Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Pegfilgrastim in Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Ramucirumab Plus Docetaxel in Japan

Overview

Journal Support Care Cancer

Specialties Critical Care
Oncology

Date 2022 May 7

PMID 35524869

Authors

Yu Kondo

Tomoya Tachi

Takayoshi Sakakibara

Jun Kato

Aki Kato

Takahito Mizuno

Yoshio Miyake

Hitomi Teramachi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The dose-limiting factor of ramucirumab plus docetaxel (RAM + DTX) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is febrile neutropenia (FN), which has a high incidence in Asians. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim (Peg-G) in patients with NSCLC receiving RAM + DTX in Japan.

Methods: We simulated model patients treated with RAM + DTX in Japan and developed a decision-analytical model for patients receiving Peg-G prophylaxis or no primary prophylaxis. The expected cost, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each treatment were calculated from the perspective of a Japanese healthcare payer. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at 45,867 United States dollars (USD) (5 million Japanese yen) per QALY gained. The probabilities, utility values, and other costs were obtained from published sources. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic analysis were conducted to evaluate the effect of each parameter and robustness of the base-case results.

Results: The expected cost and QALYs were 20,275 USD and 0.701 for Peg-G prophylaxis and 17,493 USD and 0.672 for no primary prophylaxis, respectively. The ICER was calculated to be 97,519 USD per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to FN risk with Peg-G. When FN risk with no primary prophylaxis exceeded 51% or the cost of Peg-G was less than 649 USD per injection, the ICER was below the WTP threshold. The probabilistic analysis revealed a 9.1% probability that the ICER was below the WTP threshold.

Conclusion: Peg-G is not cost-effective in patients with NSCLC receiving RAM + DTX in Japan.

References

Smith T, Bohlke K, Lyman G, Carson K, Crawford J, Cross S . Recommendations for the Use of WBC Growth Factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33(28):3199-212. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.3488. View

Klastersky J, de Naurois J, Rolston K, Rapoport B, Maschmeyer G, Aapro M . Management of febrile neutropaenia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2016; 27(suppl 5):v111-v118. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdw325. View

Cooper K, Madan J, Whyte S, Stevenson M, Akehurst R . Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2011; 11:404. PMC: 3203098. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-404. View

Garon E, Ciuleanu T, Arrieta O, Prabhash K, Syrigos K, Goksel T . Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel for second-line treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on platinum-based therapy (REVEL): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2014; 384(9944):665-73. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60845-X. View

Yoh K, Hosomi Y, Kasahara K, Yamada K, Takahashi T, Yamamoto N . A randomized, double-blind, phase II study of ramucirumab plus docetaxel vs placebo plus docetaxel in Japanese patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer after disease progression on platinum-based therapy. Lung Cancer. 2016; 99:186-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.07.019. View

Park K, Kim J, Cho E, Kang J, Shih J, Zimmermann A . East Asian Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study of Docetaxel and Ramucirumab Versus Docetaxel and Placebo in the Treatment of Stage IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Following Disease Progression after One Prior Platinum-Based.... Cancer Res Treat. 2016; 48(4):1177-1186. PMC: 5080808. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2015.401. View

Aarts M, Grutters J, Peters F, Mandigers C, Dercksen M, M Stouthard J . Cost effectiveness of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer at risk of febrile neutropenia. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(34):4283-9. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.48.3644. View

Fust K, Li X, Maschio M, Villa G, Parthan A, Barron R . 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. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016; 35(4):425-438. PMC: 5357483. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0474-0. View

Hill G, Barron R, Fust K, Skornicki M, Taylor D, Weinstein M . 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. J Med Econ. 2013; 17(1):32-42. DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2013.844160. View

10.

Ichimura T, Nomura H, Shimizu H, Machida Y, Suzuki K . Cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with pegfilgrastim in docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil therapy for esophageal cancer. Pharmazie. 2021; 76(9):450-454. DOI: 10.1691/ph.2021.1031. View

11.

Lathia N, Isogai P, De Angelis C, Smith T, Cheung M, Mittmann N . Cost-effectiveness of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia in lymphoma patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013; 105(15):1078-85. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djt182. View

12.

Lyman G, Lalla A, Barron R, Dubois R . Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving CHOP-21 in United States. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009; 25(2):401-11. DOI: 10.1185/03007990802636817. View

13.

Wang X, Tang T, Farid M, Quek R, Tao M, Lim S . 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. PLoS One. 2016; 11(2):e0148901. PMC: 4752449. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148901. View

14.

Clark O, Lyman G, Castro A, Clark L, Djulbegovic B . Colony-stimulating factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(18):4198-214. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.645. View

15.

Kuderer N, Dale D, Crawford J, Lyman G . Impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia and mortality in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(21):3158-67. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.8823. View

16.

Yang S, Kuo C, Lai W, Lin C, Su W, Chang S . Dynamic Changes of Health Utility in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Different Treatments: A 7-Year Follow-up. J Thorac Oncol. 2019; 14(11):1892-1900. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.07.007. View

17.

Nafees B, Lloyd A, Dewilde S, Rajan N, Lorenzo M . Health state utilities in non-small cell lung cancer: An international study. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2016; 13(5):e195-e203. DOI: 10.1111/ajco.12477. View

18.

Nafees B, Stafford M, Gavriel S, Bhalla S, Watkins J . Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008; 6:84. PMC: 2579282. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-6-84. View

19.

Kasahara N, Sunaga N, Kuwako T, Naruse I, Imai H, Jingu A . Administration of docetaxel plus ramucirumab with primary prophylactic pegylated-granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for pretreated non-small cell lung cancer: a phase II study. Support Care Cancer. 2020; 28(10):4825-4831. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05317-z. View

20.

Weycker D, Edelsberg J, Kartashov A, Barron R, Lyman G . Risk and healthcare costs of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic complications in women with metastatic breast cancer. Chemotherapy. 2012; 58(1):8-18. DOI: 10.1159/000335604. View