Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States

Comparative cost-efficiency across the European G5 countries of various regimens of filgrastim, biosimilar filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

OBJECTIVES

This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen® and biosimilar Zarzio®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta® 6 mg versus Neupogen® or Zarzio® 300 µg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio® 300 µg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen® 300 µg.

METHODS

Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries.

RESULTS

The cost of Neupogen® treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio®, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta® turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen® treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta® yield a savings advantage over Zarzio®.

CONCLUSION

Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio® is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen® and to Neulasta®. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta® over Zarzio®, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta® is cost-efficient over Neupogen®. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio® to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.

Health care use and primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors

OBJECTIVES

We examined health care use in conjunction with primary prophylaxis use of colony stimulating factors (CSF) during patients' initial course of chemotherapy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study identified adults aged 25 years and older with a diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or nonsmall cell lung cancer between 2002 and 2005 from the Western Washington Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Puget Sound registry. We linked these records to health insurance claims from four payers representing 75% of those insured in the state. Claims records were used to determine chemotherapy regimen type, CSF use, febrile neutropenia occurrences, and supportive care. Chemotherapy regimens were categorized as conferring high, intermediate, or low risk of myelosuppression according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. CSF use was described as primary prophylaxis, other, or none. Antibiotics and antifungal and antiviral agents per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for supportive care for cancer infection were categorized using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and National Drug Code assignments.

RESULTS

Use of CSF as primary prophylaxis is not significantly associated with a reduction in antibiotic use or inpatient or outpatient visits. Primary prophylactic CSF use was associated with less use of antiviral drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

CSF use is not associated with a reduction in health care use, with the exception of antiviral drug use. Given the expense associated with CSF use, pragmatic trials and additional research are needed to further assess the affects of CSF on health care use.

Health resource consumption and costs attributable to chemotherapy-induced toxicity in German routine hospital care in lymphoproliferative disorder and NSCLC patients

BACKGROUND

Multidrug chemotherapy (CT) is still associated with relevant side-effects. We assessed, under current practice patterns, frequency and severity of CT-induced toxicity and its economic consequences.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, observational cohort study with lymphoproliferative disorder (LPD) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, receiving first- or second-line (immuno-) CT (excluding myeloablative CT). Data were collected from patient interviews and preplanned chart reviews. Costs in 2007 euros are presented from the provider perspective.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-three patients (n = 153 LPD; n = 120 NSCLC) undergoing a total of 1004 CT cycles were assessable (age ≥65 years, 40%; female, 36%; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, 11%; tumour stage ≥III, 56%; history of comorbidity, 80%). Fifty percent of cycles were associated with grade 3/4 toxicity and 37% (n = 371) with at least one hospital stay (outpatient/day care n = 154; intensive care n = 19). Mean (median) toxicity-related costs amounted to €1032 (€86) per cycle. Costs rose exponentially with the number of grade 3/4 adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and were highest in cycles affected by more than four ADRs, €10 881 (€5455); in cycles with intensive care, €14 121 (€8833); and in cycles affected by grade 3/4 infections and febrile neutropenia/leukopenia, €7093 (€4531) and €5170 (€2899), respectively. Five percent of CT cycles accounted for 56% of total expenses.

CONCLUSIONS

Individualised supportive care strategies are needed. Future research should focus on identifying toxicity clusters and patient characteristics predictive for high costs.

Usage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor every 2 days is clinically useful and cost-effective for febrile neutropenia during early courses of chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

In order to analyze the clinical activity and cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), the prophylactic usage of G-CSF in patients treated with a single chemotherapy regimen during early courses was prospectively evaluated.

METHODS

Thirty patients with newly diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treated with the first course of an R-CHOP regimen were enrolled randomly. After treatment with the first course of chemotherapy, a daily dose of G-CSF (lenograstim, 100 μg) was administered to half (15 cases) of the patients, and a dose of G-CSF (100 μg) was administered every other day to the other half of the patients when leukocytopenia (<1.5 × 10(9)/L) and/or neutropenia (<0.5 × 10(9)/L) occurred. Changes in leukocyte and neutrophil counts, prophylaxis, febrile neutropenia (FN) events, and cost performance between the two groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant difference between the two groups was observed in recoveries of leukocyte and neutrophil counts and evidence of FN. The only difference was the total cost of G-CSF.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that every-other-day use of G-CSF was as clinically effective for the prophylaxis of FN as the daily use of G-CSF, and economically speaking, the administration of G-CSF every other day should be more beneficial for patients with NHL during early courses of R-CHOP chemotherapy.

Prevention of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: Pegylated versus standard myeloid colony stimulating factors. Do we have a choice?

The pertinent literature on clinical studies comparing the respective value of myeloid colony stimulating factors to pegfilgrastim as a prevention of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients has been reviewed. Pegfilgrastim is definitely not inferior to filgrastim or other myeloid colony stimulating agents with respect to duration of grade IV neutropenia and delivery of full chemotherapy dose on time; several comparative studies indicate a trend to less frequent febrile neutropenia with pegfilgrastim.