Swedish
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Journal of Clinical Oncology 2006-Jul

Cost-effectiveness of adding granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to primary prophylaxis with antibiotics in small-cell lung cancer.

Endast registrerade användare kan översätta artiklar
Logga in Bli medlem
Länken sparas på Urklipp
Johanna N H Timmer-Bonte
Eddy M M Adang
Hans J M Smit
Bonne Biesma
Frank A Wilschut
Gerben P Bootsma
Theo M de Boo
Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen

Nyckelord

Abstrakt

OBJECTIVE

Recently, a Dutch, randomized, phase III trial demonstrated that, in small-cell lung cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the addition of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) to prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced the incidence of FN in cycle 1 (24% v 10%; P = .01). We hypothesized that selecting patients at risk of FN might increase the cost-effectiveness of GCSF prophylaxis.

METHODS

Economic analysis was conducted alongside the clinical trial and was focused on the health care perspective. Primary outcome was the difference in mean total costs per patient in cycle 1 between both prophylactic strategies. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as costs per percent-FN-prevented.

RESULTS

For the first cycle, the mean incremental costs of adding GCSF amounted to 681 euro (95% CI, -36 to 1,397 euro) per patient. For the entire treatment period, the mean incremental costs were substantial (5,123 euro; 95% CI, 3,908 to 6,337 euro), despite a significant reduction in the incidence of FN and related savings in medical care consumption. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 50 euro per percent decrease of the probability of FN (95% CI, -2 to 433 euro) in cycle 1, and the acceptability for this willingness to pay was approximately 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the selection of patients at risk of FN, the addition of GCSF to primary antibiotic prophylaxis did not result in cost savings. If policy makers are willing to pay 240 euro for each percent gain in effect (ie, 3,360 euro for a 14% reduction in FN), the addition of GCSF can be considered cost effective.

Gå med på vår
facebook-sida

Den mest kompletta databasen med medicinska örter som stöds av vetenskapen

  • Fungerar på 55 språk
  • Växtbaserade botemedel som stöds av vetenskap
  • Örter igenkänning av bild
  • Interaktiv GPS-karta - märka örter på plats (kommer snart)
  • Läs vetenskapliga publikationer relaterade till din sökning
  • Sök efter medicinska örter efter deras effekter
  • Organisera dina intressen och håll dig uppdaterad med nyheterna, kliniska prövningar och patent

Skriv ett symptom eller en sjukdom och läs om örter som kan hjälpa, skriv en ört och se sjukdomar och symtom den används mot.
* All information baseras på publicerad vetenskaplig forskning

Google Play badgeApp Store badge