항암치료를 받는 미만성거대비세포 림프종 환자에서 페그필그라스팀에 대한 효용성 평가
Utility Analysis for Pegfilgrastim in DLBCL Patients on R-CHOP Regimen
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objective: This study was designed to compare pegfilgrastim and filgrastim in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients treated with a rituximab with cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin, oncovin, and prednisone (R-CHOP) regimen in terms of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Method: Clinical efficacy was measured by trough level of absolute neutrophil count (ANC), days of ANC under 50% of baseline value, days of ANC under 90% of baseline value, duration of ANC recovery to baseline value, days of ANC less than 0.5 × 109 cells/L, and difference of peak and trough level of ANC during 1 cycle of R-CHOP regimen. To evaluate cost-effectiveness, total prices of used filgrastim and pegfilgrastim within 1 cycle of R-CHOP were analyzed. Results: In terms of clinical efficacy, trough level of ANC and days to ANC recovery showed statistical significance. The median trough levels of ANC with administration of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim were 0.18 and 1.94 (p = 0.021), respectively, and the median durations of ANC recovery to baseline value were 5.5 days and 2 days (p = 0.023), respectively. For the median days of ANC under 50% of baseline value, days of ANC under 90% of baseline value, days of ANC less than 0.5 × 109 cells/L, and difference of peak and trough level of ANC during 1 cycle of R-CHOP, the pegfilgrastim group performed better than the filgrastim group. However the difference was not statistically significant. In terms of overall expense during 1 cycle of R-CHOP, pegfilgrastim is about 3.43 times more expensive than filgrastim. Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim is more efficient than filgrastim in terms of clinical efficacy. In terms of prices, pegfilgrastim is more expensive than filgrastim for patients, but it is more convenient in clinical use. Therefore, pegfilgrastim should be the preferred choice of G-CSF for neutropenic patients. Further comparative study of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim is needed.
Abstract
Objective: This study was designed to compare pegfilgrastim and filgrastim in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients treated with a rituximab with cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin, oncovin, and prednisone (R-CHOP) regimen in terms of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Method: Clinical efficacy was measured by trough level of absolute neutrophil count (ANC), days of ANC under 50% of baseline value, days of ANC under 90% of baseline value, duration of ANC recovery to baseline value, days of ANC less than 0.5 × 109 cells/L, and difference of peak and trough level of ANC during 1 cycle of R-CHOP regimen. To evaluate cost-effectiveness, total prices of used filgrastim and pegfilgrastim within 1 cycle of R-CHOP were analyzed. Results: In terms of clinical efficacy, trough level of ANC and days to ANC recovery showed statistical significance. The median trough levels of ANC with administration of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim were 0.18 and 1.94 (p = 0.021), respectively, and the median durations of ANC recovery to baseline value were 5.5 days and 2 days (p = 0.023), respectively. For the median days of ANC under 50% of baseline value, days of ANC under 90% of baseline value, days of ANC less than 0.5 × 109 cells/L, and difference of peak and trough level of ANC during 1 cycle of R-CHOP, the pegfilgrastim group performed better than the filgrastim group. However the difference was not statistically significant. In terms of overall expense during 1 cycle of R-CHOP, pegfilgrastim is about 3.43 times more expensive than filgrastim. Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim is more efficient than filgrastim in terms of clinical efficacy. In terms of prices, pegfilgrastim is more expensive than filgrastim for patients, but it is more convenient in clinical use. Therefore, pegfilgrastim should be the preferred choice of G-CSF for neutropenic patients. Further comparative study of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim is needed.
참고문헌 (18)
- Author affiliations from The Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Classification Project, "A clinical evaluation of the International Lymphoma Study Group classification of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma", Blood, 89(11), pp.3909~3918 (1997)
- Morton LM., "Lymphoma incidence patterns by WHO subtype in the United States 1992-2001", Blood, 107(1), pp.265~276 (2006)
- Smith A., "Incidence of haematological malignancy by sub-type : A report from the Haematological Malignancy Research Network", Br J Cancer, 105(11), pp.1684~1692 (2011)
- "Epidemiology, clinical manifestations, pathologic features, and diagnosis of diffuse large B cell lymphoma" (2012)[URL]
- Feugier P., "Long-term results of the RCHOP study in the treatment of elderly patients with diffuse large Bcell lymphoma : a study by the Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte", J Clin Oncol, 23(18), pp.4117~4126 (2005)
- Coiffier B., "CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma", N Engl J Med, 346(4), pp.235~242 (2002)
- Trillet-Lenoir V., "Recombinant granulocyte colony stimulating factor reduces the infectious complications of cytotoxic chemotherapy", Eur J Cancer, 29(3), pp.319~324 (1993)
- Bennett CL., "Colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia during cancer therapy", N Engl J Med, 368(12), pp.1131~1139 (2013)
- McEvoy G., "AHFS Drug Information" (2012)
- "Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0" (2009)[URL]
- "NEUPOGEN (filgrastim) Prescribing Information"[URL]
- Hollingshead LM., "Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor(rG-CSF) : a review of its pharmacological properties and prospective role in neutropenic conditions", Drugs, 42, pp.300~330 (1991)
- Grigg A., "Open-label, randomized study of pegfilgrastim vs. daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in elderly patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma", Leuk Lymphoma, 44(9), pp.1503~1508 (2003)
- Green MD., "A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy", Ann Oncol, 14(1), pp.29~35 (2003)
- Balducci L., "Elderly cancer patients receiving chemotherapy benefit from first-cycle pegfilgrastim", Oncologist, 12(12), pp.1416~1424 (2007)
- Lathia N., "Cost-effectiveness of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia in lymphoma patients", J Natl Cancer Inst, 105(15), pp.1078~1085 (2013)
- Crawford J., "Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia : risks, consequences, and new directions for its management", Cancer, 100(2), pp.228~237 (2004)