Premium
Pharmacoeconomic analysis of oprelvekin (recombinant human interleukin‐11) for secondary prophylaxis of thrombocytopenia in solid tumor patients receiving chemotherapy
Author(s) -
Cantor Scott B.,
Elting Linda S.,
Hudson David V.,
Rubenstein Edward B
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/cncr.11447
Subject(s) - medicine , platelet transfusion , chemotherapy , adverse effect , intensive care medicine , interleukin 11 , platelet , quality adjusted life year , cost effectiveness , interleukin , cytokine , risk analysis (engineering)
BACKGROUND Previous research has shown oprelvekin (recombinant human interleukin‐11 [rhIL‐11]) to be effective in reducing the requirements for platelet transfusions after myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients who have previously experienced thrombocytopenia. The economic consequences of the routine use of this platelet growth factor and the usual standard of platelet transfusions for prophylaxis of severe chemotherapy‐induced thrombocytopenia have not been compared. METHODS The authors constructed a decision‐analytic model to compare the alternatives of rhIL‐11 versus usual care using probability, outcome, and cost data from previously published clinical trials and their own institutional sources. They incorporated the costs of platelet transfusions and adverse events from rhIL‐11 into the analysis. Quality‐of‐life outcomes were not considered. The pharmacoeconomic analysis was based on the criterion of cost minimization from the payer's perspective. RESULTS The expected cost of the usual care strategy for prophylaxis of severe thrombocytopenia (transfusion when platelets < 20,000 μL −1 ) was $3495 for a 3‐week cycle of chemotherapy. The prophylactic rhIL‐11 strategy was more expensive, with an expected cost of $5328 over the same time period. Nonetheless, it was associated with fewer platelet transfusions, avoiding an average of 6.7 U compared with usual care. The savings from avoidance of platelet transfusion and adverse reactions to transfusion from the use of rhIL‐11 were not offset by the substantial cost of the pharmaceutical. The greater expected costs from the rhIL‐11 strategy were relatively insensitive to the unit price and efficacy of rhIL‐11 and the costs of platelet transfusions and monitoring. CONCLUSIONS From the payer's perspective, rhIL‐11 cannot be considered a cost‐saving clinical strategy compared with routine platelet transfusions for patients with severe chemotherapy‐induced thrombocytopenia. Cancer 2003;97:3099–106. © 2003 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11447