Cost-effectiveness analysis of mecapegfilgrastim and recombinant human granulocyte stimulating factor for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and economics of mecapegfilgrastim and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) in the primary prevention of chemotherapy-related neutropenia in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 181 patients with NSCLC who received intermediate risk chemotherapy were collected from the information system of a tertiary hospital in China. Patients were categorized into two groups: those treated with mecapegfilgrastim (n = 91) and those treated with rhG-CSF (n = 90). The clinical efficacy rates of neutropenia prevention were used as effect indicators, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Logistic regression, generalized linear regression, and bootstrap methods were used for sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the mecapegfilgrastim and rhG-CSF groups in clinical efficacy rates (98.9 vs. 97.8%). However, the total cost in the mecapegfilgrastim group was significantly higher than that in the rhG-CSF group (16,341.6 CNY vs. 14,371.1 CNY, p = 0.03). The cost-minimization analysis shows that mecapegfilgrastim is not cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses confirm that these results are robust. CONCLUSION: Compared with rhG-CSF, mecapegfilgrastim is not a cost-effective strategy for NSCLC patients in neutropenia prevention in China.

Analysis of 12 cases of antineoplastic agents-induced interstitial lung disease.

Objective: To summarize the situation of antineoplastic agents-induced interstitial lung diseases (ILD), provide reference for strengthening clinical management of druginduced interstitial lung diseases (DILD). Methods: We retrospectively investigated the medical records of 12 patients with antineoplastic agents-induced ILD in a hospital between January and December 2020. Data collected included patients' characteristic (gender, age, ECOG PS score, smoking history, primary tumor, concurrent diseases or complications.) and treatment conditions (DILD-causing drugs, clinical symptoms, chest CT, DILD treatment drugs, onset cycle, onset time, severity of DILD, DILD course and prognosis.). Results: The median age of 12 DILD cases was 68%, 66.67% of the patients were male, lung cancer accounted for 58.33% (7/12). DILD was induced by cytotoxicity drugs, targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), of which ICIs accounted for 66.67% (8/12). Scattered patchy, cord-like, grid-like or flocculent shadows were observed on chest CT, mainly under the pleura of lungs. Once DILD occurs, the suspected antineoplastic agents were stopped and glucocorticoid was given, among which 83.33% (10/12) patients were treated with antibiotics. Finally, 16.67% (2/12) were cured, 33.33% (4/12) were improved, 16.67% (2/12) were not cured and 33.33% (4/12) were dead. Conclusion: Antineoplastic agents-induced ILD is mostly found in elderly male lung cancer patients with smoking history. The clinical symptoms of DILD are diverse and lack of specificity. ICIs-ILD has the characteristic of high incidence and poor prognosis compared with other antineoplastic agents. Comprehensive evaluation before medication, regular review, early and adequate glucocorticoid shock therapy after onset can improve the prognosis of DILD patients.

A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of nebulized budesonide and intravenous methylprednisolone in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of nebulized budesonide and intravenous methylprednisolone in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in a real-world setting. Materials and methods: Data from 291 patients with AECOPD were collected from the information system of a tertiary hospital in China. Patients were categorized into two groups: those treated with nebulized budesonide (n = 148) and those treated with intravenous methylprednisolone (n = 143). Clinical efficacy and the rate of no readmission within 1 year after discharge were used as effect indicators, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Logistic regression, generalized linear regression, and bootstrap methods were used for sensitivity analyses. Results: There was no statistical difference between the budesonide and methylprednisolone groups in clinical efficacy rates (94.6% vs. 93.7%). The cost-minimization analysis shows that budesonide is not cost-effective owing to higher total cost. In terms of readmission rates, budesonide was again not cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 22276.62 CNY, which is higher than the willingness to pay (WTP) of 20206.20 CNY, the mean per admission expenditure in China. The sensitivity analyses confirm that these results are robust. Conclusion: Compared with intravenous methylprednisolone, nebulized budesonide is not a cost-effective strategy for AECOPD patients in China.

Comparative efficacies of nebulized budesonide and systemic corticosteroids in the treatment of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Corticosteroids are recommended by almost all international guidelines for the management of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Nevertheless, due to their side effects, there are still concerns regarding the use of systemic corticosteroids (SCs). The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guideline states nebulized budesonide (NB) may be a suitable alternative to SCs for treating COPD exacerbations. We conducted this study to systematically compare the efficacies of NB and SCs by using a meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched from database inception to 10 October 2019. Our main end points were change in pulmonary function and blood gas analysis. Secondary end points were numbers of exacerbations and hyperglycaemia. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of 645 identified studies, 6 were eligible and were included in our analysis (N = 867 participants). Compared with SCs, NB was non-inferior on the change in FEV1 %predicted at 24 hours, 48-72 hours and 5-7 days; FEV1 at 5-7 days; FEV1 /FVC at 7 days. For blood gas analysis, our meta-analysis indicated that PaO2 , PaCO2 at 24 hours, 48-72 hours and 7-10 days and SaO2 at 24 hours and 7-10 days showed a non-significant difference in both groups, whereas the SaO2 was significant higher in NB group at 48-72 hours after treatment. Hyperglycaemia was less frequent with NB (odds ratio, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.01-0.85; P = .04). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Based on our meta-analysis, NB was not inferior to SCs when used in the treatment of COPD exacerbations. However, additional well-designed prospective studies are needed to identify the optimal dose of nebulized budesonide and the effects of nebulized budesonide in outpatients, or patients in ICU settings.