Comparative Cost-Efficiency Stimulation of Trilaciclib, a Novel Multilineage Myeloprotective Agent, versus Monolineage Combinations in the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Myelosuppression

Abstract

Specific Aims: To determine if trilaciclib is a cost-efficient in terms of cost of acquisition when compared to managing individual or multiple myelosuppressive events with single-lineage, supportive care therapies. Methods: An Excel model was designed to calculate the costs of using different combinations of single-lineage therapies among four different disease state groups for a single cycle of chemotherapy, then comparing those costs to the cost of trilaciclib alone. The incidence of cost- efficiency and the mean savings was calculated. Costs were calculated using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) and average sales price (ASP). Single-lineage manifestations of myelosuppression were chemotherapy induced neutropenia (CIN), chemotherapy induced anemia (CIA), and chemotherapy induced thrombocytopenia (CIT). The groups consisted of CIN/CIA/CIT, CIN/CIA, CIN/CIT, and CIA/CIT. Results: CIN/CIA/CIT was cost-efficient 100% (32/32)(WAC) and 56.25% (18/32)(ASP) of the time and had a mean savings of $4,611.37(WAC) and $3,054.35(ASP). CIN/CIA was cost-efficient 62.5% (10/16)(WAC) and to 0% (0/16)(ASP) of the time and had a mean savings of $1,395.27(WAC). CIN/CIT was cost-efficient 62.5% (5/8)(WAC) and 50.0% (4/8)(ASP) of the time and had a mean savings of $4,243.48(WAC) and $2,082.36(ASP). CIA/CIT was cost-efficient to 37.50% (3/8)(WAC & ASP) and had a mean savings of $2,603.92(WAC) and $762.50(ASP). Conclusions: Trilaciclib can potentially be a cost-efficient intervention when compared to managing individual or multiple myelosuppressive events with single-lineage, supportive care therapies.