discontinuation, and complication rates were from GOG-262. Time-dependent transition probabilities and within-cycle corrections were used. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The model produces standard and dose-dense cohorts with 84.3% and 68.3% progression event proportions at 28months, matching GOG-262 rates at the trial's median follow-up. With a median PFS of 10.3months after standard chemotherapy and a hazard ratio for progression of 0.62 after dose-dense therapy, the ICER for dose-dense chemotherapy is $8074.25 (95% confidence interval: $7615.97-$10,207.16) per PFLYS. ICER estimates are sensitive only to the hazard ratio estimate but do not exceed $100,000 per PFLYS. 99.8% of ICER estimates met a more stringent willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per PFLYS. The willingness-to-pay value at which there is a 90% probability of dose-dense treatment being cost-effective is $12,000 per PFLYS. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy is robustly cost-effective for advanced ovarian cancer from a healthcare system perspective based on results from GOG-262.

Cost-effectiveness of screening for DPYD polymorphisms to prevent neutropenia in cancer patients treated with fluoropyrimidines.

AIM: To compare the cost of screening for three mutations in the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene and the costs of treating severe fluoropyrimidine-induced neutropenia. MATERIALS & METHODS: The polymorphisms rs3918290 (DPYD*2A), rs67376798 (DPYD 2846A>T) and rs55886062 (1679T>G, DPYD*13) were genotyped using real-time PCR, TaqMan probes and a rapid cell lysis to provide PCR-ready DNA. RESULTS: We found that genotyping 1000 patients in our center cost €6400 and that the mean cost of treating severe neutropenia was €3044. Therefore, if severe fluoropyrimidine-induced neutropenia is reduced by genotyping the three DPYD variations in at least 2.21 cases per 1000 treated patients, then DPYD genotyping will prove cost effective. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that real-time DPYD genotyping using TaqMan probes is cost effective in all fluoropyrimidine-based treatments.

Emerging agents for the prevention of treatment induced neutropenia in adult cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: The administration of myeloid growth factors is the only approved treatment for the prevention of chemotherapy induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. However, their specific indications and contraindications and potential side effects limit their application to only a relatively small subset of patients at the highest risk for complications, such as infection. AREAS COVERED: A computerized systematic literature search was performed through Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, the Pharmaprojects database and the clinicaltrials.gov website. The shortcomings of the existing treatment approach are reviewed, along with a synopsis of the characteristics of novel agents that protect bone marrow progenitors from the cytotoxic effects of antineoplastic treatment that may be used in the future as a stand-alone preventive strategy or as an adjunct to growth factors. EXPERT OPINION: There is an abundance of agents undergoing evaluation for the prevention of treatment-induced neutropenia. The appropriate selection of patients, the optimization of the use of existing agents and the increasing competition from biosimilars which likely ensure future decreases in healthcare costs are essential for growth factors to retain their dominant position in this setting.

White blood cell growth factor use in an outpatient oncology clinic: Lessons and opportunities learned.

The increased use and high cost associated with white blood cell growth factors at our outpatient oncology clinic has prompted this evaluation. The objectives of this study were to categorize the indication for use of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim; evaluate the administration of these white blood cell growth factors; identify opportunities for cost savings; and identify ways to increase prescriber adherence to evidence-based practice guidelines. This medication use evaluation study involved retrospective data collection from patient medical records. Adult oncology patients treated in the outpatient oncology clinic who received filgrastim or pegfilgrastim were identified and included in this study. Computerized patient records were used to collect data on patient demographics, risk factors for febrile neutropenia, prescribing patterns for filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, and chemotherapy regimens. The number of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim doses were predominately used for primary prophylaxis following chemotherapy treatment. Of the 234 total doses of pegfilgrastim used in the setting of primary prophylaxis, 28 (12%), 134 (57%), and 72 (31%) doses were given to patients receiving chemotherapy regimens associated with a high risk (>20%), intermediate risk (10-20%), and low risk (<10%) of febrile neutropenia, respectively. The total number of pegfilgrastim doses used in secondary prophylaxis was 78; 20 (26%) and 58 (74%) of these doses were given to patients receiving chemotherapy regimens associated with an intermediate risk and low risk of febrile neutropenia, respectively. This study revealed a significant portion of prescribed growth factor use that was not in accordance with clinical practice guidelines.

Impact of cancer supportive care pathways compliance on emergency department visits and hospitalizations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of compliance to cancer supportive care pathways on emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations as a result of neutropenia, anemia, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). METHODS: CareFirst claims database was used to evaluate data spanning 2 years of the clinical pathways program. Frequency of ED visits/hospitalizations for neutropenia, anemia, and CINV were compared between compliant and noncompliant pathway utilization of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), and antiemetics, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was used to control for drug expenditures and cancer types. RESULTS: A total of 4,144 lines of therapy were received by 3,191 patients from 46 practices across three states. Overall, there were 472 ED visits/hospitalizations for neutropenia, 34 visits for anemia, and 799 visits for CINV. G-CSF pathway-compliant treatment was associated with a significant reduction in neutropenia ED visits/hospitalizations compared with noncompliant treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.45; P < .001). Adjusting for cancer type and G-CSF drug expenditures, a similar reduction in neutropenia ED visits/hospitalizations was observed (OR = 0.42; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.58; P < .001). Analogous analyses did not demonstrate a significant association between ESA and antiemetic pathway compliance and ED visits/hospitalizations for anemia (P = .069) and CINV (P = .106), respectively. G-CSF therapy pathway compliance was also associated with an average decrease of $1,085 in ED visit/hospitalization costs per line of therapy (P < .001). CONCLUSION: G-CSF pathway compliance was associated with a significant decrease in the rate of neutropenia ED visits/hospitalizations and resulting costs.

Cost-effectiveness of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia in lymphoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia is a serious toxicity of cancer chemotherapy that is usually treated in hospital. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: We used a Markov model that followed patients through induction chemotherapy to compare the three prophylaxis strategies: 1) no primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia; 2) primary prophylaxis with 10 days of filgrastim therapy; and 3) primary prophylaxis with a single dose of pegfilgrastim. The target population was a hypothetical cohort of 64-year-old men and women with DLBCL. Data sources included published literature and current clinical practice. The analysis was conducted from a publicly funded health-care system perspective. The main outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, costs associated with no primary prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis with 10 days of filgrastim, and primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim were CaD $7314, CaD $13947, and CaD $16290, respectively. The QALYs associated with the three strategies were 0.2004, 0.2015, and 0.2024, respectively. The ICER for the filgrastim vs no primary prophylaxis strategy was CaD $5796000 per QALY. The ICER for the pegfilgrastim vs filgrastim primary prophylaxis strategy was CaD $2611000 per QALY. All one-way sensitivity analyses yielded ICERs greater than CaD $400000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves show that 20.0% of iterations are cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CaD $1595000 for the filgrastim strategy and CaD $561000 for the pegfilgrastim strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia with either filgrastim or pegfilgrastim is not cost-effective in DLBCL patients.

Is the progression free survival advantage of concurrent gemcitabine plus cisplatin and radiation followed by adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced cervical cancer worth the additional cost? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine whether concurrent and adjuvant chemoradiation with gemcitabine/cisplatin is cost-effective in patients with stage IIB to IVA cervical cancer. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model compared two arms of the trial performed by Duenas-Gonzalez et al. [1]: concurrent and adjuvant chemoradiation with gemcitabine/cisplatin (RT/GC+GC) versus concurrent radiation with cisplatin (RT/C). Major adverse events (AEs) and progression free survival (PFS) rates of each arm were incorporated in the model. AEs were defined as any hospitalization including grade 4 anemia, grade 4 neutropenia, and death. Medicare data and literature review were used to estimate costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for pertinent uncertainties. RESULTS: For 10,000 women with locally advanced cervical cancer, the cost of therapy and AEs was $173.9 million (M) for RT/C versus $259.8M for RT/GC+GC. There were 879 additional 3-year progression-free survivors in the RT/GC+GC arm. The ICER for RT/GC+GC was $97,799 per PF-LYS. When the rate of hospitalization was equalized to 4.3%, the ICER for RT/GC+GC exceeded $80,000. The resultant ICER when increasing PFS in the RT/GC+GC arm by 5% was $62,605 per PF-LYS. When the cost of chemotherapy was decreased by 50%, the ICER was below $50,000 at $41,774 per PF-LYS. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation and gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with stage IIB to IVA cervical cancer are not cost-effective. The increased financial burden of radiation with gemcitabine/cisplatin and associated toxicities appears to outweigh the benefit of increased 3-year PFS and is primarily dependent on chemotherapy drug costs.

Pharmacoeconomics of empirical antifungal use in febrile neutropenic hematological malignancy and hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients.

Invasive fungal infections incur considerable costs to healthcare and are associated with high mortality. These infections are increasing, due in part to more intensive immunosuppressive regimens with longer periods of neutropenia for patients treated for conditions such as cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Therapeutic strategies in treating invasive fungal infections include the initiation of empiric antifungal therapy. This early treatment is triggered by fever that is unresponsive to 48-72 h of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy in high-risk patients, prior to diagnosis. Several antifungal agents are available for this purpose. Informed decisions with respect to the choice of antifungal drug require clinicians to consider both efficacy data of a particular drug and the economic consequences of using the drug. This enables a treatment decision to be based not only on drug acquisition cost, but also expenses associated with hospitalization, monitoring and managing adverse effects to the treatment(s) chosen.

A retrospective study of patients' out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.

OBJECTIVE: With rising healthcare costs, there is an increasing concern with the burden of out-of-pocket costs on cancer patients. This study examined patients' out-of-pocket expenditures for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, which are given to cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and have been shown to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia. METHODS: Adult patients who received chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in the outpatient setting in the United States between January 2007 and June 2010 were evaluated using medical and pharmacy claims data from two healthcare data sources, the MarketScan(®) Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases and the HealthCore Integrated Research Database(SM). The distribution of out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors per patient and per administration was described for each quarter. Longitudinal analyses of out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors were also performed for patients with continuous health plan eligibility during each calendar year from 2007 to 2009. RESULTS: The pattern of out-of-pocket expenditures for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim was generally consistent between the databases and over time. On average, about 65%-75% of patients had zero quarterly out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Across the years, the mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs per patient were $100-$150 and $50-$80 for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, respectively. The mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors per administration were $40-$70 and $8-$10, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis of medical and pharmacy claims data, most patients who received chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in 2007 to 2010 had incurred no quarterly out-of-pocket costs associated with G-CSF use.

Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization of cancer patients than filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective United States claims analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF).

BACKGROUND: Myelosuppressive chemotherapy can lead to dose-limiting febrile neutropenia. Prophylactic use of recombinant human G-CSF such as daily filgrastim and once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim may reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. This comparative study examined the effect of pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim on the risk of hospitalization. METHODS: This retrospective United States claims analysis utilized 2004-2009 data for filgrastim- and pegfilgrastim-treated patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or breast, lung, ovarian, or colorectal cancers. Cycles in which pegfilgrastim or filgrastim was administered within 5 days from initiation of chemotherapy (considered to represent prophylaxis) were pooled for analysis. Neutropenia-related hospitalization and other healthcare encounters were defined with a "narrow" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia and with a "broad" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia, fever, or infection. Odds ratios (OR) for hospitalization and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by generalized estimating equation (GEE) models and adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Per-cycle healthcare utilization and costs were examined for cycles with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis. RESULTS: We identified 3,535 patients receiving G-CSF prophylaxis, representing 12,056 chemotherapy cycles (11,683 pegfilgrastim, 373 filgrastim). The mean duration of filgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 4.8 days. The mean duration of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 1.0 day, consistent with the recommended dosage of pegfilgrastim - a single injection once per chemotherapy cycle. Cycles with prophylactic pegfilgrastim were associated with a decreased risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (narrow definition: OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.16-1.13; broad definition: OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.24-0.59) and all-cause hospitalization (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.72) versus cycles with prophylactic filgrastim. For neutropenia-related utilization by setting of care, there were more ambulatory visits and hospitalizations per cycle associated with filgrastim prophylaxis than with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. Mean per-cycle neutropenia-related costs were also higher with prophylactic filgrastim than with prophylactic pegfilgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative effectiveness study, pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was associated with a reduced risk of neutropenia-related or all-cause hospitalization relative to filgrastim prophylaxis.

Safety and cost-effectiveness of outpatient autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma.

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma. Outpatient ASCT can be an attractive option given wait times and costs associated with inpatient procedures. We initiated an outpatient transplantation protocol in 2006. Patients were treated at a university hospital outpatient clinic that was open 5 days a week. The present study investigated safety and cost-effectiveness of the outpatient program. Ninety-one patients underwent ASCT between 2006 and 2010. The majority of patients (77%) had Durie-Salmon stage III disease; 38% had 1 or more comorbidities. Seventy-six patients (84%) were hospitalized during the first 100 days, mainly for febrile neutropenia (n = 71). Overall survival at day 100 was 100%. No patient was admitted to an intensive care unit. Risk factors for prolonged hospitalization (longer than 7 days) were disease stage IIB or higher and age >60 years. The cost savings was $19,522 (Canadian dollars) per patient compared with inpatient ASCT, for an annual savings of approximately $740,000. In summary, outpatient ASCT performed in a weekday clinic for patients with multiple myeloma appears to be safe and cost-effective, but is associated with a relatively high hospitalization rate.