Abstract
Combination chemotherapy used to treat patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is associated with neutropenia and subsequent infection, hospital admission and treatment delays. Haematopoietic growth factors (HGF) can prevent neutropenia and improve quality of life. We undertook a meta-analysis of six randomised and one nonrandomised trials to quantify the effect in previously untreated patients, and a simple cost-effectiveness analysis. The trials compared HGF plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone. In total, there were 779 patients aged between 15 and 82 years. Haematopoietic growth factors was associated with a statistically significant 44% reduction in the incidence of severe neutropenia (neutrophil count <0.5 Ć 109ālā1), a 60% reduction in the number of hospital admissions due to infection, an 80% reduction in the number of patients who had a treatment delay due to neutropenia and a 50% reduction in hospital stay. These data together with UK G-CSF drug costs were combined to develop a simple cost-effectiveness model, based on direct costs. Given the current cost of G-CSF, it would only be cost-effective among patients in which high rates of hospital stay due to neutropenia or infection are expected. Alternatively, if the cost could be reduced then all patients may be able to obtain the benefits. However, the evidence that prophylactic HGFs are clinically worthwhile is clear.
Background
Intensive chemotherapy can be highly effective in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). However, this form of treatment is associated with neutropenia that can result in infection and subsequent hospital admission, treatment delays and chemotherapy dose reduction. Haematopoietic growth factors (HGF) can be used to prevent neutropenia and its consequences in untreated patients with advanced NHL. We here present a meta-analysis based on the controlled trials of the clinical effectiveness of such growth factors, when used as a primary prophylaxis. We also present a simple cost-effectiveness analysis.
Patients and methods
Clinical effectiveness
A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify clinical trials that compared HGF plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone. The literature search covered several medical databases; Medline, Embase, Cancerlit, Cochrane library, the UICCR Trials Register and the publication databases of the European Haematology Association and the American Society of Hematology. Keywords used were ālymphomaā, āgrowth factorsā, āG-CSF or GM-CSFā and ātrialā.
The analyses presented here were based on the six randomised controlled trials (Pettengell et al, 1992; Gerhartz et al, 1993; Aviles et al, 1994; Fridik et al, 1997; Gisselbrecht et al, 1997; Zinzani et al, 1997) and one nonrandomised trial (Bertini et al, 1996), which assessed the use of HGF in patients with aggressive NHL who had not been treated previously. All but one trial used granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), the other trial used granulocyte-macrophage-CSF (GM-CSF) (Gerhartz et al, 1993). The dose was specified as 5āĪ¼gākgādayā1 in five trials (Aviles et al, 1994; Bertini et al, 1996; Fridik et al, 1997; Gisselbrecht et al, 1997; Zinzani et al, 1997), 5.6āĪ¼gākgādayā1 in one trial (Gerhartz et al, 1993) and 230āĪ¼gāmā2 in another trial (Pettengell et al, 1992).
Information on the following outcomes were obtained for each treatment group from each published report, where available:
-
the incidence of severe neutropenia (neutrophil count <0.5 Ć 109ālā1)
-
the incidence of severe or clinically important infections. The definition of this varied between the trials and are given in the Footnote to Table 2.
-
the proportion of patients admitted to hospital
-
the average length of stay in hospital
-
the proportion of patients who had their chemotherapy treatment delayed
-
the proportion of patients with complete (or complete/partial) tumour remission
-
the proportion of patients surviving to 2, 2.5 or 5 years
For each outcome and trial, the relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by comparing the proportion (or incidence) in the G-CSF group with the proportion (or incidence) in the control (no G-CSF) group. A statistical test for heterogeneity was performed for each outcome to assess whether the relative risks were significantly different between the trials (Whitehead and Whitehead, 1991). In the absence of statistically significant heterogeneity, indicating consistency between the trial results, the pooled relative risk was obtained by taking an average of the log relative risks each weighted by its standard error (Whitehead and Whitehead, 1991).
Cost-effectiveness
A measure of financial cost was taken as the cost of hospitalisation per patient associated with a febrile neutropenic event. A sensitivity analysis was based on varying (i) the percentage of patients who, if not given HGF, would be hospitalised (this is the same as the chance of a single patient being hospitalised) and (ii) the number of times each patient could be hospitalised during five treatment cycles (the number of cycles can vary in practice, usually from 4 to 6, so we reported results for five cycles). We estimated the percentage reduction in the published list price of G-CSF that would be needed in order for the health service cost to be cheaper than if it were not used. The analysis was also performed assuming that the dose of G-CSF could be reduced from the standard dose of 5 to 2āĪ¼gākgādayā1 (a clinical trial has suggested that the lower dose has a similar effect on neutropenia as the standard dose (Toner et al, 1998)).
Two results from the meta-analysis of the clinical outcomes were used:
-
The reduction in hospital admission due to infection
-
The reduction in length of stay
The cost parameters were as follows:
-
The cost of G-CSF per patient was taken as Ā£4406 (using a typical list price of Ā£3750, assuming Ā£75 (British National Formulation, 2002) per day over 10 days in each of the five treatment cycles and increased by 17.5%, Value Added Tax).
-
The cost of hospitalisation for a patient with a neutropenic event was taken as Ā£2750; estimated using the figure of Ā£2290 (1996 costs, Office of Health Economics, 1998) and increased by 3% per year to possibly reflect current costs (in 2002) after inflation.
-
The cost of chemotherapy was not included since this will be the same regardless of whether the patient received G-CSF or not.
The cost per patient not given G-CSF is estimated as the percentage of patients hospitalised Ć cost of hospitalisation Ć number of cycles each patient is admitted for. The cost per patient given G-CSF is estimated by the same formula but the percentage of patients hospitalised is reduced by the relative risk associated with hospitalisation and the reduction in the length of stay (obtained from the meta-analysis of the clinical trials) and the cost of G-CSF is added.
Results
Clinical effectiveness
Table 1 shows information about the trials, namely country of origin, age range of the patients, the chemotherapy treatment administered and the number of patients in each treatment arm.
Table 2 shows the relative risk associated with neutropenia, clinically relevant infection (defined in various ways, see footnote to table), hospitalisation and treatment delays and the ratio of the mean hospital stay in the G-CSF (or GM-CSF) group compared to those not given growth factors. There was no evidence of heterogeneity in relation to any of the outcomes (P>0.16).
G-CSF was associated with a statistically significant 44% reduction in the incidence of severe neutropenia (relative risk 0.56, P<0.001) and a 43% reduction in the number of patients with a clinically relevant infection (relative risk 0.57, P<0.001). As a consequence, there was a 60% reduction in the number of hospital admissions due to infection (relative risk 0.40, P=0.006) and if a patient on G-CSF were admitted they spent about half the time in hospital (ratio of the mean hospital stay 0.53). Administering G-CSF also had an effect on patients experiencing a treatment delay; there was a 60% reduction in the number of patients experiencing a treatment delay for any reason (relative risk 0.40, P<0.001) and an 80% reduction in the number of patients whose delay was due to neutropenia (relative risk 0.20, P<0.001).
Table 3 shows the results in relation to tumour remission and survival. There was no heterogeneity between the trials reporting on complete remission (P=0.90), those reporting on complete or partial remission combined (P=0.99) or those reporting on survival (P>0.90). There was no evidence that the use of G-CSF influenced tumour remission or survival; the pooled relative risks were close to unity and none were statistically significant.
Cost-effectiveness
From the section above, in patients given G-CSF compared to those who were not, the relative risk for hospital admission due to infection was 0.4 and the ratio for the length of stay was 0.53. These estimates are used in the following cost-effectiveness analysis.
Table 4 shows the reduction in the list price of G-CSF needed such that the health service cost becomes cheaper if it were routinely used as a primary prophylaxis than if it were not used. A relatively large proportion of patients need to be admitted several times in the absence of using G-CSF before a policy of offering it routinely becomes cost-effective. The percentage of patients in the control group that required hospitalisation due to infection was 7% in one trial (Zinzani et al, 1997) and 31% in another (Gerhartz et al, 1993). In the UK, it is about 15% after first-line therapy and 30% after second- or third-line therapy. With these estimates, the published list price of G-CSF would have to be reduced significantly for it to be worthwhile. For example, if 15% of patients were each hospitalised twice during their course of treatment, G-CSF would have to be purchased at a cost that is 85% lower than the list price for it to be cost-effective, that is Ā£660 compared to Ā£4406. The required reduction in the list price is less if the dose of G-CSF can be reduced to 2āĪ¼gākgādayā1 (63%). Similarly, the higher the chance of an individual patient being hospitalised the less the reduction in the list price of G-CSF.
Discussion
The results of the meta-analyses show that the use of HGFs such as G-CSF has a significant effect on several important clinical outcomes associated with the management of patients with aggressive NHL. They result in far fewer patients with neutropenia and as a consequence fewer patients with infection, fewer who are hospitalised due to infection and fewer whose chemotherapy treatment has to be delayed. There was however no evidence of an improvement on tumour remission or survival.
Our simple cost-effectiveness analysis, based on direct costs alone, suggests that using G-CSF as a primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia would be more expensive to the service provider than not using it, a similar conclusion found by others in Canada and Italy (Zagonel et al, 1994, Dranitsaris et al, 1997). However, the analysis will to some extent underestimate the cost-effectiveness of using G-CSF because we only included hospital admissions due to febrile neutropenic events but there will be patients with infection who require treatment that are not hospitalised and we did not include the cost of having a treatment delay due to neutropenia. When indirect costs have been included in other cost-effectiveness analyses, for example loss of earnings in patients unable to work because of a neutropenic event, it has been concluded that HGFs can be cost-effective (Dranitsaris et al, 1997). The inclusion or exclusion of such indirect costs in patients with haematological malignancies needs further consideration together with the quality of life benefits, as recommended by the 1998 Office of Health Economics report on NHL.
The evidence shows that the routine use of HGFs is worthwhile. Although they may seem to be expensive to the health service, it would be unsatisfactory to choose financial saving over patient health.
In 1999, there were 9014 new cases of NHL in the UK (ONS, 2001) and it is estimated that the incidence is rising by about 4% per annum (Office of Health Economics, 1998). As a consequence, the number of patients with high-grade NHL is likely to increase. Currently, HGFs are not administered routinely to such patients, although it is possible that patients with mild neutropenic fever could be managed at home with oral antibiotics. Using HGFs is clearly clinically worthwhile but the costs need to be significantly reduced for there to be direct financial savings to the health service.
Change history
16 November 2011
This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication
References
Aviles A, Diaz-Maqueo JC, Talavera A, Nambo MJ, Garcia EL (1994) Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with diffuse large cell lymphoma treated with intensive chemotherapy. Leuk Lymphoma 15: 153ā157
Bertini M, Freilone R, Vitolo U, Botto B, Ciotti R, Cinieri S, Di Nova A, Di Vito F, Levis A, Orsucci L, Pini M, Rota-Scalabrini D, Todeschini G, Resegotti L (1996) The treatment of elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma: feasibility and efficacy of an intensive multi-drug regimen. Leuk Lymphoma 22: 483ā493
British National Formulation (2002) (number 43). London: British Medical Association & the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britian
Dranitsaris G, Altmayer C, Quirt I (1997) Costābenefit analysis of prophylatic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during CHOP antineoplastic therapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Pharmacoeconomics 11 (6): 566ā577
Fridik MA, Greil R, Hausmaninger H, Krieger O, Oppitz P, Stoger M, Klocker J, Neubauer M, Helm W, Pont J, Fazeny B, Hudec M, Simonitsch I, Radaszkiewicz T (1997) Randomised open label phase III trial of CEOP/IMVP-Dexa alternating chemotherapy and filgrastim versus CEOP/IMVP-Dexa alternating chemotherapy for aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL). A multi-center trial by the Austrian Working Group for Medical Tumour Therapy. Ann Hematol 75: 135ā140
Gerhartz HH, Engelhard M, Meusers P, Brittinger G, Wilmanns W, Schlimok G, Mueller P, Huhn D, Musch R, Siegert W, Gerhartz D, Hartlapp JH, Thiel E, Huber C, Peschl C, Spann W, Emmerich B, Schadek C, Westerhausen M, Pees H-W, Radtke H, Engert A, Terhardt E, Schick H, Binder T, Fuchs R, Hasford J, Brandmaier R, Stern AC, Jones TC, Ehrlich HJ, Stein H, Parwaresch M, Tiemann M, Lennert K (1993) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor as adjunct to induction treatment of high-grade malignant non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Blood 82: 2329ā2339
Gisselbrecht C, Haioun C, Lepage E, Bastion Y, Tilly H, Bosly A, Dupriex B, Marit G, Herbrecht R, Deconnick E, Marolleau JP, Yver A, Dabouz-Harrouche F, Coiffier B, Reyes F (1997) Placebo-controlled phase III study of lenograstim (glycosylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma: factors influencing chemotherapy administration. Leuk Lymphoma 25: 289ā300
Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2001) Registrations, England 1999. Series MB1, no. 30. London: OBS
Office of Health Economics (1998) The Economic Aspects of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. London: OHE
Pettengell R, Gurney H, Radford JA, Deakin DP, James R, Wilkinson PM, Kane K, Bentley J, Crowther D (1992) Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent dose-limiting neutropenia in non-Hodkin's lymphoma. A randomised controlled trial. Blood 6: 1430ā1436
Toner GC, Shapiro JD, Laidlaw CR, Rischin D, Millward MJ, Wolf M, Januszewicz H, Mitchell SV, Curran AC, Matthews JP, Bishop JF (1998) Low-dose versus standard-dose lenograstim prophylaxis after chemotherapy: a randomized, crossover comparison. J Clin Oncol 16 (12): 3874ā3879
Whitehead A, Whitehead J (1991) A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Stat Med 10: 1665ā1677
Zagonel V, Babare R, Merola MC, Talamini R, Lazzarini R, Tirelli U, Carbone A, Monfardini S (1994) Costābenefit of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration in older patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with combination chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 5 (Suppl 2): S127āS132
Zinzani PL, Pavone E, Storti S, Moretti L, Fattori PP, Guardigni L, Falini B, Gobbi M, Gentilini P, Lauta VM, Bendandi M, Gherlinzoni F, Magagnoli M, Venturi S, Aitini E, Tabanelli M, Leone G, Liso V, Tura S (1997) Randomized trial with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as adjunct to induction VNCOP-B treatment of elderly high-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Blood 89: 3974ā3979
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Hackshaw, A., Sweetenham, J. & Knight, A. Are prophylactic haematopoietic growth factors of value in the management of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma?. Br J Cancer 90, 1302ā1305 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601708
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601708
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
The economic value of primary prophylaxis using pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in patients with breast cancer in the UK
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy (2009)