Economic evaluation of filgrastim, sargramostim, and sequential sargramostim and filgrastim after myelosuppressive chemotherapy BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION Weaver, C. H., Buckner, C. D., Curtis, L. H., Bajwa, K., Weinfurt, K. P., Wilson-Relyea, B. J., Schulman, K. A. 2002; 29 (2): 159–64

Abstract

Filgrastim alone and sequential sargramostim and filgrastim have been shown to be more effective than sargramostim alone in the mobilization of CD34(+) cells after myelosuppressive chemotherapy (MC). We sought to compare costs and resource use associated with these regimens. Data were collected prospectively alongside a multicenter, randomized trial of filgrastim, sargramostim, and sequential sargramostim and filgrastim. Direct medical costs were calculated for inpatient and outpatient visits and procedures, including administration of growth factors and MC. We followed 156 patients for 30 days or until initiation of high-dose chemotherapy. The main outcome measures were resource use and costs of inpatient and outpatient visits, platelet and red blood cell transfusions, antibiotic use, and apheresis procedures. Hospital admissions, red blood cell transfusions, and use of i.v. antibiotics were significantly more common in the sargramostim group than in the other treatment arms. In univariate and multivariable analyses, total costs were higher for patients receiving sargramostim alone than for patients in the other groups. Mean costs in multivariable analysis for the filgrastim and sequential sargramostim and filgrastim arms were not significantly different. Filgrastim alone and sequential sargramostim and filgrastim are less costly than sargramostim alone after MC, as well as therapeutically more beneficial.

View details for DOI 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703341

View details for Web of Science ID 000173711700011

View details for PubMedID 11850711