Cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment for febrile neutropaenia in adult cancer patients

Background:There is uncertainty whether low-risk episodes of febrile neutropaenia (FN) in adult cancer patients are best managed in the in- or outpatient setting.Methods:A Monte Carlo cost–utility model was created to compare four treatment strategies for low-risk FN: (1) treatment in hospital with intravenous antibiotics (HospIV); (2) early discharge after 48 h in-patient observation, followed by oral outpatient treatment (EarlyDC); (3) outpatient management with IV antibiotics (HomeIV); and (4) outpatient management with oral antibiotics (HomePO). The model used a health-care payer perspective and a time horizon of one FN episode. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted FN episodes (QAFNE), costs (Canadian dollars) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Parameter uncertainty was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results:HomePO was cost saving ($3470 vs $4183), but less effective (0.65 QAFNE vs 0.72 QAFNE) than HomeIV. The corresponding ICER was $10 186 per QAFNE. Both EarlyDC ($6115; 0.66 QAFNE) and HospIV ($13 557; 0.62 QAFNE) were dominated strategies. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $4 000 per QAFNE, HomePO and HomeIV were cost effective in 54 and 38% of simulations, respectively.Interpretation:For adult cancer patients with an episode of low-risk FN, treatment in hospital is more expensive and less effective than outpatient strategies.