http://scholars.ntou.edu.tw/handle/123456789/6824
Title: | Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia among breast cancer and Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients under Taiwan's national health insurance system | Authors: | Wen, Tsun-Jen Wen, Yu-Wen Chien, Chun-Ru Chiang, Shao-Chin Hsu, William Wei-Yuan Shen, Li-Jiuan Hsiao, Fei-Yuan |
Keywords: | MEDICAL COSTS;CISATRACURIUM;CHOP | Issue Date: | Apr-2017 | Publisher: | WILEY | Journal Volume: | 23 | Journal Issue: | 2 | Start page/Pages: | 288-293 | Source: | J EVAL CLIN PRACT | Abstract: | Rationale, aim and objective The beneficial effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis on reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (CIFN) were well documented throughout the literature. However, existing data regarding its cost-effectiveness were conflicting. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of G-CSF prophylaxis in CIFN under Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) system. Methods Data on clinical outcomes and direct medical costs were derived for 5179 newly diagnosed breast cancer and 629 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients from the NHI claims database. Patients were further categorized into three subgroups as primary-, secondary- and no - prophylaxis based on their patterns of G-CSF use. Generalized estimating equations were applied to estimate the impact of G-CSF use on the incidence of CIFN. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of primary and secondary prophylactic G-CSF use were calculated and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Primary prophylaxis of G-CSF decreased the incidence of CIFN by 27% and 83%, while secondary prophylaxis by 34% and 22% in breast cancer and NHL patients, respectively. Compared with those with no prophylaxis, the incremental cost per CIFN reduced in primary prophylaxis is $931 and $52 among patients with breast cancer and NHL, respectively. In contrast, secondary prophylaxis is dominated by no prophylaxis and primary prophylaxis in both cancer patients. Conclusion Primary but not secondary prophylactic use of G-CSF was cost-effective in CIFN in breast cancer and NHL patients under Taiwan's NHI system. |
URI: | http://scholars.ntou.edu.tw/handle/123456789/6824 | ISSN: | 1356-1294 | DOI: | 10.1111/jep.12597 |
Appears in Collections: | 03 GOOD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING 資訊工程學系 |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.