Objective. To identify if prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) delivers the same clinical outcome and level of cost-effectiveness in general clinical use as it has under controlled clinical trial conditions in patients with non-Hodgkin's lym phoma.
Method. A 6-month prospective study of all patients eligible to receive prophylactic G-CSF for supportive treatment for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was performed. Outcomes measured included occur rence of febrile neutropenia, length of hospital stay, and cost of admission. The critical values of key pharmacoeconomic parameters were calculated for this patient group and compared with the actual values obtained.
Results. The use of G-CSF in all 99 courses, for 35 patients, complied with funding guidelines. Pro phylactic G-CSF was prescribed most frequently for chemotherapy courses which were most likely to result in febrile neutropenia. The percentage of che motherapy courses associated with febrile neutrope nia in patients who did not receive G-CSF increased significantly with treatment intensity. Prophylactic G-CSF appeared to be cost-effective for patients re ceiving high intensity chemotherapy but not for other patients.
Conclusion. Clinicians at our institute use G- CSF where clinical benefits are most likely to be obtained. The use of prophylactic G-CSF is more cost-effective than using therapeutic G-CSF to treat febrile neutropenia in high risk patients. The contin ued funding of prophylactic G-CSF for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is justified clinically and economically in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy.
Bodey G., Buckley M., Sathe YS, Freireich EJQuantitative relationships between circulating leukocytes and infection in patients with acute leukaemia. Ann Intern Med.1966;64:328-340.
2.
Morstyn G., Souza L., Keech J., et al. Effect of granulocyte colony stimulating factor on neutropenia induced by cytotoxic chemotherapy. Lancet. 1988;1:667- 671.
3.
Morstyn G., Campbell L., Leieschke G., et al. Treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia by subcutaneously administered granulocyte stimulating factor with optimisation of dose and duration of therapy. J Clin Oncol.1989;7:1554-1562.
4.
Crawford J., Ozer H., Stoller R., et al. Reduction by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of fever and neutropenia induced by chemotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer . N Engl J Med.1991;325:164-170.
5.
Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Including Submissions Involving Economic Analyses. Canberra; Australian Government Publishing Service, August 1992.
6.
Health and Community Services Victoria. Commonwealth/State Highly Specialised Drugs Program Guidelines. Department of Health and Community Services, December 1994.
7.
Souetre E., Qing W.Economic analysis of lenograstim in the correction of neutropenia following chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. PharmacoEconomics . 1994;6(Suppl 2):36-43.
8.
Lyman GH, Lyman CG, Sanderson RA, Balducci L.Decision analysis of hematopoietic growth factor use in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 ;85:488 - 493.
9.
Mapelli V., Graf vd Schulenburg JM, Laaser U., Allhoff PG, Rossi F.Economic evaluation of lenograstim (glycosylated rHuG-CSF) in the treatment of inflammatory breast cancer for Germany and Italy. PharmacoEconomics.1994;6(Suppl 2):27-35.
10.
Drummond M. , Davies L.Economic evaluation of lenograstim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with small cell lung cancer . PharmacoEconomics.1994 ;6(Suppl 2):44-52.
11.
Menzin J., Oster G., Cour-Chabernaud V., Richard D.Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of lenograstim, conclusions and future directions . PhannacoEconomics.1996;6(Suppl 2):53-60.
