Contact us
 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
Useful Links
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Article
Author(s)
Maoudoud Ines, Razgallah Khrouf Myriam, Ben Abdejelil Nour, Ghedira Hela, Amel Lakhal, Marsit Hanene, Turki Manel, Soussi Mohamed Ali, Lazreg Olfa, Ladab Saloua and Ben Othmane Tarek
Full-Text PDF
XML 1386 Views
DOI:10.17265/2328-2150/2016.06.005
Affiliation(s)
ABSTRACT
Filgrastim is used to accelerate hematopoietic recovery after ABMT (allogeneic bone marrow transplantation). Its impact on the total cost of patient care remains to be explored. We therefore undertook a cost effectiveness analysis in the context of a randomized single blinded clinical trial of Filgrastim versus placebo in post ABMT. A primary endpoint, duration of myelosuppression, and three secondary end points (number of days of fever, length of hospital stay, survival at one hundred days) were used to assess efficacy. Direct costs were evaluated and allowed the calculation of the ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) for the major endpoint of the trial. Sixteen patients were included in the study. The duration of myelosuppression was significantly decreased in the Filgrastim arm with medians of 15 days vs. 19 days in the placebo arm (p = 0.023). Cost analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two arms. According to the calculation of ICER, Filgrastim was more costly and more effective than placebo for the number of days of aplasia avoided and the number of days with fever avoided. Placebo strictly dominated filgrastim for days of hospitalization avoided. Filgrastim has proven effective in reducing the duration of aplasia without increasing costs.
KEYWORDS
Filgrastim, placebo, cost, effectiveness, allogeneic bone marrow transplantation.
Cite this paper
Ines, M., et al. 2016. “Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Filgrastim versus Placebo in Post Allogentic Bone Marrow Transplantation.” Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 4 (6): 268-272.
References