병원약사회지 (Journal of Korean Society of Health-System Pharmacists)

  • 제35권4호
  • /
  • Pages.409-417
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1226-640X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2466-2143(eISSN)
한국병원약사회 (The Korean Society of Health-System Pharmacists)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • 권수지 (연세대학교의료원 세브란스병원 약무국) ;
  • 금민정 (연세대학교의료원 세브란스병원 약무국) ;
  • 김재송 (연세대학교의료원 세브란스병원 약무국) ;
  • 손은선 (연세대학교의료원 세브란스병원 약무국) ;
  • 권경희 (동국대학교 약학대학)
  • Kwon, Su Ji (Department of Pharmacy, Severance Hospital, Yon-sei University Health System) ;
  • Geum, Min Jung (Department of Pharmacy, Severance Hospital, Yon-sei University Health System) ;
  • Kim, Jae Song (Department of Pharmacy, Severance Hospital, Yon-sei University Health System) ;
  • Son, Eun Sun (Department of Pharmacy, Severance Hospital, Yon-sei University Health System) ;
  • Kwon, Kyeng Hee (College of Pharmacy, Dongguk University, Dongguk University Biomedi Campus)
  • 투고 : 2018.02.08
  • 심사 : 2018.09.14
  • 발행 : 2018.12.31
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

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 quality-adjusted 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.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J et al. Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Cancer. 2006;106(10):2258-2266. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21847
  2. National Institutes of Health NCI. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.03: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services; 2009 [updated 2010 June 14 2009 May 28]. Available from: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm.
  3. Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH et al. 2006 Update of Recommendations for the Use of White Blood Cell Growth Factors: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006;24(19):3187-3205. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.06.4451
  4. Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S et al. 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2002;20(3):727-731. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.3.727
  5. Hong J, Lee B, Kang K et al. Characterisation of the site-specific monoPEGylated rhG-CSF analogue pegteograstim. Biologicals. j.biologicals.2017.10.002.
  6. Bennett CL, Djulbegovic B, Norris LB et al. Colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia during cancer therapy. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368(12):1131-1139. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMct1210890
  7. 암환자에게 처방.투여하는 약제에 대한 공고개정 안내: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service; 2016 [updated 2016 Aug 30]. Available from:http://www.hira.or.kr.
  8. 의약품경제성평가지침 및작료작성요령: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service; 2011 [updated 2012 Feb 08 2011 December]. Available from: http://www.hira.or.kr.
  9. e-나라지표 소비자물가지수 [Internet]. 2016 [cited http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1060].
  10. Ramsey SD, Liu Z, Boer R et al. Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Value in Health. 2009;12(2):217-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00434.x
  11. Whyte S, Cooper KL, Stevenson MD et al. Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the united kingdom. Value in Health. 2011;14(4):465-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.037
  12. Chan KK, Siu E, Krahn MD et al. 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. 2012;30(10):1064-1071. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.36.8647
  13. 김철민. Pharmacoeconomics. The journal of Korean society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2008;16(1):3-12.
  14. 안정훈, 김윤희, 신상진 et al. 보건의료 의사결정에서 비용 - 효과성에 관한 아시아 공동연구. National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, 2012;12:1-76.
  15. Akpo EIH, Jansen IR, Maes E et al. Cost-utility analysis of lipegfilgrastim compared to pegfilgrastim for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer. Front Pharmacol [Internet]. 2017;8:614. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2017.00614.
  16. Danova M, Chiroli S, Rosti G et al. Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus six days of filgrastim for preventing febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients. Tumori. 2009;95(2):219-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/030089160909500214
  17. Azim JHA, de Azambuja E, Colozza M et al. Long-term toxic effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Annals of Oncology. 2011;22(9):1939-1947. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq683
  18. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2009;5(4):559-575.
  19. Aapro M, Crawford J, Kamioner D. Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now? Supportive Care in Cancer. 2010;18(5):529-541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0816-y
  20. Lee KH, Kim J-Y, Lee MH et al. 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. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2016;24(4):1709-1717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2963-7