Cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment for febrile neutropaenia in adult cancer patients
Author Information
Author(s): Teuffel O, Amir E, Alibhai S, Beyene J, Sung L
Primary Institution: The Hospital for Sick Children
Hypothesis
Is outpatient management more cost-effective than inpatient management for low-risk febrile neutropaenia in adult cancer patients?
Conclusion
Outpatient strategies are more cost-effective than inpatient treatment for adult cancer patients with low-risk febrile neutropaenia.
Supporting Evidence
- HomePO was cost saving but less effective than HomeIV.
- Both EarlyDC and HospIV were dominated strategies.
- At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $4,000 per QAFNE, HomePO and HomeIV were cost effective in 54% and 38% of simulations, respectively.
Takeaway
This study found that treating cancer patients with low-risk febrile neutropaenia at home is cheaper and can be just as effective as treating them in the hospital.
Methodology
A Monte Carlo cost–utility model was created to compare four treatment strategies for low-risk febrile neutropaenia.
Potential Biases
Potential bias due to reliance on visual analogue scale scores for health-related quality of life estimates.
Limitations
Limited data were available to estimate base values, and the analysis was performed using a hypothetical cohort.
Participant Demographics
Adult cancer patients with low-risk febrile neutropaenia.
Statistical Information
Confidence Interval
95% CI for costs and effectiveness provided.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website