Nina Lathia

Evaluation of direct medical costs of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia

Treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) is costly, because it typically involves hospitalization. As cancer rates continue to increase, the number of patients suffering from FN will also increase, making it important to quantify the costs of treating this condition accurately and comprehensively.

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

The impact of follicular (FL) and other indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (NHL) on work productivity–a preliminary analysis

7314, CaD

Study Inclusion Criteria and Presentation of Results in a Meta-Analysis of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor for Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia

13947, and CaD

Mortality in a Heterogeneous Population of Low-Risk Febrile Neutropenic Patients Treated Initially with Cefazolin and Tobramycin

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

Proton Pump Inhibitors and Hospitalization with Hypomagnesemia: A Population-Based Case-Control Study

5796000 per QALY. The ICER for the pegfilgrastim vs filgrastim primary prophylaxis strategy was CaD

Eliciting patients’ preferences for outpatient treatment of febrile neutropenia: a discrete choice experiment

2611000 per QALY. All one-way sensitivity analyses yielded ICERs greater than CaD

Factors influencing patient preferences for outpatient treatment of febrile neutropenia.

400000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves show that 20.0% of iterations are cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CaD

Deriving Health Utility Values From a Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients

1595000 for the filgrastim strategy and CaD

Cost-Effectiveness of Filgrastim and Pegfilgrastim as Primary Prophylaxis against Febrile Neutropenia in Lymphoma Patients Receiving R-CHOP Chemotherapy.

561000 for the pegfilgrastim strategy. CONCLUSIONS Primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia with either filgrastim or pegfilgrastim is not cost-effective in DLBCL patients.