, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 497-511
Date: 23 Dec 2012

Pharmacoeconomics of the Myeloid Growth Factors

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

Background

The pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors (MGFs) is an important topic that has received substantial attention in recent years. The use of the MGFs as primary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) has grown considerably over the past decade and professional guidelines regarding their use have broadened the settings in which these agents are indicated. Recent data also suggest a potential role for them in reducing infection-related and all-cause mortality. The cost and effectiveness of these agents will continue to gain visibility as companies pursue approval for bio-similar agents in the US, similar to their recent approval in Europe.

Objectives

The objective of this paper is to review the available pharmaco-economic literature on the MGFs, which is particularly timely in light of the recent passage of healthcare reform and the increasing focus on cost control. The cost of treating cancer in the US is rising faster than the already rapid increase in overall medical expenditure. The clinical utility and cost effectiveness of supportive care measures in oncology must therefore be weighed carefully. This review focuses on the use of different formulations of MGFs for primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Methods

A MEDLINE search was performed to find studies that became available since the prior review of this topic was published in Pharmacoeconomics in 2003.

Results

Acceptable cost-minimization estimates for primary prophylaxis with the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy have been provided by several studies in the US. Of the commonly used agents in the US, pegfilgrastim appears to be superior to the currently recommended dose and schedule of filgrastim in terms of cost minimization, and primary prophylaxis appears to be less costly than secondary prophylaxis. However, the cost benefits of primary prophylaxis in Europe are not as pronounced as in the US, due to the lower costs of medical care. Data continue to emerge suggesting a decreased risk of early mortality from averted infections as well as the possibility of a disease-specific mortality benefit through maintaining the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy with MGF support.

Conclusion

This evidence will prove valuable in assessing the overall cost effectiveness and cost utility of the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.