• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

生物类似物非格司亭用于中风险发热性中性粒细胞减少症患者的初级预防:成本效果分析。

Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

机构信息

Sandoz, Inc, Princeton, NJ.

Xcenda, LLC, Palm Harbor, FL.

出版信息

JCO Oncol Pract. 2021 Aug;17(8):e1235-e1245. doi: 10.1200/OP.20.01047. Epub 2021 Apr 1.

DOI:10.1200/OP.20.01047
PMID:33793342
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8360497/
Abstract

PURPOSE

Temporary COVID-19 guideline recommendations have recently been issued to expand the use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer with intermediate to high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz in patients with intermediate risk of FN compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) over three different cancer types.

METHODS

A Markov decision analytic model was constructed from the US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds for incremental cost per FN avoided, life year gained, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared with SP, PP provided an additional 0.102-0.144 LYs and 0.065-0.130 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ranged from $5,660 in US dollars (USD) to $20,806 USD per FN event avoided, $5,123 to $31,077 USD per life year gained, and $7,213 to $35,563 USD per QALY gained. Over 1,000 iterations, there were 73.6%, 99.4%, and 91.8% probabilities that PP was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $50,000 USD per QALY gained for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PP with a biosimilar filgrastim (specifically filgrastim-sndz) is cost-effective in patients with intermediate risk for FN receiving curative chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL. Expanding the use of colony-stimulating factors for patients may be valuable in reducing unnecessary health care visits for patients with cancer at risk of complications because of COVID-19 and should be considered for the indefinite future.

摘要

目的

最近发布了临时 COVID-19 指南建议,以扩大在有中高危发热性中性粒细胞减少症 (FN)风险的癌症患者中使用集落刺激因子。我们评估了与二级预防 (SP) 相比,在三种不同癌症类型中,使用生物类似物非格司亭-sndz 进行初级预防 (PP) 在中危 FN 患者中的成本效益。

方法

从美国支付者的角度出发,构建了一个马尔可夫决策分析模型,以评估乳腺癌、非小细胞肺癌 (NSCLC) 和非霍奇金淋巴瘤 (NHL) 患者中 PP 与 SP 的情况。在避免每次 FN 避免的增量成本、获得的生命年和获得的质量调整生命年 (QALY) 的一系列意愿支付阈值下,评估了成本效益。敏感性分析评估了不确定性。

结果

与 SP 相比,PP 提供了额外的 0.102-0.144 LYs 和 0.065-0.130 QALYs。增量成本效益范围从每次 FN 避免的 5660 美元到 20806 美元,每次获得的生命年增加 5123 美元到 31077 美元,每次获得的 QALY 增加 7213 美元到 35563 美元。在 1000 多次迭代中,有 73.6%、99.4%和 91.8%的概率表明,在愿意支付每个 QALY 获得 50000 美元的情况下,PP 对于乳腺癌、NSCLC 和 NHL 分别具有成本效益。

结论

对于接受治愈性化疗方案的中危 FN 乳腺癌、NSCLC 和 NHL 患者,使用生物类似物非格司亭(特别是非格司亭-sndz)进行 PP 是具有成本效益的。扩大集落刺激因子的使用范围可能有助于减少因 COVID-19 而有并发症风险的癌症患者不必要的医疗保健访问,并且应该在未来无限期地考虑。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bab5/8360497/283e5d162a8d/op-17-e1235-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bab5/8360497/1cf658a7563e/op-17-e1235-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bab5/8360497/283e5d162a8d/op-17-e1235-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bab5/8360497/1cf658a7563e/op-17-e1235-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bab5/8360497/283e5d162a8d/op-17-e1235-g004.jpg

相似文献

1
Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.生物类似物非格司亭用于中风险发热性中性粒细胞减少症患者的初级预防:成本效果分析。
JCO Oncol Pract. 2021 Aug;17(8):e1235-e1245. doi: 10.1200/OP.20.01047. Epub 2021 Apr 1.
2
Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.癌症患者使用粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)预防发热性中性粒细胞减少症(FN)的成本效益。
Support Care Cancer. 2023 Sep 20;31(10):581. doi: 10.1007/s00520-023-08043-4.
3
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis Treatment Strategies to Reduce the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer or Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.降低早期乳腺癌或非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者发热性中性粒细胞减少症发生率的预防性治疗策略的成本效益分析
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Apr;35(4):425-438. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0474-0.
4
Routine Primary Prophylaxis for Febrile Neutropenia with Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (Nivestim) or Pegfilgrastim Is Cost Effective in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients undergoing Curative-Intent R-CHOP Chemotherapy.对于接受根治性R-CHOP化疗的非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者,使用生物类似药粒细胞集落刺激因子(Nivestim)或聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子进行发热性中性粒细胞减少的常规一级预防具有成本效益。
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 12;11(2):e0148901. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148901. eCollection 2016.
5
Primary vs secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for the reduction of febrile neutropenia risk in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: cost-effectiveness analyses.培非格司亭用于非霍奇金淋巴瘤化疗患者降低发热性中性粒细胞减少症风险的一级和二级预防:成本效益分析。
J Med Econ. 2014 Jan;17(1):32-42. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2013.844160. Epub 2013 Oct 18.
6
Febrile neutropenia hospitalization due to pegfilgrastim on-body injector failure compared to single-injection pegfilgrastim and daily injections with reference and biosimilar filgrastim: US cost simulation for lung cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.培非格司亭体注射笔故障导致的发热性中性粒细胞减少症住院治疗与单次注射培非格司亭和参照及生物类似物注射用粒细胞集落刺激因子每日注射相比:肺癌和非霍奇金淋巴瘤的美国成本模拟。
J Med Econ. 2020 Jan;23(1):28-36. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2019.1658591. Epub 2019 Sep 3.
7
Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis treatment strategies for febrile neutropenia in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.复发性卵巢癌患者发热性中性粒细胞减少症预防治疗策略的成本效益分析。
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jun;133(3):446-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.014. Epub 2014 Mar 19.
8
Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review.培非格司亭对比格拉司琼预防淋巴瘤患者化疗引起的发热性中性粒细胞减少症的成本效果:一项系统评价。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Dec 30;22(1):1600. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08933-z.
9
Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving FEC-D.预防性粒细胞集落刺激因子对接受FEC-D方案治疗的乳腺癌患者发热性中性粒细胞减少症的成本效益分析
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Feb;150(1):169-80. doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3309-3. Epub 2015 Feb 19.
10
The economic value of primary prophylaxis using pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in patients with breast cancer in the UK.在英国,乳腺癌患者使用培非格司亭预防性治疗相比使用非格司亭的经济学价值。
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7(3):193-205. doi: 10.1007/BF03256152.

引用本文的文献

1
How Can Oncology Nurses and Advanced Practice Providers Reduce the Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia in the US?美国肿瘤护士和高级执业提供者如何减轻化疗引起的发热性中性粒细胞减少症的负担?
J Adv Pract Oncol. 2024 May 22:1-15. doi: 10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.8.5.
2
Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN): healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in commercially insured patients in the US.化疗引起的发热性中性粒细胞减少症(FN):美国商业保险患者的医疗资源利用(HCRU)和成本。
Support Care Cancer. 2024 May 23;32(6):373. doi: 10.1007/s00520-024-08492-5.
3
Optimal use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis to improve survival in cancer patients receiving treatment : An expert view.

本文引用的文献

1
Considerations for Use of Hematopoietic Growth Factors in Patients With Cancer Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic.新型冠状病毒肺炎大流行期间癌症患者使用造血生长因子的考量
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Sep 1:1-4. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7610.
2
Machine Learning for Precision Health Economics and Outcomes Research (P-HEOR): Conceptual Review of Applications and Next Steps.用于精准健康经济学与结果研究(P-HEOR)的机器学习:应用概念综述与下一步举措
J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2020 May 12;7(1):35-42. doi: 10.36469/jheor.2020.12698. eCollection 2020.
3
COVID-19 pandemic: Emerging perspectives and future trends.
优化粒细胞集落刺激因子预防用药以改善癌症患者治疗效果的生存获益:专家观点。
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2024 Jun;136(11-12):362-368. doi: 10.1007/s00508-023-02300-6. Epub 2023 Nov 27.
4
Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.癌症患者使用粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)预防发热性中性粒细胞减少症(FN)的成本效益。
Support Care Cancer. 2023 Sep 20;31(10):581. doi: 10.1007/s00520-023-08043-4.
5
Impact of primary prophylaxis by pegfilgrastim in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP.聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子在R-CHOP方案治疗弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤中进行一级预防的作用。
Ann Hematol. 2023 Nov;102(11):3167-3175. doi: 10.1007/s00277-023-05411-2. Epub 2023 Aug 21.
6
Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in intermediate-risk regimens: Clinical and economic outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis.中危方案化疗引起发热性中性粒细胞减少的风险:粒细胞集落刺激因子预防的临床和经济结局。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023 Feb;29(2):128-138. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.2.128.
7
Real-World Use of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor in Patients with Breast Cancer from Alberta, Canada.加拿大艾伯塔省乳腺癌患者粒细胞集落刺激因子的真实世界应用
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Dec 15;14(24):6197. doi: 10.3390/cancers14246197.
8
The Impact of Baseline Risk Factors on the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy with Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis: A Real-World Data Analysis.基线风险因素对接受聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子预防性化疗的乳腺癌患者发热性中性粒细胞减少症发生率的影响:一项真实世界数据分析
J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2021 Jun 22;8(1):106-115. doi: 10.36469/001c.24564. eCollection 2021.
9
Trends in Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Following Introduction of Biosimilars Among Adults With Cancer and Commercial or Medicare Insurance From 2014 to 2019.2014 年至 2019 年期间,具有商业或医疗保险的癌症成人患者在生物类似药上市后使用粒细胞集落刺激因子的趋势。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2133474. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33474.
10
Primary prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim cost-effective approach to avoid febrile neutropenia.使用生物类似药非格司亭进行一级预防是避免发热性中性粒细胞减少症的具有成本效益的方法。
PharmacoEcon Outcomes News. 2021;876(1):26. doi: 10.1007/s40274-021-7640-0. Epub 2021 Apr 17.
2019冠状病毒病大流行:新观点与未来趋势
J Public Health Res. 2020 Jun 4;9(1):1786. doi: 10.4081/jphr.2020.1786.
4
Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study.COVID-19 对癌症患者的临床影响(CCC19):一项队列研究。
Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395(10241):1907-1918. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31187-9. Epub 2020 May 28.
5
Clinical characteristics of COVID-19-infected cancer patients: a retrospective case study in three hospitals within Wuhan, China.COVID-19 感染癌症患者的临床特征:中国武汉三家医院的回顾性病例研究。
Ann Oncol. 2020 Jul;31(7):894-901. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296. Epub 2020 Mar 26.
6
Managing Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Agility and Collaboration Toward a Common Goal.在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间管理癌症护理:为实现共同目标而灵活应变与协作。
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Mar 20:1-4. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7560.
7
Insights From the Oncology Care First Proposal-Where We've Been and Where We're Going in Value-Based Care.《肿瘤护理优先提案的见解——我们在基于价值的医疗中的历程与方向》
JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Apr;16(4):151-153. doi: 10.1200/JOP.20.00015. Epub 2020 Feb 25.
8
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hematopoietic Growth Factors, Version 1.2020.NCCN 指南解读:造血生长因子,第 1.2020 版。
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Jan;18(1):12-22. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.0002.
9
Body Composition, Adherence to Anthracycline and Taxane-Based Chemotherapy, and Survival After Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer.非转移性乳腺癌患者的身体成分、蒽环类和紫杉类化疗药物的依从性与生存
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 1;6(2):264-270. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4668.
10
Impact of Cumulative Chemotherapy Dose on Survival With Adjuvant FEC-D Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.辅助 FEC-D 化疗治疗乳腺癌的累积化疗剂量对生存的影响。
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Aug 1;17(8):957-967. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.7286.