ArticleJCO oncology practice2021
Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- The cost-effectiveness of biosimilar denosumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis: implications of baseline fracture risk and drug price.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Optimal use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis to improve survival in cancer patients receiving treatment : An expert view.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2024Review
- Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN): healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in commercially insured patients in the US.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- How Can Oncology Nurses and Advanced Practice Providers Reduce the Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia in the US?Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2024Review
- Impact of primary prophylaxis by pegfilgrastim in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP.Annals of hematology · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in intermediate-risk regimens: Clinical and economic outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
- Real-World Use of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor in Patients with Breast Cancer from Alberta, Canada.Cancers · 2022Article
- 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.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Primary prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim cost-effective approach to avoid febrile neutropenia.PharmacoEconomics & outcomes news · 2021Article
- 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.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTemporary 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsCompared 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.
conclusionPP 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.