Doxorubicin과 Cyclophosphamide를 투여받는 유방암 환자에서 Pegfilgrastim과 Pegteograstim의 비용-효용 분석
Cost-Utility Analysis of Pegfilgrastim and Pegteograstim in Patients with Breast Cancer using Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background : Febrile neutropenia (FN) is one of the side effects in the patients treated with chemotherapy, and the patients who have FN generally need immediate treatment with extended-spectrum antibiotics and hospitalization. Pegfilgrastim and pegteograstim, which are used for the prevention of FN as a granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), have been granted insurance coverage in the Republic of Korea for certain breast cancer patients using doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) from September 2016. Methods : The data of the patients with breast cancer using AC regimen and G-CSF were collected retrospectively. This study involves cost-utility analysis of pegfilgrastim and pegteograstim. In this study, we constructed a simple decision tree model for short-term observation and calculated qualityadjusted life year (QALY) and the direct medical costs from the medical provider’s perspective. Results : From September 2016 to May 2017, 15 patients were treated with pegfilgrastim and 15 patients were treated with pegteograstim. As a result of dividing the average cost by QALY for each treatment group, it was observed that pegfilgrastim and pegteograstim were consumed 24,923,384 won and 22,808,336 won per 1QALY, respectively. Consequently, incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) showed 2,115,048 won more per pegfilgrastim than pegteograstim per 1QALY, and the cost per 1QALY of both the drugs was lower than 30,500,000 won; the Koreans were willing to pay this amount. Conclusions : This study suggests that pegfilgrastim and pegteograstim can be used to improve the quality of life of breast cancer patients undergoing AC therapy. Among the two drugs, pegteograstim seems to be more cost-effective. However, since this study was conducted as a retrospective observation method on a small scale, it is associated with many limitations. Therefore, a long-term prospective cohort study is needed to supplement the present findings.
Abstract
Background : Febrile neutropenia (FN) is one of the side effects in the patients treated with chemotherapy, and the patients who have FN generally need immediate treatment with extended-spectrum antibiotics and hospitalization. Pegfilgrastim and pegteograstim, which are used for the prevention of FN as a granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), have been granted insurance coverage in the Republic of Korea for certain breast cancer patients using doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) from September 2016. Methods : The data of the patients with breast cancer using AC regimen and G-CSF were collected retrospectively. This study involves cost-utility analysis of pegfilgrastim and pegteograstim. In this study, we constructed a simple decision tree model for short-term observation and calculated qualityadjusted life year (QALY) and the direct medical costs from the medical provider’s perspective. Results : From September 2016 to May 2017, 15 patients were treated with pegfilgrastim and 15 patients were treated with pegteograstim. As a result of dividing the average cost by QALY for each treatment group, it was observed that pegfilgrastim and pegteograstim were consumed 24,923,384 won and 22,808,336 won per 1QALY, respectively. Consequently, incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) showed 2,115,048 won more per pegfilgrastim than pegteograstim per 1QALY, and the cost per 1QALY of both the drugs was lower than 30,500,000 won; the Koreans were willing to pay this amount. Conclusions : This study suggests that pegfilgrastim and pegteograstim can be used to improve the quality of life of breast cancer patients undergoing AC therapy. Among the two drugs, pegteograstim seems to be more cost-effective. However, since this study was conducted as a retrospective observation method on a small scale, it is associated with many limitations. Therefore, a long-term prospective cohort study is needed to supplement the present findings.
참고문헌 (20)
- Kuderer NM, "Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients", Cancer, 106(10), pp.2258~2266 (2006)
- "Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.03: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services" (2009)[URL]
- Smith TJ, "2006 Update of Recommendations for the Use of White Blood Cell Growth Factors: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline", Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24(19), pp.3187~3205 (2006)
- Holmes FA, "Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk Stage II or Stage III", IV breast cancer, 2002, pp.20(3), 727~731
- Jeungwoon Hong, "Characterisation of the site-specific monoPEGylated rhG-CSF analogue pegteograstim", Biologicals, 51, pp.54~61 (2018), Elsevier BV[DOI]
- Bennett CL, "Colony-stimulating factors for febrile neu-tropenia during cancer therapy", New England Journal of Medicine, 368(12), pp.1131~1139 (2013)
- "암환자에게 처방∙투여하는 약제에 대한 공고개정 안내" (2016)[URL]
- "「의약품경제성평가지침」및작료작성요령" (2011)[URL]
- "e-나라지표 소비자물가지수" (2016)[URL]
- Ramsey SD, "Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy", Value in Health, 12(2), pp.217~225 (2009)
- Whyte S, "Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the united kingdom", Value in Health, 14(4), pp.465~474 (2011)
- Chan KK, "Costutility analysis of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving curative-intent chemotherapy", Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(10), pp.1064~1071 (2012)
- 김철민, "약물 경제학", Translational and Clinical Pharmacology, 16(1), pp.3~12 (2008), 대한임상약리학회
- 보건의료 의사결정에서 비용 - 효과성에 관한 아시아 공동연구, "안정훈", National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, 1~76 (2012)
- Esse I. H. Akpo, "Cost-Utility Analysis of Lipegfilgrastim Compared to Pegfilgrastim for the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Patients with Stage II-IV Breast Cancer", Frontiers in Pharmacology, 8, pp.614~ (2017), Frontiers Media SA[DOI]
- Danova M, "Costeffectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus six days of filgrastim for preventing febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients", Tumori, 95(2), pp.219~226 (2009)
- Azim JHA, "Long-term toxic effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer", Annals of Oncology, 22(9), pp.1939~1947 (2011)
- Torrance GW, "Utilities and quality-adjusted life years", International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 5(4), pp.559~575 (2009)
- Aapro M, "Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?", Supportive Care in Cancer, 18(5), pp.529~541 (2010)
- Lee KH, "A randomized, multicenter, phase II", III study to determine the optimal dose and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pegteograstim (GCPGC) on chemotherapy-induced neutropenia compared to pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients: KCSG PC10-09, 2016, pp.24(4), 1709~1717